Report 2013-045 Recommendation 10 Responses

Report 2013-045: Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education: It Has Consistently Failed to Meet Its Responsibility to Protect the Public's Interests (Release Date: March 2014)

Recommendation #10 To: Private Postsecondary Education, Bureau for

To comply with state law and to ensure that it effectively manages its inspections of institutions, the bureau should prioritize its announced and unannounced inspections to focus on those institutions that have a higher risk of noncompliance.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The Bureau has created and is utilizing a system whereby point values are assigned to risk factors, based on the significance and impact of those risk factors identified by statute and regulations. The system calculates all risk factor points assigned and applies a multiplier based on the size (student population) of the institution. The system then assigns an overall weighted score to the institution. The higher the weighted score, the higher the priority for a compliance inspection.

The bureau's confidential Compliance Inspection Prioritization Spreadsheet listing all of the bureau's main institutions with corresponding weighted scores will be sent in flash drive format via certified mail to the Auditor.

Please note: BPPE's prior Bureau Chief Joanne Wenzel hand delivered the response items to the Auditor on February 8, 2017.

  • Completion Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

The bureau created a system (attachment 1) whereby point values are assigned to risk factors, based on the significance and impact of those risk factors. However, pending bureau regulations (attachment 2) will necessitate revisions to the prioritization system, based on the addition of the following risk factors added by regulation:

- Size of the institution

- Number and types of programs offered

- Time elapsed since last inspection

- History of the owner's approval to operate any and all institutions

- Enforcement history

Additionally, the bureau is presently working with DCA's Office of Information Services to create a system whereby these new risk factors may be best gathered, evaluated, and assigned weights based on significance of impact. A copy of the most recent Business Detail Design Specifications for this proposed system is included as attachment 3.

  • Estimated Completion Date: December 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

The Bureau has previously provided procedure 2013-007 for Compliance Inspections that includes the requirement for prioritization. The Bureau has also created a spreadsheet that includes space to provide weights from 1 (low) to 10 (high) for prioritization categories. Many of the prioritization categories are included in regulations that are being promulgated (see initial language discussed at the May 12, 2015 advisory committee meeting) and have been included in anticipation of the regulations being adopted and are blank, some of the categories are being used currently and are completed, some of the categories are being used currently but have not yet been populated because the process is manual and the Bureau has simply not gotten all the way through the process of research and populating the prioritization matrix. At this point the top priorities are those institutions which have yet to receive an announced compliance inspection. The Bureau is including a copy of the spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is confidential.

This recommendation remains partially implemented. The Bureau is focused on implementing this recommendation and expects to fully implement by December 2016.

  • Estimated Completion Date: December 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


1-Year Agency Response

The Bureau is including procedures #2013-0070 for Compliance Inspections as Attachment #12. The procedures outline the requirements for prioritization of compliance inspections. The prioritization criteria are also included in the Compliance Inspection Tracking Log as Attachment #11.

  • Completion Date: March 2015
  • Response Date: March 2015

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

The Bureau has provided us a log of its compliance inspections and its procedures for prioritizing compliance inspections. However, the bureau has not provided evidence that it has implemented this prioritization criteria for all of the institutions it regulates.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

60-Day Agency Response

This is included in the updated procedures. This was the responsibility of the Bureau Chief.

  • Completion Date: May 2014
  • Response Date: May 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

The draft procedures do not state clearly its method of prioritizing institutions that have a higher risk of noncompliance.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

All Recommendations in 2013-045

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader