Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Report Number : 2016-109

Uniform Complaint Procedures
The California Department of Education’s Inadequate Oversight Has Led to a Lack of Uniformity and Compliance in the Processing of Complaints and Appeals

Appendices

Use the links below to skip to the Appendix you wish to view:





Appendix A

Resolutions of Education’s Appeal Reviews and Complaint Investigations

Under the state UCP regulations, Education is responsible for reviewing appeals of LEAs’ complaint investigation decisions. As described in the Introduction, state regulations establish the requirements related to such appeals and specify time limits for filing them. Table A.1 shows the number of appeals that Education received and closed from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2016. During this period, Education referred 109 appeals back to LEAs because their investigations or decisions were inadequate. It also referred 67 appeals back to LEAs because the appeals raised new issues that were not part of the original complaints. Education ultimately reviewed and issued decisions on 291 appeals: it overturned LEAs’ decisions for 75 of these appeals and upheld their decisions for the other 216. Table A.1 shows the outcomes for the remaining appeals.

Additionally, UCP regulations require Education to directly intervene and investigate complaints under certain circumstances without waiting for LEAs to investigate, as the Introduction describes. As Table A.2 shows, Education received 2,958 complaints and requests for direct intervention during our audit period, most of which involved Special Education. Education’s divisions did not accept 131 of these complaints, while 367 complaints were either withdrawn, referred to other divisions, or resolved through other means. Education referred 121 complaints to LEAs for investigation and investigated the remaining 2,847 complaints itself. It did not substantiate 1,515 complaints and substantiated 1,332 complaints.


Table A.1
Resolutions by Type of Appeals That the California Department of Education Received and Closed
July 1, 2013, Through June 30, 2016

TYPE OF APPEAL NUMBER OF APPEALS Referred Back to LEA Due to Inadequate Investigation or Decision Referred Back to LEA Due to New Issue Not Investigated by LEA Appeal Not Accepted* LEA Decision Upheld LEA Decision Overturned Withdrawn Referred to Another Division Within Education OTHER RESOLUTION
Bullying, discrimination, and harassment§ 215 12 6 80 88 16 4 13 2
Categorical programsll 26 6 6 6 5 6 0 2 2
Local Control Accountability Plan/Local Control Funding Formula 12 1 0 7 1 1 0 2 0
Migrant Education 14 4 0 5 2 0 0 3 1
Not UCP 64 NA 5 62 NA NA NA NA NA
Nutrition Services 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Other 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Pupil fees 257 81 41 5 101 42 3 3 10
School site council and committees 27 5 6 2 5 9 0 5 2
Special Education 33 0 1 3 4 0 0 25 0
Williams complaint# 22 0 1 9 10 1 0 1 0
Totals 675 109 67 179 216 75 7 57 18

Source: California State Auditor’s review of files related to complaints and appeals received and closed by Education between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016.

Note 1: The sum of the totals for the different types of resolutions do not equal the total number of appeals because multiple allegations within an appeal may have different resolutions. For example, a division may uphold an LEA decision for one allegation and refer another allegation back to the LEA as part of the same appeal, resulting in two resolutions.

Note 2: Some of the complaints and appeals may be included in both tables A.1 and A.2 because a complainant may file a complaint or request for direct state intervention and request an appeal simultaneously. As a result, the request and resolution would be reflected within each table.

NA = Not applicable.

* This column includes appeals that did not fall within the scope of the UCP, fell outside of the time frame for appeal, or warranted no action.

This column includes appeals closed because of the complainant rescinding or withdrawing the appeal.

This column includes files closed by the LEA before Education issued a decision, either through a mediation resolution or because the appeal was filed with Education before completion of the LEA’s investigation.

§ This row includes retaliation and civil rights appeals.

ll This row includes No Child Left Behind, Every Student Succeeds Act, School Safety Plan, and Elementary and Secondary Education Act appeals.

# Williams complaints are those regarding instructional materials, teacher vacancies or misassignments, and school facilities.


Table A.2
Resolutions by Type of Complaints That the California Department of Education Received and Closed
July 1, 2013, Through June 30, 2016

TYPE OF COMPLAINT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS COMPLAINT NOT ACCEPTED* REFERRED TO LEA COMPLAINT UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINT SUBSTANTIATED WITHDRAWN REFERRED TO ANOTHER DIVISION WITHIN EDUCATION OTHER RESOLUTION
Bullying, discrimination, and harassment§ 88 25 59 2 0 2 1 3
Categorical programsll 8 2 5 0 1 0 0 0
Local Control Accountability Plan/Local Control Funding Formula 13 3 6 0 1 0 4 1
Migrant Education 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Not UCP 44 41 2 NA NA NA 1 NA
Nutrition Services 144 2 3 73 48 5 2 11
Other 18 3 9 0 0 0 6 1
Pupil fees 21 1 15 3 2 0 0 3
School site council and committees 23 12 2 7 2 0 0 0
Special Education 2,583 39 9 1,429 1,278 189 21 116
Williams complaint# 14 3 9 1 0 0 1 0
Totals 2,958 131 121 1,515 1,332 196 36 135

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of data obtained from Education’s Special Education Complaint Resolution System and California State Auditor’s review of files related to complaints received and closed by Education from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2016.

Note 1: Refer to Table 8 for discussion on the reliability of data presented here for Special Education.

Note 2: The sum of the totals for the different types of resolutions do not equal the total number of complaints because multiple allegations within a complaint may have different resolutions. For example, a division may substantiate one allegation and refer another allegation to the LEA as part of the same complaint.

Note 3: Some of the complaints and appeals may be included in both tables A.1 and A.2 because a complainant may file a complaint or request for direct state intervention and request an appeal simultaneously. As a result, the request and resolution would be reflected within each table.

NA = Not applicable.

* This column includes complaints that did not fall within the scope of the UCP or warranted no action.

This column also includes complaints closed due to unresponsive complainants.

This column includes files closed via settlement agreement and files closed by the LEA.

§ This row includes retaliation complaints.

ll This row includes No Child Left Behind, Every Student Succeeds Act, School Safety Plan, and Elementary and Secondary Education Act complaints.

# Williams complaints are those regarding instructional materials, teacher vacancies or misassignments, and school facilities.



Back to top





Appendix B

Survey Results of Selected California LEAs

To better understand how well the UCP process works, we surveyed 98 LEAs throughout the State. Using enrollment data available on Education’s website, we selected the largest LEA from each of the 58 counties in California. We also selected another 40 LEAs to ensure a mix of large, medium, and small LEAs from various parts of the State. Our survey asked LEAs a series of questions to determine how they process complaints under the UCP and to gain their perspectives on the UCP process.

Of the 84 LEAs that responded to our survey, 82 indicated that they are generally able to meet the required 60‑day time frame for investigating UCP complaints. Further, 77 of the 84 responded that they attempt to informally resolve complaints, and 66 of these noted that they have established processes that require their staff to attempt to informally resolve complaints. However, 16 of the survey responses also indicated that parents and students are generally not aware of the UCP, and 36 other responses indicated that parents and students are aware of the UCP process, but do not know what issues the UCP covers or where to submit their UCP complaints. Nevertheless, most LEAs did not have suggestions for improving the UCP process. Table B shows the questions we asked and summarizes LEAs’ responses.

The following 14 LEAs that we selected did not respond to our survey:


Table B
Survey Results From Selected Local Educational Agencies

How many UCP complaints has your LEA received on or after July 1, 2013?
None 25
1–25 45
26–50 3
51–75 5
76–100 2
More than 100 4
According to state regulation, within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the complaint, an LEA shall conduct and complete an investigation of the complaint and prepare a written LEA decision. Is your LEA able to resolve most UCP complaints within the mandated time limit?
Yes 70
Yes, but we had to use additional resources (i.e., overtime, additional staff, etc.) 12
No, we are not able to meet the mandated time limit 2
For those LEAs that are unable to resolve most UCP complaints within the mandated time limit, what are the main reasons your LEA is unable to resolve all UCP complaints within the mandated time limit? (Check all that apply.)
Number of complaints your LEA received 2
Complexity of the complaints your LEA received 2
Timeliness for resolving the complaints your LEA received overlapped with days off
(i.e., winter/summer breaks, holidays, etc.)
1
Difficulty reaching the parties involved 1
Other (please specify): sufficiency of staffing 2
Generally, how long does it take your LEA to resolve UCP complaints?
0–15 days 25
16–30 days 20
31–45 days 15
46–60 days 22
More than 60 days 2
Does your LEA prioritize UCP complaints? For instance, you may handle severe problems or repeat complaints differently than routine issues (for example, pupil fees or classroom temperature).
Yes 59
No (please explain why not): Responses were that the LEA has received very few or no UCP complaints, LEA resolves complaints as it receives complaints, or LEA gives all UCP complaints priority. 25
Does your LEA attempt to informally resolve complaints that would otherwise fall under the UCP?
Yes 77
No (please explain why not): Responses were that the LEA prefers to resolve all complaints formally, LEA does not believe it has the ability to resolve complaints informally, or LEA has not received any UCP complaints. 7
For the LEAs that do attempt to informally resolve complaints, does your LEA have an established process that requires staff to attempt to informally resolve UCP complaints?
Yes 66
No 11
For the LEAs that attempt to informally resolve complaints, how many UCP complaints has your LEA resolved informally on or after July 1, 2013?
None 23
1–25 45
26–50 5
51–75 2
76–100 0
More than 100 2
In your interactions with parents and students, generally how aware are they of the UCP process?
1. Are not aware of the UCP process and send their complaints to incorrect office or staff. 1
2. Are not aware of the UCP process and have to ask around for information on filing a complaint. 15
3. Are aware that a UCP process exists but do not know what issues it covers or where to file a complaint. 36
4. Are aware of what issues the UCP process covers and where to file a complaint. 32
What methods does your LEA use to inform parents and students of their right to file a UCP complaint? (Select all that apply.)
Posters in classrooms/offices 61
Parent handbook 68
Flyer sent home with students 20
Email correspondence 9
District website 72
Social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 1
Other (please specify): District committee and board meetings, annual notices, or brochures 21
Are you aware of other complaint process models that might serve the State more effectively than the UCP?
Yes (please explain): Alternative dispute resolution and mediation. 2
No 82
Do you have suggestions for how the UCP process could be improved?
Yes (please explain): Responses identified by two or more LEAs were to make the time limit 60 school days rather than 60 calendar days, more guidance from Education, and make the process more clear, concise, and user‑friendly. 17
No 67

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of survey responses from California LEAs.



Back to top