Performance audit, Board of Directors for Community Colleges

              DOLJGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA J. BLESSING, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
June 22, 1987
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Evan Mecham, Governor
Dr. Gherald L. Hoopes, Chairman
Transmitted herewith is a report o f t h e Auditor General, A Performance Audit
of the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges. This report is in
response to a July 26, 1985 resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee.
The report addresses the need for the Board to strengthen i t s oversight of
education issues in the community college system. I n p a r t i c u l a r , the Board has
not adequately monitored 1) the success of community college students
transferring to the universities, or 2) the cost effectiveness of educational
programs. Systemwide evaluations of transfer success and program costs w i l l
allow the Board to identify colleges or programs which may not be meeting
students' needs.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items i n the report.
Respectfully submitted,
Staff: William Thomson
Mark Fleming
Martha Dorsey
Michael Friedman
Vivian Look
Enclosure
~ ou& d. s R. Norton
Auditor General
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. 0 SUITE 700 ds PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 O ( 602) 255- 4305
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the State
Board of Directors for Community Colleges in response to a July 26, 1985,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit
was conducted as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes
$ 541 - 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The State Board of Directors for Community Colleges was established in 1960 as
part of the junior college system that was intended to provide educational facilities
in localities convenient to students and to relieve the load on existing State
universities. Presently, the 18- member Board provides statewide oversight and
coordination for an educational system of 15 community colleges in nine districts.
The State Board Needs to Strengthen Its
Oversight of the Community College System ( see pages 15 through 22 )
Although the Board has addressed several issues of statewide concern, two
important areas of community college performance have not been acted upon. The
Board has not adequately monitored: 1) the success of community college students
transferring to the universities, or 2) the cost effectiveness of educational programs.
The State Board is responsible for addressing statewide issues that affect the quality
of education within or across community college districts and between educational
systems in Arizona. The Board has acted in several areas of State interest, such as
facilitating the development of an evaluative model for measuring vocational
education effectiveness across the State. Other recent Board efforts have been in
the area of adult literacy education, and the Board is coordinating efforts to address
the issue of one- of- a- kind vocational programs to avoid unnecessary duplication of
unique programs.
However, the Board does not monitor the success of community college students
transferring to the universities. Such monitoring is important, since almost 65
percent of all community college course work is potentially transferable to
universities. Further, accreditation reports for seven of Arizona's 15 community
colleges cite a need for improved monitoring of university transfers. Greater
oversight by the State Board could help identify which colleges are more successful
in preparing students for transfer to the universities, and which are less successful.
For example, an annual survey by the University of Arizona indicated that students
transferring from Cochise College compared very favorably with students who
started at the University of Arizona, and in fact, were doing better than most
students from other corn munity colleges.
The Board also needs to improve its ability to monitor the costs of community
college programs. Although the Board receives district level cost information, it
does not collect information about individual programs. Therefore, the Board has no
financial and enrollment information specific enough to allow a comparison of
program costs across districts or to identify programs that may no longer be serving
a useful purpose. Accreditation reports indicate that at least three of the 15
community colleges have not done enough to monitor program cost effectiveness.
According to the accreditation report for one community college:
" Some programs have limited enrollment. . . . Such programs may be a
' luxury' which i f further financial constraints are imposed, cannot be
sustained except at the expense of more viable programs." ( emphasis added)
Coordinating and developing a systemwide approach to evaluating transfer success
and program costs may exceed the Board's existing staff resources. The Board
should review its staff activities to determine how best to address these additional
duties.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING: THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN ITS OVERSIGHT
OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
The Board I s R e s p o n s i b l e f o r S t a t e w i d e I s s u e s . . . . . .
The S t a t e Board Does Not S u f f i c i e n t l y M o n i t o r
T r a n s f e r S t u d e n t Success o r Program C o s t s . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AREASFORFURTHERAUDITWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGENCYRESPONSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
LlST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - State Board o f D i r e c t o r s f o r Community Colleges
General Fund Expenditures and Budget D e t a i l
F i s c a l Years 1983- 84 Through 1986- 87 ( Unaudited) . . . 7
TABLE 2 - State Board o f D i r e c t o r s f o r Community Colleges
C e r t i f i c a t i o n Fund Actual Revenues and Expenditures
F i s c a l Years 1982- 83 Through 1985- 86 ( Unaudited) . . . 8
LlST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - Arizona Community College D i s t r i c t s and Campuses . . 2
FIGURE 2 - Sources o f Community College D i s t r i c t Funding
F i s c a l Y e a r 1 9 8 5 - 8 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the State
Board of Directors for Community Colleges. The audit was conducted in response to
a July 26, 1985, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee as part of
the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes 5941- 2351 through 41- 2379.
History of the Community College System
The State Board of Directors for Community Colleges was established in 1960 when
the Arizona Legislature created the junior college system in Arizona. Although
having such a system in Arizona had been discussed previously, a concerted
movement for this purpose did not develop until 1957. In late 1958 the Junior College
Survey Committee published a report supporting a junior college system in Arizona
and recom mending establishment of a Junior College State Corn mission, which would
have authority to set standards for establishing, developing, administering and
operating the junior colleges. The Committee recommended that this function be
performed by a body separate from the Board of Regents or the Board of Education.
In doing so, the Committee reasoned that because membership on the Board of
Education was ex- officio, " members have not the time ... to give the consideration
required for planning a Statewide system of junior colleges ..." The Committee also
reasoned that the " Board of Regents has no Chancellor t o e f f e c t a coordinated plan
for higher education ..." ( emphasis added). Thus, the Committee concluded that a
Junior College State Commission would be better suited for the function because it
" could devote itself to the particular concerns of education beyond high school which
are both occupational ... and ... p arallel to lower division programs of four year
institutions."
Originally, the junior college system was established to meet two goals: 1) to provide
educational facilities in locations convenient to students, and 2) to relieve the load on
existing State universities created by increased demand for higher education. In 1971
the name " junior college system" was changed to " community college system," to
recognize the f a c t that Arizona's community colleges offer more than just the f i r s t
two years of a four- year college degree.
The Community College System Today
The community college system consists of the State Board of Directors for
Community Colleges, the local d i s t r i c t governing boards, and the nine community
college districts. The nine districts are located in ten counties: Yuma- La Paz,
Mohave, Yavapai, Navajo, Graham, Pima, Maricopa, Cochise and Pinal. The
remaining counties are not organized into community college districts; these counties
receive community college services from one or more of the nine existing districts.
Figure 1 shows the location of Arizona's community college districts and campuses.
FIGURE 1
ARIZONA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS AND CAMPUSES
Mari c o ~ aC ommuni t y Coll eaes
Gl endal e Communi t y C o l l ege
Mari copa Techni cal Coll ege
Mesa Community College
Phoenix Col 1 ege
Scottsdal e Communi t y College
South Mountain Community Col
R i o Sal ado Communi t y C o l l ege
- Centers throughout
Mari copa Co.
Pima Communi t v Col leqes
Downtown Campus
East Campus
West Campus
County- wide l o c a t i o n s
Legend :
- - - - Mu1 ti- County D i s t r i c t
Source: Annual Report to the Governor, 1985- 86 ( State Board of Directors for
Community Colleges of Arizona), page 4.
The community college system serves a diverse student population. Community
colleges serve academic transfer students and students pursuing occupational
education for entry- level employment, and they also offer classes for persons wishing
to take courses for general interest, and for those wanting to upgrade their skills or
acquire new ones. In addition, community colleges provide instruction to improve
adult literacy and improve English skills for those whose native language is not
English. Further, nationally more than 30 percent of community college freshmen
are 20 years of age or older, and in Arizona approximately 61 percent of all
community college students taking courses for credit are 25 years of age or older. If
evening, part- time students are included, the median age is well above that of the
college population group, making the community college student population diverse in
another sense.
The diversity is reflected in the statement of philosophy adopted by the State Board.
The statement of philosophy delineates the six purposes of the community college
system in Arizona. ( 1 )
1. To offer the f i r s t two years of baccalaureate parallel or preprofessional courses
. . . so that students . . . may complete study for the baccalaureate in four- year
colleges and universities.
2. To provide occupational programs . . . and to provide retraining and upgrading of
skills in these fields, so that students. . . are qualified to meet the current needs
of the labor market.
3. To provide . . . general education f o r a l l citizens, so that they may perform . . .
more effectively and exercise their obligations and privileges as citizens more
intelligently.
4. To offer programs in continuing education for those who wish to improve . . .
skills, acquire new ones, or expand their fields of knowledge and general
interest.
5. To provide . . . academic and occupational counseling, including job placement
services, so that students may learn to define their goals clearly and pursue them
realistically.
6. To provide cultural and community service programs for the enrichment of the
community, and to encourage the use of community college facilities and
services by all citizens of the community.
For the f u l l t e x t o f the statement of philosophy, see the Annual R e ~ ~ rt ot the
Governor. 1985- 86 ( S t a t e Board o f D i r e c t o r s f o r Community Colleges of Arizona),
page 1.
Funding for community college districts in 1985- 86 came from several sources,
including district tax levies, State aid, tuition and fees, cash balances carried over
from previous years, and other sources. ( ' I Figure 2 shows the proportion of district
funding from these various sources.
FIGURE 2
SOURCES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FUNDING
( FISCAL YEAR 1985- 86)
state aid i
d i s t r i c t tax levies
other 3%
cash balances 11%
nd fees 11%
Source: Annual Report to the Governor, 1985- 86 ( State Board of Directors for
Community Colleges of Arizona), page 12 *
( ' ) Other sources represent monies from g r a n t s , c o n t r a c t s , a u x i l i a r y enterprises and
t r a n s f e r s .
a
Governance of the System and the State Board
The community college system is governed a t two levels. Each individual community
college district has an elected, five- member ( local) district governing board which
oversees overall operations in its district. Statewide oversight is provided by the
State Board of Directors for Com munity Colleges, an 18- member board consisting of
one representative from each of the 15 counties, appointed by the Governor for
seven- year terms; and three ex officio members, representing the Board of Regents,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Director of the Division of
Vocational Education. The State Board is responsible for a variety of functions
related to oversight of the community college system.
a Enacting ordinances for the government of institutions under its jurisdiction. ( 1 )
a Setting standards for the establishment, development, administration, operation
and accreditation of community colleges.
a Prescribing guidelines for the transferability of courses.
a Fixing tuition and fees to be charged by community college districts.
0 Determining the location of sites for new campuses.
0 Establishing curricula and courses that serve the interest of the State.
a Establishing qualifications for and certifying corn munity college instructional
staff.
Although the State Board has broad policymaking and administrative powers, a
significant amount of operational and policy responsibility exists at the district board
level. The statutes divide governance and oversight powers between the State Board
and the district governing boards.
This p o r t i o n of the s t a t u t e s r e f e r s t o the promulgation of rules and r e g u l a t i o n s by
the Board.
Staffing and Budget of the State Board
The State Board is funded by State appropriations, monies received from fees
collected for the issuance and renewal of teaching certificates ( Certification Fund),
and Federal monies. As of December 1986 the State Board had 11 full- time
equivalent employees ( FTEs): eight funded from the General Fund, 2.25 FTEs from
the Certification Fund, and .75 FTE funded by Federal vocational education monies.
Table 1 ( page 7) details use of General Fund monies, including actual expenditures for
fiscal years 1983- 84 through 1985- 86 and approved expenditures for fiscal year
1986- 87. Table 1 also details the amounts distributed by the Board in State aid for
community college operations and capital outlay, as well as funding for the system's
three skill centers. Table 2 ( page 8) shows actual Certification Fund revenues and
expenditures for fiscal years 1982- 83 through 1985- 86.
Audit Scope and Purpose
The audit report focuses on the Board's ability to effectively perform its functions.
The report presents a detailed finding and recommendations addressing the adequacy
of Board oversight in several important areas.
We also developed Other Pertinent Information regarding the current structure of the
State Board ( page 23). Due to time constraints, we were unable to address all
potential issues identified during the audit. The section Areas for Further Audit
Work ( page 25) describes these potential issues.
This audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted governmental
auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express their appreciation to the Executive Director
and staff of the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges for their
cooperation and assistance during the course of our audit.
TABLE 1
STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COWUNITY COLLEGES
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET DETAIL
FISCAL YEARS 1983- 84 THROUGH 1986- 87
( unaudited)
Actual Actual Actual Approved
F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year
1983- 84 1984- 85 1985- 86 1986- 87
FTE Positions 8 . O 8.0 8 . O 8 . O
Personal Services $ 272,600 $ 267,900 $ 288,888 $ 320,500
Employee Related Exp. 45,150 50,000 51 ,635 65,000
P r o f . & Outside Svcs. 950 2,100 10,680 1 ,400
Travel - State 21 ,350 22,600 27,769 29,600
Travel - Out of State 700 86 2,700
Other Operating 11,500 17,000 30,845 52,700
Capital Outlay- Equip. 5,900 14,046 3,100
STATE BOARD FUNDING $ 352,250 $ 365,500 $ 423,949 $ 475,000
State Aid to Community
Co l l eges ( a)
Ope r a t i ng Budget $ 35,848,000 $ 35,318,800 $ 52,699,777 ( b) $ 59,905,400
Capital Outlay 5,000,000 5,000,000 7,327,600
S k i l l Centers 788,700 788.700 79,950
Capital Outlay 1 , OOO; OOO 1 ,250 1000
Fund ( c )
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 41,988.95Q $ 42,473.000 $ 54,453.676 $ 67q708,000
( a) The s p e c i f i c amount o f State a i d going t o each d i s t r i c t i s based on the d i s t r i c t ' s
number of f u l l - t i m e student equivalencies ( FTSE), and consists o f a i d f o r
operations and c a p i t a l o u t l a y f o r e x i s t i n g campuses.
( b) Includes $ 40,000 f o r county v o c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g and $ 383,970 f o r s k i l l centers.
Separate breakdown f o r Operating Budget and Capital Outlay was not a v a i l a b l e from
documents r e v i ewed .
( c) The Capital Outlay Fund represents State funding f o r an i n i t i a l campus i n a newly
formed d i s t r i c t and a d d i t i o n a l campuses i n e x i s t i n g d i s t r i c t s . Money f o r t h i s
Fund i s provided i n amounts equal t o 50 percent of the t o t a l cost o f the c a p i t a l
outlay, not t o exceed $ 1 m i l l i o n f o r any one campus.
Source: Figures f o r f i s c a l years 1983- 84, 1984- 85 and 1986- 87 were
compi led by Auditor General s t a f f from the State of Arizona
Appropriations Reports for f i s c a l years 1985- 86 and 1986- 87.
Figures f o r f i s c a l year 1985- 86 were obtained from the Annual
Report to the Governor, 1985- 86 ( State Board of D i r e c t o r s f o r
Community Colleges).
TABLE 1
STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMUNITY COLLEGES
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET DETAIL
FISCAL YEARS 1983- 84 THROUGH 1986- 87
( unaudited)
Actual Actual Actual Approved
F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year
1983- 84 1984- 85 1985- 86 1986- 87
FTE Pos i t i ons 8 . O 8 . O 8 . O 8 . O
Personal Servi ces $ 272,600 $ 267,900 $ 288,888 $ 320,500
Employee Related Exp. 45,150 50,000 51,635 65,000
P r o f . & Outside Svcs. 950 2,100 10,680 1,400
Travel - State 21 ,350 22,600 27,769 29,600
Travel - Out of S t a t e 700 86 2,700
Other Operating 11,500 17,000 30,845 52,700
Capital Outlay- Equip. 5,900 14,046 3,100
STATE BOARD FUND l NG $ 352,250 $ 365,500 $ 423,949 $ 475,000
State Aid to Community
Co l l eges ( a)
Ope r a t i ng Budget $ 35,848,000 $ 35,318,800 $ 52,699,777 ( b) $ 59,905,400
Capital Out lay 5,000,000 5,000,000 7,327,600
Ski l l Centers 788,700 788,700 79,950
Capital Out lay 1 ,000,000 1,250,000
Fund ( c )
TOTAL EXPEND I TURES $ 41 ,988,950 $ 42.473.000 $ 54.453.676 $ 67,708.000
( a) The s p e c i f i c amount of State a i d going t o each d i s t r i c t i s based on the d i s t r i c t ' s
number of f u l l - t i m e student equivalencies ( FTSE), and consists o f a i d f o r
operations and c a p i t a l o u t l a y f o r e x i s t i n g campuses.
( b) Includes $ 40,000 f o r county vocational planning and $ 383,970 f o r s k i l l centers.
Separate breakdown f o r Operating Budget and Capital Outlay was not a v a i l a b l e from
documents reviewed.
( c ) The Capital Outlay Fund represents State funding for an i n i t i a l campus i n a newly
formed d i s t r i c t and a d d i t i o n a l campuses i n e x i s t i n g d i s t r i c t s . Money f o r t h i s
Fund i s provided i n amounts equal to 50 percent of the t o t a l cost o f the c a p i t a l
outlay, not t o exceed $ 1 m i l l i o n f o r any one campus.
Source: Figures f o r f i s c a l years 1983- 84, 1984- 85 and 1986- 87 were
compi led by Auditor General s t a f f from the State of Arizona
Appropriations Reports f o r f i s c a l years 1985- 86 and 1986- 87.
Figures f o r f i s c a l year 1985- 86 were obtained from the Annual
Report t o the Governor, 1985- 86 ( State Board of D i r e c t o r s for
Community C o l l e g e s ) .
TABLE 2
STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COWUNITY COLLEGES
CERTIFICATION FUND ACTUAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1982- 83 THROUGH 1985- 86
( unaudited)
F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year F i s c a l Year
1982- 83 1983- 84 1984- 85 1985- 86
FTE Pos i t ions ( a) 2 . O 2 . O 2 . O 2 . O
Revenue
Balance Forward, 7/ 1 $ 30,962
C e r t i f i c a t i o n Fees 79,368
TOTAL REVENUE $ 110,330
Expenditures
Personal Services $ 44,128
Employee Related Exp. 7,736
Other Operating 8,795
C a p i t a l Outlay- Equip. 13,686
TOTAL EXPEND l TURES $ 74,345
BALANCE AS OF 6/ 30 $ 35 985
( a ) Although the State Board's Annual Reports show 2.0 FTE funded from the
C e r t i f i c a t i o n Fund, State Board s t a f f r e p o r t t h a t 2.25 t o 2.5 FTEs have a c t u a l l y
been funded by these monies i n recent f i s c a l years. a
Source: Annual Report t o the Governor ( S t a t e Board o f D i r e c t o r s f o r
Community C o l l e g e s ) , 1982- 83 through 1985- 86. a
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes 441- 2354, the Legislature should
consider the following 12 factors in determining whether the State Board of Directors
for Community Colleges of Arizona should be continued or terminated.
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the State Board of Directors for
Community Colleges
The Arizona Legislature established the State Board of Directors for
Community Colleges of Arizona as a result of the recommendations of a Junior
College Survey Committee established by the Legislature in 1958. Enabling
legislation became effective in 1960.
The intended purpose of the State Board can be inferred from legislative
history, the statutory powers of the Board, and the Board's statement of
philosophy, even though the purpose is not specifically stated in statute. These
documents indicate that the Board's purpose is to provide f o r the government,
oversight, planning and coordination of the community college system in areas
of statewide concern. This purpose appears to be consistent with the purposes
for which the Arizona community college system was created, i. e., to provide
an integrated statewide system of community colleges convenient to students
and to relieve the increasing load on the existing State universities.
2. The effectiveness with which the State Bozrd has met i t s objective and purpose
and the efficiency with which the State Board has operated
The State Board has generally met its purpose in carrying out its statutory
responsibilities in several areas. The Board has played a role in maintaining the
quality of education by reviewing and approving courses and curricula for local
districts. In addition, the Board has set standards for and approved local
district plans for construction and remodeling projects for community college
facilities and has certified community college instructional staff. However, the
Board could improve its effectiveness by increasing oversight of the community
college system in the areas of statewide concern, such as student evaluation
and program cost evaluation ( see Finding, page 15).
Based on interviews with representatives of several local districts, the State
Board appears to operate efficiently. These representatives indicated that the
Board has generally responded to local district requests in a timely and
accurate manner.
3. The extent to which the State Board has operated within the public interest
The State Board has operated in the public interest by addressing certain issues
of statewide concern. It has provided a common approach to some concerns of
the system through standards established for the local districts in areas such as
teacher certification and facilities construction, as required by law. I t has also
acted to redirect the actions of local boards; for example, the Board placed one
district's governing board on probation in response to major concerns expressed
by the accreditation commission. However, the Board could further serve the
public interest by setting guidelines and monitoring district activities in areas
of statewide importance, such as student evaluation and program cost
evaluation ( see Finding, page 15).
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the State Board are
consistent with the Legislative mandate
The Board has rules and regulations that reflect its broad statutory mandates.
For example, the Board has promulgated rules and regulations in areas for
which the Board has statutory responsibility, including tuition and fees,
curricula, general program standards, certification, procedures for counting
full- time student equivalencies for State aid, and facilities construction and
planning. The Board has also adopted rules and regulations under its broad
authority to enact ordinances for the government of institutions under its
jurisdiction. Board rules and regulations are reviewed, revised and updated on
an on- going basis.
5. The extent to which the State Board has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has
informed the public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public
The Board has encouraged input from the public before promulgating rules and
regulations. The Board follows the Administrative Procedures Act, which
requires public notice and hearings before adoption of rules. In addition, the
Board regularly mails proposed rules to local districts before taking action, and
has encouraged comments from interested parties in Board committee
meetings, study sessions and regular Board meetings.
6. The extent to which the State Board has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints within its jurisdiction
This factor is not applicable since the State Board is not a regulatory board.
However, on occasion Board staff have reportedly mediated complaints from
community college students about local districts.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
State government has the authority to prosecute actions under enabling
legislation
This factor is not applicable since the State Board is not a regulatory board.
8. The extent to which the State Board has addressed deficiencies in the enabling
statutes which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g i t s statutory mandate
The State Board has not initiated legislation to address major deficiencies i n i t s
own statutes in the past five years. However, it has acted jointly with
community college districts to initiate legislative action addressing local
community college concerns, such as increasing State aid and improving
vocational education.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the State Board to
adequately comply with the factors listed in the Srrnset laws
Currently, it does not appear that statutory changes are necessary to allow the
Board to adequately comply with the sunset factors. However, the Legislative
Council representative assigned to review education statutes has expressed
concerns that because Board statutes were developed incrementally, they may
not be as thorough as needed. For example, since the statutes are open to very
narrow as well as very broad interpretations, the current Board and staff have
chosen to implement the Board's statutory mandates in a manner that defers to
local districts, in some cases inappropriately. However, because of the need for
Statewide oversight, and since the statutes authorize such oversight, the Board
should interpret its mandate broadly in areas of statewide concern, regardless
of whether statutes are changed ( see Finding, page 17).
10. The extent to which the termination of the State Board would significantly
harm the public health, safety or welfare
Termination of the State Board would not pose a direct, immediate harm to the
public health, safety or welfare. However, the termination of the State Board
might be harmful to the community college system since i t would eliminate an
important coordinating and oversight function in the area of educational policy.
According to authoritative sources, coordination and leadership a t the State
level is important to the functioning of a community college system. For
example, in 1986 the Western Interstate Commission on Hlgher Education
( W ICHE) reported,
" States have a longstanding interest in two fundamental components of
community college governance:
1. Role and mission. What populations and educational needs will be
served by these institutions, particularly in relation to other
components of the educational system and in light of demands on
the state for financing facilities and operations?
2. Public accountability. A re com munity colleges governed and
administered to ensure financial accountability, particularly in
the use of public funds, and are they e f f e c t i v e i n achieving
specific educational objectives?"
In addition, most states have provided for State involvement in their community
college systems. During 1986, at least 48 states had established some form of
state agency to oversee community colleges. The need for a state level
involvement was also expressed by the Committee on the Future of Maryland
Community Colleges, which identified the role of Maryland's state board as
I1... serv( ing) as a catalyst for quality through the Maryland community college
system .... ( by) ...' coordinat( ing) and provid( ing) statewide leadership....'"
Although some states govern or coordinate their community colleges through
other agencies such as departments of education, transferring the Arizona
Board's function to another existing agency does not appear to be beneficial to
the State. Of the 48 states known in 1986 to maintain some state agency over
community colleges, 27 functioned through their higher education agencies, 14
through a separate community college board, and 7 functioned through their
departments of education. Literature suggests that the structure of the state
function has l i t t l e , i f any, relationship t o i t s effectiveness.
Furthermore, although the State Board of Education or the Arizona Board of
Regents could assume functions currently performed by the State Board,
significant concerns may be associated with such an option. A Board of
Regents staff member states that the disadvantages of transferring these
responsibilities to the Board of Regents may outweigh the advantages, because
the Board of Regents has neither the background nor the experience in
overseeing vocational or career programs. In addition, he stated that the
difference in governing structures between the university and community
college systems would make combining the two under one entity " awkward."
Persons in the community college system, as well as the Superintendent of
Public Instruction at the time of this audit, point out that the systems which
the Department of Education and the Board of Regents oversee have different
missions than the community college system.") Some individuals fear that the
needs of smaller and less visible groups currently served by the community
college system may be overlooked i f the system were under the jurisdiction of
another agency.
The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the State Board is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be
appropriate
This sunset factor is not applicable since the State Board is not a regulatory
agency.
( ' ) The community college mission i s diverse, and includes p r o v i d i n g general education and
community service, o f f e r i n g c o l l e g e - t r a n s f e r courses to those i n t e r e s t e d i n pursuing a
four- year degree, p r o v i d i n g vocational education, and o f f e r i n g continuing education f o r
upgrading professional and j o b - r e l a t e d s k i l l s . By comparison, the u n i v e r s i t y mi ssion
focuses on academic education, and the Board of Education i s concerned w i t h general
education of students i n grades kindergarten through 12th.
12. The extent to which the State Board has used private contractors in the
performance o f i t s duties and how effective use of private contractors could be
accomplished
The State Board uses private contractors for some activities. For example, by
law the Board must approve major construction and remodeling undertaken at
the community colleges. To assist in the decision- making and approval process,
the Board consults with a group of architects and engineers who regularly
advise the Board on facilities development. Thus, the Board has been able to
perform some functions without having to develop in- house expertise.
FINDING
THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN ITS OVERSIGHT OF THE COMklUNlTY COLLEGE SYSTEM
The State Board of Directors f o r Community Colleges does not adequately monitor
the performance of the Arizona Community College system to ensure that important
statewide goals are being achieved. Statutes give the Board broad authority to
govern the community college system with regard to educational policy, and several
other factors support the Board's use of its authority to address statewide issues.
However, the Board has not monitored the success of students transferring to
universities or costs of d i s t r i c t programs, two important statewide issues.
The Board is Responsible
for Statewide Issues
The State Board is responsible for ensuring that educational policy issues of statewide
importance are addressed. Arizona statutes give the Board broad authority to govern
the community college system. However, other State law provisions, community
college system funding, educational authorities from other states, and historical
factors work to d i r e c t the Board to concentrate i t s e f f o r t s on statewide issues.
Two of the Board's general powers and duties grant the Board broad authority to
control the community college system. ( ' I Arizona Revised Statutes 515- 1425, in
part, requires the State Board to:
1. Enact ordinances ( 2 ) for the government of the institutions under its jurisdiction;
and
2. Set standards for the establishment, development, administration, operation and
accreditation o f community colleges. ( 3)
( ' 1 Both the State Board and the l o c a l d i s t r i c t boards have s p e c i f i c l e g a l
responsi b i l i ti es other than those associated w i t h p r o v i d i n g educational s e r v i ces,
such as leasing and ownership of real property. This section does n o t i n t e n d to
address issues other than those generally associated w i t h p r o v i d i n g education.
( 2) This refers to promulgating rules and r e g u l a t i o n s .
( 3) The Board's enabling s t a t u t e s a l s o g r a n t the Board s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y i n several
educational areas, such as the a u t h o r i t y to e s t a b l i s h c u r r i c u l a and c e r t i f y
i n s t r u c t o r s . See page 5 f o r other examples.
Although these particular statutes give the Board broad authority, State law also
divides authority for oversight over educational policy in the community college
system between the State Board and the local d i s t r i c t boards. "' Even though the
State Board is required to " enact ordinances for the government of institutions under
its jurisdiction" and set standards for " administration [ and] operation . . . of
community colleges," the district boards are responsible for examining the
" management, conditions, and needs" of colleges in their respective districts. In
many areas of shared responsibility, the State Board has allowed districts to
administer and operate their colleges within broad parameters of State policies and
procedures. Educators and authorities suggest that leaving most operational
decisions at the local level is beneficial to a community college system.
In addition, funding of the community college system further illustrates shared
responsibility. According to the State Board's 1985- 86 Annual Report, approximately
62 percent of the d i s t r i c t budgets came from locally generated monies, while about
24 percent of the budgets came from State appropriations. ( 2)
Although the statutes seem to simultaneously provide broad governing powers to the
State Board and a decentralized form of governance for the community college
system, several factors indicate that the proper level of State Board governance is
for the Board to take an active role in statewide issues. For example, the 1958
Junior College Survey Committee report, which recommended the State Board's
creation, specifically stated that the function of the Junior College State
Commission ( i. e., the State Board) would be to set standards for the community
college system. Similarly, the statement of philosophy established by the State Board
for the community college system indicates that the State Board must function to
" establish standards, and to assess and coordinate needs and services in the best
interest of the state." ( emphasis added)
( ' ) Arizona law l i m i t s the Board's a u t h o r i t y l a r g e l y t o educational issues and allows the
Board very l i t t l e a u t h o r i t y regarding f i n a n c i a l oversight of d i s t r i c t s . The State
Board has no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y over many o t t h e d i s t r i c t s ' f i n a n c i a l p r a c t i c e s , and
the statutes exempt the d i s t r i c t s from l i m i t a t i o n s placed on State agencies i n these
areas. While the Board has s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y over d i s t r i c t procurement, it has
chosen to delegate most of t h i s a u t h o r i t y to the d i s t r i c t s . ( See Areas f o r Further
Audit Work, page 28. )
(') The remainder o f communi t y c o l l ege f undi ng comes from cash balances , grants,
contracts, a u x i l i a r y enterprises and t r a n s f e r s .
Furthermore, reports from other states support the concept of State Board
involvement primarily in statewide issues. California's Commission for the Review
of the Master Plan for Higher Education, in a report that reassessed California's
community colleges, said that a ( state) community college governing structure should
provide strong statewide leadership, while encouraging and supporting local
initiative. A report of the Committee on the Future of Maryland Community
Colleges determined that the mission of the State Board was to " coordinate and
provide statewide leadership . . . that continues to meet changing state and local
needs."
Thus, various sources indicate that a state community college Board should adopt a
statewide perspective in f u l f i l l i n g its duties. Because the system is one of shared
governance, a reasonable division of governing power would be for the respective
district boards to have authority in areas affecting the college( s) under their
jurisdiction, and the State Board to have authority in areas of statewide importance.
Based on our review, issues of statewide interest appear to include those: 1)
affecting more than one district, 2) affecting the State or the system as a whole, 3)
affecting or being affected by other educational entities, or 4) affecting the quality
of education offered to community college students.
The Board has acted on several issues of statewide concern. For example, the Board
is presently involved in developing a vocational program evaluation model, and it is
making efforts to address the problems of adult illiteracy. In addition, the Board is
reviewing special, one- of- a- kind programs that serve a limited number of students,
in an e f f o r t to control unnecessary duplication of unique vocational programs.
Finally, the Board has coordinated district e f f o r t s t o deliver services in counties
without organized community college districts.
The State Board Does Not Sufficiently Monitor
Transfer Student Success or Program Costs
Although the Board has acted in some areas of statewide concern, it has not
monitored the system to ensure that two important objectives are achieved. The
Board does not obtain systematic information to indicate whether community college
students have d i f f i c u l t y when transferring to universities, nor does it obtain
information to assess the costs of districts' academic and vocational programs. ( 1)
The Board had incorrectly determined that oversight of these two areas was not its
duty.
The Board does not collect or analyze student transfer information - The State Board
has no systemwide information to help identify problems that may inhibit the
successful transfer and performance of its academic students. Rather, it relies on
local districts to monitor university transfer success. As a result, adequate
information is not available within the system to evaluate the success of the
university transfer process.
The Board's stated mission specifies academic transfer as one of the system's major
objectives. Academic courses comprised almost 65 percent of all community college
course work in Arizona in 1 9 8 5 - 8 6 . ( 2 ) With approximately 2,800 students
transferring from the community colleges into Arizona State University alone in
1985- 86, information relating to the success and performance of transfer students is
important.
However, the Board is unable to determine whether successful transfers are being
achieved across the system. It does not collect and analyze information to evaluate
whether community college students are able to continue their education at
As indicated on page 17, the Board i s d i r e c t l y involved i n vocational program
evaluation e f f o r t s . However, as of January 1987, the evaluation model being
developed d i d not present any cost analyses o f the vocational programs.
( 2) For r e p o r t i n g purposes, the Board d i v i d e s a1 1 community college c r e d i t coursework
i n t o two categories, based on s t a t u t o r y funding r e q u i rements: ( a ) v o c a t i o n a l ,
comprising approximately 35 percent o f c r e d i t coursework i n 1985- 86, and ( b )
academic- transferable, comprising about 65 percent i n 1985- 86. According t o the
Board's Executive D i r e c t o r , the m a j o r i t y of courses categorized as
academic- transferable are e l i g i b l e f o r t r a n s f e r t o u n i v e r s i t i e s , w h i l e a small
p o r t i o n are remedial courses and, t h e r e f o r e , a r e n o t e l i g i b l e f o r u n i v e r s i t y t r a n s f e r
c r e d i t . However, a l l students t a k i n g academic- tranferable courses do not t r a n s f e r to
the u n i v e r s i t i e s , but take the courses f o r other reasons such as personal
self- improvement.
20
the State's universities. The Board collects no academic transfer information on its
own, nor does it collect the information compiled at the d i s t r i c t level. Therefore,
the Board cannot compare the performance of transfer students with other university
students.
Since the Board does not require local districts to report on students' academic
success, it is up to the districts to monitor their own success rates, and several have
not done so adequately. According to Arizona colleges' most recent accreditation
reports, spanning an eight- year period, seven of the 15 community colleges ( in four of
the nine districts) were identified by the North Central Association of Colleges and
Schools as lacking adequate information to monitor their transfer student success. ( 1 )
A recent Auditor General survey of the State's 15 community colleges indicates that
some community colleges may not be taking advantage of academic transfer
information available from the three state universities. Grade Point Average ( GPA)
data is an important indicator of academic success of transfer students. However, all
colleges do not currently receive GPA information from the universities. Thirteen of
the 15 community colleges receive GPA information about their own students from
Arizona State University, 12 receive it from the University of Arizona, and three
receive it from Northern Arizona University. The State Board may wish to require
that a l l community colleges collect and analyze this information over time, to
identify potential problems within their own colleges. Furthermore, the Board should
request the results of such analyses to compare the longitudinal data between the
community colleges. ( 2 )
The Board needs to ensure that academic transfers are evaluated systematically
across districts. In doing so, it should also take advantage of existing evaluation
capabilities within the districts. Working with the districts, it should: 1) identify
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools i s the regional a c c r e d i t i n g
body f o r a l l Arizona community colleges.
( 2 ) GPA information has already been used by a t l e a s t one u n i v e r s i t y f o r comparisons
among groups o f students. According t o the 1984 a c c r e d i t a t i o n study f o r Cochise
D i s t r i c t , an annual survey by the U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona i n d i c a t e d t h a t students
t r a n s f e r r i n g to it from Cochise College compared very favorably w i t h students who
s t a r t e d a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona, and i n f a c t , were doing b e t t e r than most
students from otner community colleges.
the State's universities. The Board collects no academic transfer information on its
own, nor does it collect the information compiled at the d i s t r i c t level. Therefore,
the Board cannot compare the performance of transfer students with other university
students.
Since the Board does not require local districts to report on students' academic
success, it is up to the districts to monitor their own success rates, and several have
not done so adequately. According to Arizona colleges' most recent accreditation
reports, spanning an eight- year period, seven of the 15 community colleges ( in four of
the nine districts) were identified by the North Central Association of Colleges and
Schools as lacking adequate information to monitor their transfer student success. ( 1)
A recent Auditor General survey of the State's 15 community colleges indicates that
some community colleges may not be taking advantage of academic transfer
information available from the three state universities. Grade Point Average ( GPA)
data is an important indicator of academic success of transfer students. However, all
colleges do not currently receive GPA information from the universities. Thirteen of
the 15 community colleges receive GPA information about their own students from
Arizona State University, 12 receive it from the University of Arizona, and three
receive i t from Northern Arizona University. The State Board may wish to require
that all community colleges collect and analyze this information over time, to
identify potential problems within their own colleges. Furthermore, the Board should
request the results of such analyses to compare the longitudinal data between the
corn munity colleges. ( 2)
The Board needs to ensure that academic transfers are evaluated systematically
across districts. In doing so, it should also take advantage of existing evaluation
capabilities within the districts. Working with the districts, it should: 1) identify
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools i s the regional a c c r e d i t i n g
body for a1 1 Arizona communi t y c o l l eges.
( 2 ) GPA information has already been used by a t l e a s t one u n i v e r s i t y f o r comparisons
among groups of students. According t o the 1984 a c c r e d i t a t i o n study f o r Cochise
D i s t r i c t , an annual survey by the U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona i n d i c a t e d t h a t students
t r a n s f e r r i n g t o i t from Cochise College compared very favorably w i t h students who
s t a r t e d a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona, and i n f a c t , were doing b e t t e r than most
students from otner community colleges.
data needed from or about the districts to measure academic student success, 2)
develop the evaluation model, which should begin as simply as possible, and 3)
develop procedures to ensure that the data is routinely collected and is comparable
among the districts. This systematic information would allow the Board to make
program or college comparisons, and where necessary, revise or even terminate a
ineffective programs.
State Board does not evaluate program cost effectiveness - The Board does not
monitor the cost of d i s t r i c t courses, but leaves this function to the local districts. a
The Board collects cost information only at the d i s t r i c t level; consequently, it does
not have information about any individual program within a district. Without this
information, the Board cannot ensure that funds are spent effectively or judiciously
on programs that continue to be useful.
The Board does not collect or analyze information to enable a determination of
whether districts' educational programs are cost effective, specifically, whether
program costs are justified by sufficient enrollment. Although the State Board is a
responsible for approving new programs and program changes, it does not require
local districts to report on the cost effectiveness of continuing programs.
However, as economic and other factors change, so may program needs. * Authoritative sources note that occupational courses may have limited l i f e spans i f
the market for an occupation has been eliminated or reduced. Without continuous,
systematic review of program cost effectiveness, programs may continue past their
usefulness. I f costs are high and enrollment low, a program in question may no longer a
be serving a useful purpose, thus tying up funds that could be spent on a more viable
program.
The Board has, in effect, l e f t this issue to the discretion of the local boards, but at
4
least three of the 15 colleges have been criticized for their failure to evaluate
program cost effectiveness. According to accreditation reports, these community
colleges do not adequately evaluate program cost effectiveness. The accreditation
report of one community college stated: a
" Some programs have limited enrollment. . . . Such programs may be a ' luxury'
which if further financial constraints are imposed, cannot be sustained except at
the expense of more viable programs." ( emphasis added)
The State Board should ensure that the districts systematically and consistently
evaluate their programs' cost effectiveness. The Board should begin by identifying
needed data, i t should develop a simple evaluation model, and i t should build on the
studies conducted by some of its districts.
State Board's determination of role was incorrect - The State Board has not
monitored transfer student success or program costs because it has never considered
these concerns as part of its duties. Board members have not formally considered
these issues, perhaps because they were not specified in statute. However, as
mentioned previously, the Board has the authority to address any statewide issues,
including transfer student success and program costs.
The Board has not formally considered evaluation of transfer student success and
program costs. The past State Board chairperson acknowledged the Board's authority
to institute a statewide evaluation system. However, she indicated that a statewide
system for evaluating transfer success or program costs was not officially considered
during her seven- year tenure on the Board. Furthermore, our review of 1986 Board
minutes revealed no action taken on these issues.
The Executive Director indicated that the Board in recent years has only addressed
areas specified in statute because i t has determined that it is more appropriately the
responsibility of each local Board to resolve as many issues as possible at the local
level.") Since the evaluation of transfer student success or program costs is not
specified as a Board duty, no evaluation system was considered for these areas.
A review of 1986 State Board minutes reveals t h a t o f f i c i a l Board a c t i o n s centered on
duties clear1 y s p e c i f i e d i n s t a t u t e . For example, curriculum, funding and f a c i l i t y
issues received t h e m a j o r i t y of Board a c t i o n , and a l l are s p e c i f i e d i n the law as
Board duties.
The Executive Director also stated that the Board does not currently have sufficient
resources to evaluate transfer student success and program costs. ( ' ) Therefore, the
Board will need to evaluate current staff utilization and identify resources that might
be needed to perform these evaluations. ( 2)
RECOMMENDATION
The Board should strengthen oversight by monitoring the performance of the
community college system in regard to at least two important system components:
student transfer success and program costs. The Board should carefully define the
data, the evaluation model should build upon existing models, and the evaluations
should be systematic.
The Board has not requested any s t a f f increases over the past f i v e years, according
t o a review o f State Board budget requests.
(*) The Board's Executive D i r e c t o r has also commented t h a t the Board may need a d d i t i o n a l
s t a f f i f i t decides to monitor l o c a l d i s t r i c t compliance w i t h i t s rules and
r e g u l a t i o n s . According to the Executive D i r e c t o r , the Board w i l l need t o strengthen
i t s information g a t h e r i n g c a p a c i t y i n several of these areas, because i t does not
know f i r s t hand whether colleges are i n compliance.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the course of our audit we developed information on the structure of the State
Board of Directors for Community Colleges.
Representatives of the community college districts and the State Board have
expressed concerns as to how the composition of the State Board impacts decisions
and decision making. The State Board presently has 18 voting members.
Two concerns were expressed. First, each of the 15 counties has one State Board
representative, regardless of the county's population or the number of community
college students in each county. In addition, since each county has equal
representation, counties that are not part of a community college d i s t r i c t also vote
on issues that may almost exclusively impact on counties which have established
districts. For example, the Maricopa District served nearly 57 percent of Arizona's
community college students in 1985- 86, but Maricopa District has no more
representation than any other district or county that has not organized into a
community college district. The second concern involved the three remaining ex
officio members representing the Division of Vocational Education, the
Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Board of Regents. Some d i s t r i c t
representatives question whether ex- officio members should be on the Board. In
addition, two of the three ex- officio members have rarely attended Board meetings
in the past three years.
We did not identify any single best form of representation for Community College
Districts. Rather, the form of representation depends largely on the goals and
policies of the state.
Other states contacted by Auditor General staff use different approaches to
representation on their community college boards. For example, in Florida the
Governor appoints 11 of its 13 State Board members at large. The remaining two
( ' ) Obtained from the Annual Report t o Governor, 1985- 86 ( S t a t e Board of D i r e c t o r s f o r
Community Colleges of Arizona), pages 34- 35. These f i g u r e s represent headcounts based
on the 45- day census.
must by law be the Commissioner of Education and a student currently enrolled in a
community college. Washington's State Board consists of eight members representing
each of the state's Congressional districts. In North Carolina, authority for selecting
18 of its 20 board members is divided between the General Assembly and the
Governor. Ten of these 18 members are selected completely at large. The remaining
two are ex officio members of the Board.
The Arizona Legislature may need to determine whether Board composition should be
modified, based on the policies it wants to pursue for community college education in
the State.
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During the course of our audit we identified potential issues that we were unable to
pursue due t o t i m e constraints.
Should the State Board continue t o c e r t i f y instructors?
The State Board is currently responsible for certifying community college
instructional staff. A major purpose of c e r t i f i c a t i o n is to ensure that instructors are
qualified to teach. However, State level certification may not be necessary.
One local district representative commented that local districts review all
credentials of prospective faculty, and may even have stricter requirements in
certain subject areas. In addition, the North Central Association of Schools and
Colleges performs limited review of evaluations of instructional staff teaching
performance for accreditation purposes. A State Board staff member also reported
that only one state other than Arizona certifies instructional s t a f f a t the state
( rather than the local) level, and that state ( California) indicated that it was
considering possible elimination of this function. Finally, Board information for
1985- 86 shows that few c e r t i f i c a t i o n requests were refused. Board staff stated that
refusals are limited because detailed guidelines explaining requirements accompany
each application.
Further audit work is needed to: 1) obtain detailed information regarding what is
involved in State and local d i s t r i c t screening of prospective instructors, and 2)
determine whether discontinuing Board certification would require some other type
of Board oversight.
Can the system for providing educational services to counties not part of a
community college district be improved?
Presently the five counties without established community college districts receive
services from neighboring districts. However, according to Legislative research staff
and a community college d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l , these counties have had d i f f i c u l t y
obtaining adequate services. For example, the community college o f f i c i a l stated that
because of the low number of students in at least one county, insufficient money is
generated from the county to ensure that a full range of classes are available from
existing community college d i s t r i c t s f o r meeting program requirements. In addition,
the availability of instructors is limited. Thus, some required classes may not be
offered. Further, according to one State Board member, counties not part of a
community college district are not paying the districts' actual costs of providing
educational services. In addition, Board minutes show that at least one county that is
not part of a district had not paid monies owed because of financial trouble within
the county.
Further audit work is needed to determine the extent o f d i f f i c u l t i e s with counties not
part of community college districts, and whether and how difficulties in the present
system can be resolved.
Should community college districts be required t o adhere to the same or similar
financial controls as State agencies?
Presently, the districts are not required to adhere to the same requirements as State
agencies in the areas of personnel, travel reimbursement, or procurement. A. R. S.
$ 41- 762 by definition restricts the application of the personnel administration
statutes to State employees. A. R . S $ 15- 1406 specifically exempts community
college districts from most provisions of Title 38, Chapter 4 (" Compensation and
Liability Insurance"), including restrictions over travel reimbursement. Finally, the
definition of " state governmental unit," to which the State Procurement Code ( A. R . S.
$ 41- 2501 et seq.) applies, does not include community college districts.
Moreover, the statutes do not allow for State Board control in most of these areas.
According to Legislative Council, all matters relating to personnel are more
appropriately handled at the district level. A. R. S. $ 15- 1444, subsection A, paragraph
6, requires district boards to " Determine the salaries of persons it appoints and
employ^.^ The Legislative Council states that this statute should be construed to
apply to all personnel matters, including travel reimbursement. Finally,
A. R. S. 515- 1424, subsection B, paragraph 4, authorizes the State Board to govern
district procurement practices. However, the State Board has chosen to delegate
most of this authority to the individual districts, placing only general limitations on
contracting practices.
Previous financial audits of various community college districts conducted by the
Auditor General have identified concerns regarding the lack of controls over district
financial practices. Further audit work is needed to ( 1) identify the extent to which
actual district financial practices differ significantly from units of State and local
government, and ( 2) determine the appropriate level of State control over district
financial practices.
Arizona ( 602) 255- 4037
-
Community College Board
Century Plaza Suite 810 3225 N. Central Phoenix, Arizona 8501 2
June 15, 1987
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2700 North Central, Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
The Report of the Performance Audit of the State Board of Directors
for Community Colleges has been reviewed by the staff and the
Executive Committee of the Board.
Please note the attached response.
Sincerely,
Gherald L. ~ o o i e s
Chairman
Arizona ( 602) 255- 4037
Community Co lege Board
Century Plaza Suite 810 3225 N. Central Phoenix, Arizona 8501 2
RESPONSE OF THE STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD
TO THE
Although not i n t o t a l agreement with every aspect of t h e a u d i t
r e p o r t , the State Board does concur w i t h i t s major f i n d i n g s ,
i. e., it should strengthen i t s oversight functions, p a r t i c u l a r l y
i n the areas of monitoring student t r a n s f e r success and cost
effectiveness of educational programs. It must be pointed out,
however, t h a t any s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n moni t o r i n g e f f o r t s
w i l l , more than l i k e l y , r e q u i r e a commensurate expansion of the
Board's budget and must be looked at c a r e f u l l y t o make c e r t a i n
t h a t the desired r e s u l t s j u s t i f y the added e f f o r t and cost.
The major weakness i n t h e r e p o r t , from the Board's perspective,
i s t h a t it doesn't include enough information about other s t a t e
l e v e l boards with s i m i l a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t e s . The Board believes
t h a t the f i n d i n g s would have been enhanced if more data had been
included which contrasted the functions of the State Community
College Board w i t h those o f t h e Arizona Board of Regents, the
Arizona Board of Education and community college boards from
o t h e r s t a t e s . Such information, i n the Board's view, could
provide added i n s i g h t concerning the appropriateness of i t s r o l e
i n the s t a t e system, i t s performance and the resources it needs
t o achieve i t s purposes.
The candor o f the review team i s appreciated. Their
observations w i l l s t i m u l a t e the Board t o take an in- depth look
a t a l l o f i t s monitoring f u n c t i o n s t o make c e r t a i n it i s
f u l f i l l i n g i t s d u t i e s properly. If indicated, the Board w i l l
a l s o seek a d d i t i o n a l resources t o c a r r y out the o b l i g a t i o n s
i d e n t i f i e d by the performance review as well as others t h a t
might become evident as a r e s u l t o f f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
The Board has also taken note o f the observation t h a t there i s
an absence i n s t a t e s t a t u t e s of a c l e a r statement of State Board
purpose, as well as a l a c k of thoroughness i n community c o l l e g e
laws due t o t h e i r incremental development over the years. It
intends t o work w i t h the l e g i s l a t u r e t o make any c o r r e c t i o n s o r
a d d i t i o n s necessary.
The Board also has a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t i n any f u r t h e r review of
i t s composition, as suggested by the audit. It has seen no
evidence t h a t a major r e s t r u c t u r i n g i s c a l l e d f o r . The f a c t i s ,
over the past t w e n t y - f i v e years, under the leadership of the
State Board as c o n s t i t u t e d , A r i z o n a ' s comrnuni ty c o l lege systen
has developed from two i n s t i t u t i o n s , e n r o l 1 i n g approximately
9,000 students, i n t o t h e t e n t h l a r g e s t system i n t h e U n i t e d
States, w i t h nine d i s t r i c t s , and seventeen colleges d e l i v e r i n g
h i g h q u a l i t y , comprehensive programs t o more than 120,000
students annual l y .
The observations t h a t f u r t h e r studies might consider f a c u l t y
c e r t i f i c a t i o n , unorganized counties and the establishment of
a d d i t i o n a l f i n a n c i a l controls on the d i s t r i c t s , w i l l also be o f
continued i n t e r e s t t o the Board. A major study i s underway at
t h i s time on the issue of unorganized counties.