Report 2017-102 Recommendation 21 Responses

Report 2017-102: California Community Colleges: The Colleges Reviewed Are Not Adequately Monitoring Services for Technology Accessibility, and Districts and Colleges Should Formalize Procedures for Upgrading Technology (Release Date: December 2017)

Recommendation #21 To: Foothill-De Anza Community College District

To increase the transparency of its annual review process, by June 2018, De Anza should establish procedures requiring its departments to document attendees, input received, and agreements reached during meetings to consider instructional technology equipment requests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

The annual program review process includes directions for identifying instructional technology requests for consideration by the Instructional Planning and Budget Team (IPBT) composed of faculty, staff, administrators and students. Program review materials are submitted by departmental representatives to the dean after consulting among departmental members during established departmental meetings. As a secondary step, Deans review departmental requests and prepare a comprehensive division request list. Faculty representatives on IPBT are expected to communicate with their colleagues and encourage review of the requested items for accuracy prior to any allocation of funding for instructional technology requests. Finally, and before allocation begins, requests are posted to the public website. Requests are then vetted by the Instructional Planning and Budget Team based on agreements and funding guidelines.

  • Completion Date: June 2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

De Anza did not provide procedures requiring its departments to document attendees, input received, and agreements reached during meetings to consider instructional technology equipment requests. Although it provided documentation of a meeting template to capture the information, the examples provided do not consistently show the attendees, input received, and agreements reached during meetings to consider instructional technology equipment requests.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

60-Day Agency Response

Foothill/De Anza Community College District did not submit a 60-day response for this recommendation. It has, however, submitted responses for the 6-month and 1-year reporting periods.

  • Response Date: March 2019

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

The district did not submit a response.


1-Year Agency Response

In addition to other processes developed by De Anza College leadership, the district's IT team (Educational Technology Services - ETS) has also developed a procedure for documenting the specific outcomes of regular equipment refresh prioritization meetings held between ETS and college leadership/staff. A copy of the meeting notes template along with samples of meetings notes using this template will be forwarded via email as per the instructions below.

  • Completion Date: February 2018
  • Response Date: December 2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

De Anza did not provide documentation to support its assertion of full implementation of this recommendation. Although it provided documentation that its ETS unit has procedures and has begun to document attendees and agreements reached in its technology meetings, it did not provide documentation showing procedures for departments or that its departments were documenting department technology meetings as we recommended.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

6-Month Agency Response

Procedures for documenting attendees, input and agreements reached were discussed with division deans in preparation for program review submission in the spring term. In Fall 2018, the Instructional Planning and Budget Team will request updated lists of instructional equipments needs based on program review submissions from the the spring term and request an explanation of how the instructional equipment requests were determined.

  • Completion Date: September 2018
  • Response Date: July 2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

De Anza did not provide documentation to support its assertion of full implementation of this recommendation.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

All Recommendations in 2017-102

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.