A REPORT
TO THE

ARIZONA LEGISLATURE

Division of School Audits
Performance Audit

Fowler Elementary
School District

January • 2015
Report No. 15-201

Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General

The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five
representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political
subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of school districts, state agencies, and
the programs they administer.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Judy Burges, Chair

Representative John Allen, Vice Chair

Senator Nancy Barto
Senator Lupe Contreras
Senator David Farnsworth
Senator Lynne Pancrazi
Senator Andy Biggs (ex officio)

Representative Gina Cobb
Representative Debbie McCune Davis
Representative Rebecca Rios
Representative Kelly Townsend
Representative David Gowan (ex officio)

Audit Staff
Ross Ehrick, Director
Ann Orrico, Manager and Contact Person
Jennie Snedecor, Team Leader
Phil Hanus
Dennis Tinney

The Auditor General’s reports are available at:

www.azauditor.gov
Printed copies of our reports may be requested by contacting us at:

Office of the Auditor General

2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • (602) 553-0333

STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE

DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL

MELANIE M. CHESNEY

AUDITOR GENERAL

DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL

January 28, 2015
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Doug Ducey, Governor
Governing Board
Fowler Elementary School District
Dr. Marvene Lobato, Superintendent
Fowler Elementary School District
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Fowler
Elementary School District, conducted pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1279.03. I am also transmitting
within this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a quick summary for
your convenience.
As outlined in its response, the District agrees with all of the findings and recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
Sincerely,

Debbie Davenport
Auditor General

2910 NORTH 44 th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA

85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051

Fowler
Elementary
Fowler ESD
School District
Table 1:

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
PERFORMANCE AUDIT

Our Conclusion
In fiscal year 2012, Fowler
Elementary School District’s
student achievement was
slightly higher than the peer
districts’ averages, and the
District operated efficiently.
The District’s administrative
cost per pupil was similar to
the peer districts’ average,
and it employed proper
accounting and computer
controls. The District’s plant
operations costs per pupil
and per square foot were
lower than the peer districts’
averages primarily because
of lower energy costs.
Additionally, the District’s food
service cost per meal was
lower than the peer districts’
average, and the program
was self-sufficient, in part,
because the District paid the
vendor that ran its program
lower administrative and
management fees than peer
districts, on average. Further,
the District’s transportation
program was efficient, with
lower costs per mile and
per rider and efficient bus
routes. However, the District
did not accurately report its
number of riders transported,
which resulted in substantial
overfunding for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

Slightly higher student achievement and efficient
operations
Student achievement slightly higher
than peer districts’—In fiscal year 2012,
Fowler ESD’s student AIMS scores were
slightly higher in math and similar to
the peer districts’ averages in reading,
writing, and science. Additionally, under
the Arizona Department of Education’s
A-F Letter Grade Accountability System,
the District received an overall letter
grade of B. One of the five peer districts
also received a B, while the other four
peer districts received Cs.

Percentage of students who met or
exceeded state standards (AIMS)
Fiscal year 2012
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Math
Fowler ESD

Reading

Writing

Peer group

Science
State-wide

District operated efficiently—In fiscal
year 2012, Fowler ESD operated efficiently with per pupil costs that were mostly similar
to or lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s administrative costs were similar
to the peer districts’ average. Additionally, the District’s plant operations costs per
pupil and per square foot were slightly lower than peer districts’ primarily because
of lower energy costs. The District’s food
service program operated efficiently with a Comparison of per pupil expenditures
lower cost per meal than the peer districts by operational area
averaged, in part, because the District paid Fiscal year 2012

Peer
its food service vendor lower fees than the
Fowler
group

ESD
average
peer districts paid, on average. Further,

$801
$796
Administration
although the District’s transportation cost

Plant operations
745
811
per pupil was higher than the peer districts’

Food service
463
523

average, its costs per mile and per rider
Transportation
314
271

were lower, and the District operated
efficient bus routes.

District operated efficiently
In fiscal year 2012, Fowler ESD operated efficiently with costs that were similar to
or lower than peer districts’ averages. The table on page 2 highlights the District’s
efficiencies in each of the operational areas. In addition, the District employed proper
controls in several areas that are commonly cited as areas of weakness in other school
district audit reports.

2015
January • Report No. 15-201

Similar administrative costs and proper accounting and computer controls—
Fowler ESD operated its administration with costs that were similar per pupil to the peer
districts’ average. In addition, the District employed proper controls over its accounting
functions, such as payroll and purchasing, and it employed proper computer controls,
such as strong password requirements and appropriate user access to its computer
systems and network. The controls the District implemented helped to reduce its risk

of errors, fraud, and misuse of sensitive information.
Lower plant operations costs—The District’s plant
operations costs were 8 percent lower per pupil
and per square foot than peer districts’ averages
primarily because it had lower energy costs. The
District kept its energy costs low, in part, by taking
advantage of rebates available through its electric
utility to install energy-saving fixtures, such as
motion sensor light switches and upgraded lighting
fixtures, at little to no cost to the District.

Comparison of efficiency measures
Fiscal year 2012
Efficiency measure
Administrative cost per pupil
Plant operations cost per square foot
Plant operations cost per student
Food service cost per meal
Transportation cost per mile
Transportation cost per rider

Fowler
ESD
$801
$5.73
$745
$2.15
$4.69
$754

Peer
group
average
$796
$6.25
$811
$2.45
$4.84
$844

Efficient food service program—The District’s food service program operated efficiently with lower costs per
pupil and per meal. The District kept its costs lower and maintained a self-sufficient program, in part, because
it negotiated favorable terms with its food service vendor, including lower administrative and management
fees than those its peer districts paid, on average.
Efficient transportation program—The District’s transportation program operated with lower costs per mile
and per rider than peer districts’, on average. Further, the program had efficient bus routes, filling district buses
to an average of 87 percent of seat capacity. The District also maintained good controls over its fuel inventory
by requiring employees to enter information such as employee identification number and bus number when
pumping fuel, electronically monitoring fuel levels in storage tanks, and securing its fuel inventory in a fenced
and locked area monitored by security cameras.

District overfunded for transportation because of inaccurate rider counts
Fowler ESD over-reported the number of students it transported for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 because
it included the number of students riding district buses in the morning and the number of students riding
in the afternoon. Therefore, most riders were counted twice, resulting in the District overstating its reported
number of students transported by about 100 percent. Although the transportation funding formula is primarily
based on miles driven, the number of students transported is also a factor in determining the per mile funding
rate that districts receive. Correcting the overstated number of riders would reduce the District’s per mile
funding rate. Further, since transportation funding is based on miles and riders reported in the prior fiscal
year, overreporting riders resulted in the District being overfunded during fiscal years 2011 through 2014 by
a combined $515,149.
Recommendations
The District should:
Accurately determine and report the number of students it transports for funding purposes.
Work with the Arizona Department of Education to correct its transportation funding and expenditure budgets.

•
•

Fowler Elementary
School District

A copy of the full report is available at:
www.azauditor.gov

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

Contact person:

January 2015 • Report No. 15-201

Ann Orrico (602) 553-0333

PERFORMANCE AUDIT










TABLE OF CONTENTS
District Overview

1

Student achievement slightly higher than peer districts’

1

District operated efficiently

1

Finding 1: Sound management practices and proper controls resulted
in efficient operations

3

Similar administrative costs and proper accounting and computer controls

3

Lower plant operations costs due to energy efficiency

3

Favorable food service contract resulted in efficient food service program

4

Efficient transportation program

4

Finding 2: District overstated the number of riders it transported,
resulting in $515,000 of overfunding

5
5

Recommendations

Appendix

a-1
a-1

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

District Response

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables
1 Comparison of per pupil expenditures by operational area
Fiscal year 2012
(Unaudited)

2

2 Comparison of efficiency measures
Fiscal year 2012
(Unaudited)

3

3 Amount of transportation overfunding by fiscal year
Fiscal years 2011 through 2014
(Unaudited)

5

Figure
1 Percentage of students who met or exceeded state standards (AIMS)
Fiscal year 2012
(Unaudited)

1

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page ii

DISTRICT OVERVIEW
Fowler Elementary School District is a medium-large sized, suburban district located in southwest
Phoenix. In fiscal year 2012, the District served 4,322 students in kindergarten through 8th grade at
its seven schools.
In fiscal year 2012, Fowler ESD’s student achievement was slightly higher than its peer districts’, and
the District operated efficiently with similar administration costs per pupil and lower plant operations
and food service costs per pupil than peer districts, on average.1 Additionally, although the District’s
transportation costs per pupil were higher than the peer districts’ average, the program operated
efficiently with similar costs per mile and lower costs per rider. Overall, the District employed proper
accounting and computer controls and implemented methods to help reduce energy usage and
costs. However, for funding purposes, the District should accurately report the number of students it
transports to and from school.

Student achievement slightly higher than peer districts’
In fiscal year 2012, 59 percent of the District’s
students met or exceeded state standards in
math, 71 percent in reading, 41 percent in
writing, and 51 percent in science. As shown in
Figure 1, the District’s math scores were slightly
higher than the peer districts’ average, and its
reading, writing, and science scores were
similar to the peer districts’ averages. Further,
under the Arizona Department of Education’s
A-F Letter Grade Accountability System, Fowler
ESD received an overall letter grade of B for
fiscal year 2012. One of the five peer districts
also received a B, and the other four peer
districts received Cs.

Figure 1: Percentage of students who met or
exceeded state standards (AIMS)
Fiscal year 2012
(Unaudited)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Fowler ESD
Peer group
State-wide
Math

Source:

Reading

Writing

Science

Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal year 2012 test results on
Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS).

District operated efficiently
As shown in Table 1 on page 2 and based on auditors’ review of various performance measures, in
fiscal year 2012, Fowler ESD operated efficiently overall. By doing so, the District was able to spend
$79 more per pupil in the classroom than peer districts, on average, despite spending $98 less per
pupil overall.

1 Auditors developed three peer groups for comparative purposes. See page a-1 of this report’s Appendix for further explanation of the peer groups.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page 1

Fowler ESD

Similar administrative costs—In

fiscal year
2012, Fowler ESD’s $801 administrative cost per
pupil was similar to the peer districts’ average of
$796. The District also employed proper controls
over its accounting functions, computer systems,
and network (see Finding 1, page 3).

Lower plant operations costs—Compared to
peer districts’ averages, Fowler ESD’s plant
operations costs were 8 percent lower per pupil
and per square foot. The District’s plant
operations costs were lower, in part, because of
energy costs that were 23 percent lower per
square foot than the peer districts’ average. The
District had lower energy costs, in part, because
it took advantage of rebates available through its
electric utility to install energy-saving items, such
as motion sensor light switches and upgraded
lighting fixtures, at little to no cost to the District
(see Finding 1, page 3).

Table 1:

Comparison of per pupil

Table expenditures
1:
by operational area
Fiscal year 2012
(Unaudited)

Spending
Total per pupil
Classroom dollars
Nonclassroom
dollars
Administration
Plant operations
Food service
Transportation
Student support
Instruction
support
Source:

Fowler
ESD
$6,870

Peer
group
average
$6,968

State
average
$7,475

3,661

3,582

4,053

801
745
463
314
540

796
811
523
271
522

736
928
382
362
578

346

463

436

Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal year 2012 Arizona
Department of Education student membership data and
district-reported accounting data.

Efficient food service program—The District’s food service program operated efficiently
with lower costs per pupil and per meal. Fowler ESD’s $2.15 cost per meal was 12 percent
lower than the peer districts’ $2.45 average and its $463 cost per pupil was 11 percent lower.
The District kept its costs lower and maintained a self-sufficient program, in part, because it
negotiated favorable terms with its food service vendor, including lower administrative and
management fees than those its peer districts paid, on average (see Finding 1, page 3).

Efficient transportation program—In fiscal year 2012, the District’s transportation program
operated efficiently with a $4.69 cost per mile that was 3 percent lower than the peer districts’
average and a $754 cost per rider that was 11 percent lower than the peer districts’ average.
Costs were lower, in part, because the District operated efficient bus routes filling buses to 87
percent of capacity and maintained proper controls over its fuel inventory (see Finding 1, page
3). However, the District did not accurately report its number of riders transported, which
resulted in substantial overfunding for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 (see Finding 2, page 5).

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page 2

FINDING 1
Sound management practices and proper controls
resulted in efficient operations
In fiscal year 2012, Fowler ESD operated efficiently with lower costs in most operational areas than
peer districts, on average. The District’s costs were lower, in part, because of sound management
practices, such as taking advantage of rebate programs to improve energy efficiency, negotiating
food service vendor contract terms that were favorable to the District, and operating efficient bus
routes. As shown in Table 2, the District’s efficiency measures compared favorably to peer districts’
averages. Operating efficiently allowed the District to spend $79 more per pupil of its operational
monies in the classroom than the peer districts averaged despite spending $98 less per pupil overall.
In addition to efficient operations, the District also employed proper controls over its accounting
functions, computer systems and network, and fuel inventory, which are areas of weakness
commonly cited in other school district audit reports.

Similar administrative costs and proper accounting and computer
controls
Table 2:

The District operated its administration with
costs per pupil that were similar to the peer
districts’ average. In addition, auditors found
that the District employed proper controls
over its accounting functions, such as payroll
and purchasing. The District also employed
proper computer controls, such as strong
password requirements and appropriate user
access to its computer systems and network.
The controls the District implemented helped
to reduce its risk of errors, fraud, and misuse
of sensitive information.

Comparison of efficiency measures
Fiscal year 2012
(Unaudited)

Efficiency measure
Administrative cost per pupil
Plant operations cost per square foot
Plant operations cost per student
Food service cost per meal
Transportation cost per mile
Transportation cost per rider
Source:

Fowler
ESD
$801
$5.73
$745
$2.15
$4.69
$754

Peer
group
average
$796
$6.25
$811
$2.45
$4.84
$844

Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal year 2012 district-reported
accounting and food service program data; Arizona School Facilities
Board square footage information, and Arizona Department of
Education student membership and transportation program data.

Lower plant operations costs due to energy efficiency
The District’s plant operations were efficient with slightly lower costs per pupil and per square foot.
As shown in Table 2, the District’s $5.73 cost per square foot was 8 percent lower than the peer
districts’ average, and its $745 cost per student was also 8 percent lower than the peer districts’
average. Costs were lower primarily because of energy costs that were 23 percent lower per square
foot than the peer districts’ average. The District kept its energy costs low, in part, by taking advantage
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page 3











of rebate programs through its electric utility. For example, through a rebate program, the District
was able to replace light switches with motion sensor switches and upgrade to more
energy-efficient lighting fixtures to help reduce energy usage at little to no cost to the District.

Favorable food service contract resulted in efficient food service
program
The District has outsourced its food service program since fiscal year 2009. During the
procurement process, the District was able to negotiate a favorable contract that included lower
vendor fees. In fact, the administrative and management fees the District paid to its food service
program vendor were 60 percent lower than the average fees paid by the four peer districts that
also outsourced their food service programs. Partly because of these lower fees, the District’s
$2.15 cost per meal was 12 percent lower than the peer districts’ $2.45 average. By maintaining
a low cost per meal, the District was able to cover all of its program costs while having enough
monies remaining to help pay for some indirect costs, such as utilities.

Efficient transportation program
The District’s transportation program operated efficiently with a $754 cost per rider that was 11
percent lower than the peer districts’ average and a $4.69 cost per mile that was 3 percent lower
than the peer districts’ average. The District’s lower costs resulted, in part, because it operated
efficient bus routes, filling its buses to 87 percent of seat capacity, on average. Further, the
District employed proper controls over its fuel inventory, including requiring employees to enter
information such as employee identification number and bus number when pumping fuel. The
District also monitored its fuel usage and the fuel levels in its storage tanks. Additionally, fuel
pumps were locked, and they were located in a fenced and locked area that was monitored by
security cameras. Although the District had an efficient transportation program with good
controls, it double counted the number of riders it transported, which resulted in substantial
overfunding for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 (see Finding 2, page 5).

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page 4

FINDING 2
District overstated the number of riders it transported,
resulting in $515,000 of overfunding
For student transportation funding, school districts are required to report to the Arizona Department
of Education (ADE) actual miles driven to transport students to and from school and the number of
eligible students transported. Auditors determined that the District over-reported its number of
students transported beginning in fiscal year 2010 because the District included the number of
students riding district buses in the morning and the number of students riding in the afternoon.
Therefore, most riders were counted twice, resulting in the District overstating its reported number of
students transported by about 100 percent. Although the transportation funding formula is primarily
based on miles driven, the number of students transported is also a factor in determining the per
mile funding rate that districts receive. Correcting the overstated number of riders would reduce the
District’s per mile funding rate. Since transportation
Table 3: Amount of transportation
funding is based on miles and riders reported in the prior
overfunding by fiscal year
fiscal year, the over-reporting of fiscal year 2010 rider
Fiscal years 2011 through 2014
counts resulted in the District being overfunded by
(Unaudited)
$113,442 in fiscal year 2011. Further, because the District
Fiscal year Overfunding
continued to make the same error in counting riders in
2011
$113,442
subsequent fiscal years, the District was also overfunded
2012
126,799
for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 (see Table 3). Beginning
2013
137,454
2014
137,454
in fiscal year 2014, the District began accurately reporting
Total
$515,149
its rider counts to ADE. The District should work with ADE
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Arizona Department
to correct the overstated rider counts that occurred in
of Education district mileage and ridership reports,
fiscal years 2010 through 2013 and the resultant
budget worksheets, and apportionment reports.
overfunding of about $515,000 that occurred in fiscal
years 2011 through 2014.

Recommendations
1.

The District should accurately determine and report the number of students transported for
student transportation funding purposes.

2.

The District should work with ADE regarding needed corrections to its transportation funding
reports and corresponding adjustments to its expenditure budgets until all funding errors
caused by the overstated rider counts are fully corrected.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page 5

APPENDIX
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Fowler Elementary
School District pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §41-1279.03(A)(9). Based in part on their effect
on classroom dollars, as previously reported in the Office of the Auditor General’s annual report,
Arizona School District Spending (Classroom Dollars report), this audit focused on the District’s
efficiency and effectiveness in four operational areas: administration, plant operations and
maintenance, food service, and student transportation. To evaluate costs in each of these areas, only
operational spending, primarily for fiscal year 2012, was considered.1 Further, because of the
underlying law initiating these performance audits, auditors also reviewed the District’s use of
Proposition 301 sales tax monies and how it accounted for dollars spent in the classroom.
In conducting this audit, auditors used a variety of methods, including examining various records,
such as available fiscal year 2012 summary accounting data for all districts and Fowler ESD’s fiscal
year 2012 detailed accounting data, contracts, and other district documents; reviewing district
policies, procedures, and related internal controls; reviewing applicable statutes; and interviewing
district administrators and staff.
To compare districts’ academic indicators, auditors developed a student achievement peer group
using poverty as the primary factor because poverty has been shown to be associated with student
achievement. Auditors also used secondary factors such as district type and location to further refine
these groups. Fowler ESD’s student achievement peer group includes Fowler ESD and the five other
elementary districts that also served student populations with poverty rates between 28 percent and
37 percent in cities and suburbs. Auditors compared Fowler ESD’s student AIMS scores to those of
its peer group averages. The same grade levels were included to make the AIMS score comparisons
between Fowler ESD and its peer group. AIMS scores were calculated using test results of the grade
levels primarily tested, including grade levels 3 through 8. Generally, auditors considered Fowler
ESD’s student AIMS scores to be similar if they were within 5 percentage points of peer averages,
slightly higher/lower if they were within 6 to 10 percentage points of peer averages, higher/lower if
they were within 11 to 15 percentage points of peer averages, and much higher/lower if they were
more than 15 percentage points higher/lower than peer averages. In determining the District’s overall
student achievement level, auditors considered the differences in AIMS scores between Fowler ESD
and its peers, as well as the District’s Arizona Department of Education-assigned letter grades.2
To analyze Fowler ESD’s operational efficiency in administration, plant operations, and food service,
auditors selected a group of peer districts based on their similarities in district size, type, and
location. This operational peer group includes Fowler ESD and 15 other elementary school districts
that also served between 2,000 and 7,999 students and were located in cities and suburbs. To
1 Operational spending includes costs incurred for the District’s day-to-day operations. It excludes costs associated with repaying debt,

capital outlay (such as purchasing land, buildings, and equipment), and programs such as adult education and community service that are
outside the scope of preschool through grade 12 education.

2 The Arizona Department of Education’s A-F Letter Grade Accountability System assigns letter grades based primarily on academic growth

and the number of students passing AIMS.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page a-1

analyze Fowler ESD’s operational efficiency in transportation, auditors selected a group of peer
districts based on their similarities in miles per rider and location. This transportation peer group
includes 14 districts that also traveled between 141 and 230 miles per rider and were located in
cities and suburbs. Auditors compared Fowler ESD’s costs to its peer group averages. Generally,
auditors considered Fowler ESD’s costs to be similar if they were within 5 percent of peer
averages, slightly higher/lower if they were within 6 to 10 percent of peer averages, higher/lower
if they were within 11 to 15 percent of peer averages, and much higher/lower if they were more
than 15 percent higher/lower than peer averages. However, in determining the overall efficiency
of Fowler ESD’s nonclassroom operational areas, auditors also considered other factors that
affect costs and operational efficiency such as square footage per student, meal participation
rates, and bus capacity utilization, as well as auditor observations and any unique or unusual
challenges the District had. Additionally:

•

To assess whether the District’s administration effectively and efficiently managed district
operations, auditors evaluated administrative procedures and controls at the district and
school level, including reviewing personnel files and other pertinent documents and
interviewing district and school administrators about their duties. Auditors also reviewed
and evaluated fiscal year 2012 administration costs and compared these to peer districts’.

•

To assess the District’s financial accounting data, auditors evaluated the District’s internal
controls related to expenditure processing and scanned all fiscal year 2012 payroll and
accounts payable transactions for proper account classification and reasonableness.
Additionally, auditors reviewed detailed payroll and personnel records for 30 of the 650
individuals who received payments in fiscal year 2012 through the District’s payroll system
and reviewed supporting documentation for 30 of the 9,440 fiscal year 2012 accounts
payable transactions. No improper transactions were identified. Auditors also evaluated
other internal controls that were considered significant to the audit objectives and reviewed
fiscal year 2012 spending and prior years’ spending trends across operational areas.

•

To assess the District’s computer information systems and network, auditors evaluated
certain controls over its logical and physical security, including user access to sensitive data
and critical systems, and the security of servers that house the data and systems. Auditors
also evaluated certain district policies over the system such as data sensitivity, backup, and
recovery. No issues were identified.

•

To assess whether the District managed its plant operations and maintenance function
appropriately and whether it functioned efficiently, auditors reviewed and evaluated fiscal
year 2012 plant operations and maintenance costs and building square footage, and
compared resulting cost and other efficiency measures to peer districts’. Auditors also
observed and evaluated the condition and uses of district building space.

•

To assess whether the District managed its food service program appropriately and whether
it functioned efficiently, auditors reviewed fiscal year 2012 food service revenues and
expenditures, including labor and food costs; compared costs to peer districts’; reviewed
the Arizona Department of Education’s food service monitoring reports; reviewed the
District’s fiscal year 2012 food service management contract and point-of-sale system
reports; and observed food service operations.

•

To assess whether the District managed its transportation program appropriately and
whether it functioned efficiently, auditors reviewed and evaluated required transportation
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page a-2

reports, driver files, bus maintenance and safety records, bus routing, and bus capacity usage.
In addition, auditors observed and counted bus riders during on-site visits. Auditors also
reviewed fiscal year 2012 transportation costs and compared them to peer districts’ average
costs.

•

To assess whether the District was in compliance with Proposition 301’s Classroom Site Fund
requirements, auditors reviewed fiscal year 2012 expenditures to determine whether they were
appropriate and if the District properly accounted for them. No issues of noncompliance were
identified.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The Auditor General and her staff express their appreciation to the Fowler Elementary School
District’s board members, superintendent, and staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout
the audit.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Fowler Elementary School District • Report No. 15-201
Page a-3

DISTRICT RESPONSE

DISTRICT RESPONSE