(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Study of Kansas school auditing practices 1963-64"

A STUDY OF KANSAS SCHOOL 
AUDITING PRACTICES 1965-64 



DONALD ERVXM 
U.S., Kansas State University, 1959 



A MASTER'S REPORT 

subnltted In partial fulfillment of the 

requirements for the degree 

MASTER OF SCIENCE 

College of Education 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 
Manhattan, Kansas 

1965 

by: 



Major Professor 



cop. 2 



The writer wishes to express his appreciation to 
Dr. 0. Kenneth 0' Fall on, major advisor in this study, for his helpful 
advice and constructive criticise}. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ill 



INTRODUCTION 1 

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 2 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2 

DEFINITION OF TERMS • 5 

METHOD AND FIO BB WUS 5 

THE STDDT * 

Master of Districts Reporting Audits 7 

Responsibility for Performing the Audit t 

Audit Required as Pert of Written Board Policy 10 

Audit Requested by Administrators on Application for Position.. 11 

Auditor's Reports 12 

Budgetary Practices 13 

Beneficial Results of the Post audit 14 

SUMMARY 14 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 17 

APPENDIX Ml 

ABSTRACT 24 



iv 

LIST OF TABLES 

HMJ PACE 

I. Number of Schools Reporting mm 6 

II. Districts That Audited 1963-64 7 

III. Districts Reporting Concurrent Activity Fund Audits 8 

TV. Responsibility for Performing the Audit... 9 

V. Policy on Frequency of Audit 10 

VI. Audit Requested by Administrators 11 

VII. Publicity Given Audit Report 13 

VIII. Changes in Budgetary Practices 14 



INTRODUCTION 



Public expenditures of fund* have mounted to en ell time High 
during the pest deeede. Governmental activities dowsed e greater pro- 
portion of the dollar than ever before. Although peblic education costs 
have also mounted to an all tine high, the increase has not been so great 
when the value of the dollar and increased enrollment end services are 
considered. Nevertheless , the cost of public education Is high enough 
to attract the attention of the taxpayers. 

Since support of public education is primarily through local end 
state taxes, the local school administrator must do everything possible 
to show the taxpayer that the funds intended for school use ere receiving 
ell the safeguards end protection possible. One of the ways to insure 
the safety and protection of public funds is by using a feed audit pro- 
cedure. 

Auditing is the verification of the records kept In the accounting 
system of the school. Although the value of the eudlt has long been 
recognised, there does not seem to be any uniformity of practice among 
school districts within most states or among states.* 

Mandatory eudlt legislation, in some form Is used in forty-six 
states. Ae of 1963, Nebraska and Wyoming made no mention of the general 

l Paul R. Mart, Walter, C. Reusser, and John W. Pol ley, Public 
School Pinanca. p. 484. 

ZHendrick C. de Bruin, "A Closer Look at School District Audits, 
American School and Qalveralty., 36:47, October , 19*3, 



school district audit in applicable statutory provisions. Kansas has 
statutory provisions that nay be classified as permissive rather than 
mandatory in districts other than those in flrat and second class cities. 

In a recent year, $154,851,771 wave expended by Kansas public 
schools. 2 It was decided that s study to determine the extent the audit 
was being used in Kansas schools to protect this sen would be of value. 

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 

The purposes of this study war*: (1) to discover the extent 
audits were being used in the schools of Kansas at the end of the 1965-64 
school year, (2) to determine the frequency of the audit aa determined 
by written school policy, (3) to discover who makes the audits, and 
(4) to determine the utilization of the audit report by the school 
district. 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

School districts spent mora money in 1964-65 to educate a single 
child than aver before. The median school district In the United States 
raised its expenditures by more than 21 dollars during the last year. 3 



lJ. E. K s odham (comp.), Kansas Schoo l Lams? 1957, Section 263 
(C.S. 75-1122) p. 101 and Section 258* (G.S. 75-1117) p. 99, 1958. 

2 State Department of Public Instruction, State of Kansas Statis- 
tical Annual Rej^rts for 1.959-60, County. Superintendents Reports, p. 4., 
I960. 

**The National Cost of Education Index 1964-65, Schoo l Mensssms nt . 
9:106, January, 1965. 



In 1955 the Whit* lull Conference on Education estimated that dollars 
spent en education would double in the following deeade.* 

Moat people concerned with finance in the public schools agree 
that a good audit system la essential in providing protection for public 
funds, for giving the general public a statement of the financial con- 
ditions of the districts, and to protect the people who handle the funds 
of the districts. 

The postaudit is a verification of accounts, usually occurring at 

the end of the fiscal period. It may be carried on by state agencies or 

by Independent auditing agencies. The postaudit can be made annually, 

biennially, or at other periodic times as may be required by lav, or in 

the absence of legal requirement, by policy of the board of education. 

In some states the board of education may select auditing agencies to 

make the examination of their accounts. Many small school districts 

still follow the practice of selecting a committee of citizens at the 

annual meeting to audit the accounts. Such examinations do not meet any 

of the requirements of a technical audit. 2 Knesevich and Fowlkes state- 

For every fund classification in the school district to be 
ex— Inert in the postaudit there most be a study of its r se s a me s 
or receipts, expenditures, assets, and liabilities. A very 
general Hat of activities performed in a postaudit would Include: 

1. Verification of opening balances. 

1 Commit tee for the White Bouse Conference, A Report to the 
Presl,dent, Government Printing Office, pp. 6-7. April, 1956. 

2paul R. Mort, Welter C. Reuaser, and John W. Policy, Public Scho ol 
Finance, p. 467. 



2. Verification, analysis, and exandnatlon of sources of income 
and their proper posting. 

3. Verification of disbursements. 

4. Reconciliation of budget items with receipts and disbursements. 
3. Examination of legal authorisation for all expenditures. 

6. Examination and analysis of budgeting procedures employed. 

7. Verification of all accounts recorded. 

8. Reconciliation of all invoices paid with expenditures 
accounted for. 

9. Examination of board of education minutes, insurance policies, 
contracts, and deeds (titles) to real estate. 

10. Verification of assets and liabilities, bank balances, and 

so m* 

11. Analysis and examination of bonded Indebtedness. 

12. Examination of capital assets, inventories, surplus accounts , 
vouchers payable, and so on. 

13. Reporting of errors of method and method of recording 
uncovered in the course of the audi ting. 

14. A report on the accounting system employed, with recommen- 
dations far desirable and necessary changes If any. 

School administrators must be extremely careful that the auditor 
does mat enter into the realm of policy making for the school. It la 
not the auditor's business to look Into curriculum matters, educational 
policy, and attendance records of the school. The audi tor may be a spe- 
cialist in his own field but the administrator Is the specialist in the 
educational field. 

A report of the audit Is s must. Norman recommends that, "the 
independent auditor's report be filed with school officials within 30 
days after completion of work." 2 It Is the purpose of the audit report 
to convey to the public information that will enable than to judge the 



1 Stephen J. Knesevich and John Guy Powlkes, Business Msnsimwint 
of Local School Systems, pp. 147 148. 

2 Loyal V. Norman, "Scope, Conduct, and Report of the School Audit;" 
fertcan School Board Journal. 127:45, October, 1953. 



work of the school officials for the previous year and to know what to 
expect in the following year. It is the administrator's duty to see that 
the report is Bade public by every possible means at his disposal. 

DEFINITION Of TEBMS 

Aa a guide to the reader and for further clarification the fol- 
lowing definition of ''postaudlt" was used in this report. 

The term "postaudlt" was used to denote an audit that is performed 
after the fiscal transactions have been completed during an accounting 
period or fiscal year. The "postaudlt" should be performed by an 
individual or firm from without the system. 

METHOD OF PlOCEbUKE 

The initial step In making this report was to make a study of the 
literature available on school audits. After the review of literature, 
it was decided that a short answer questionnaire would be administered 
to superintendents of selected school districts in Kansas. The questions 
were related to the 1963-64 school year. 

Administrators of five types of school districts were questioned. 
The districts were second class city districts, rural high school dis- 
tricts, eommon school districts (1-8) , common school districts(l-12) , end 
county ceemmmity high school districts. 

Questionnaires were sent to 195 administrators in the five types 
of districts named. These administrators were selected em a stratified 
random sampling heels and represented approximately 22 per cent of the 



total number of districts of the five types studied. 

Questionnaires were sent to the administrators of 24 per cent of 
the seemed class city districts, 19 per cent of the rural high school 
districts, 19 per tent of the common school districts (1-8) , 23 per cent 
of the cocoon school districts (1-12), and to ell the administrators of 
county caea—itty high school districts. 

THE STUDT 

The results reported In this study ware based on data collected 
free questionnaires returned by administrators of school districts which 
made up the study sample . Table I shows that the 77 per cent return from 
the total sample came from 151 school districts. The table alee shows 
the per cent of return by type of district included in the cample* 

TABLE X 
VOMER OF SCHOOLS REPORTING 



Type of IhjssVM ■setMl Per cent* 

districts sent returned returned 

Second dees city 20 19 95 

Rural high school 53 34 62 

Common school (1-8) 70 57 81 

Common school (1-12) 32 24 75 

County community high 20 17 85 

Totals 195 151 77 



•Per cents were rounded to the nearest whole number 



Nwnbgr of districts reporting, audits 

The results of the study Indicated that 128 of the 149 adminis- 
trators reporting had had a postaudlt performed in their district at the 
end of the 1963-64 school year. Table II shows that ninety- five per cent 
of the second class city district administrators reported use of the audit. 
This high vaa followed by county community high school districts with 94 
per cent, to—an school districts (1-12) with 88 per east, and by common 
school districts (1-8) with 87 per cent. The lowest per cent of audit use 
was reported by administrators la the rural high school districts. 
Seventy-four per cent audit use was reported* 

TABLE II 
DISTRICTS THAT AUDITED 1963-64 



Type of 
district 




audited 


Per cent* 
audited 


Second claaa city 


19 


18 


95 


Rural high school 


34 


25 


74 


Common school (1-8) 


55 


48 


87 


Common school (1-12) 


24 


21 


M 


County community high 


17 


16 


94 


Totala 


149 


131 


Average 86 



*Per cents were rounded to the nearest whole number 
Table III ahows that an activity fund audit was made concurrently with 
the general postaudlt In 95 per cent of the second elass city districts 
and by 94 per cent of the county community high school districts. 



Administrators of common school districts (1-12) reported 80 per cent of 
their districts had concurrent postaudlta of activity funds aad rural 
high school administrators reported 53 per cent. Common school district 
(1-8) administrators reported that only IS per cent of their districts 
had had a concurrent post audit of activity funds. 



TABLE III 

DISTRICTS REPORTING CONCURRENT 
ACTIVITY FUND AUDITS 



Type of 
district 


Number of 


yea 


no 


Per cent* 
yes 


Second class city 


W 


18 


1 


95 


Rural high school 


34 


18 


16 


53 


Cocoon school (1-8) 


26 


4 


22 


15 


Common school (1-12) 


24 


W 


5 


M 


County community high 


17 


16 


1 


94 



•Per cents were rounded to the nearest whole number 
Responsjlblllty for performing the audit. 



The responsibility for performing the audit was given to certified 
public accountants in 51 of the 127 cases which reported as shown in 
Table IT. This was 40 per cent of all the eases reported In the study. 
Citlsen committees performed 22 per cent of the audits, local banks 13 
per cent, and licensed municipal accountants performed 11 per cent of 
tka audits. Included among others who performed audits ware a preacher, 
local business men, school employees. 



9 

It was further indicated by information collected for this study 
that certified public accountants performed the largest per cent of audits 
in the second class city districts, com mo n school dlstricts(l-12) , and 
the county un— iiITji high school districts. "Rural high school districts 
sad coram school dlstricts(l-8) generally contracted audit service fro* 
sources other than certified public accountants and lic ens e d Municipal 

TABLE IV 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR PHRfORKDIC THE AUDIT 



Type of 
district 


Number of 
responses 


a 


b 


c 


4 


e f 


Second class city 


18 


16 


I 








Rural high school 


24 


4 


3 


7 


5 


4 1 


Common school (1-8) 


m 


10 


5 


16 


10 


6 1 


Cqsiin school (1-12) 


21 


10 


4 


5 






Community high 


16 


11 


1 




2 





a - Heater of audits performed by certified public accountants, 
b - Number of audits made by licensed municipal accountants, 
c - Number of audits made by citizen connlttees. 
d - Musing of audits and* by local banks, 
e - Number of audita made by others, 

f - lource of audit not given. 

Among the eighteen administrators who indicated reasons for sat 
having an annual audit, ten administrators stated that it was not tradi- 
tional to audit. Of the remaining districts that had not audited, seven 
administrators indicated they did not audit every year and ana admin- 
istrator indicated that funds vers not available for an audit. Me 



10 

administrator Indicated that the hoard of education would not give 
approval for an audit. 

Audit required as. part, of written hoard poller 

Aa pointed out in Table V, page 10 of the study, 77 of the 149 
respondents indicated that a written hoard policy wee need aa a guide 
regarding the frequency of the audit. Of this number, 57 had policies 
which stated that an audit would be made oa a yearly basis. A two-year 
frequency waa Indicated by one response and two district administrators 
indicated that their policies were determined by state law. 

POLICY OK FH QU B IC T OF AUDIT 



Type of 
district 




a 


1 


c 


I 


e 




Second class city 


19 


12 




1 








Sural high school 


M 


U 




1 




2 


21 


Coisaou school (1-8) 


55 


19 








5 


31 


Common school (1-12) 


24 


11 








4 




County community high 


17 


5 


I 




1 


5 




fist all 


Ml 


57 


1 


1 


1 


16 


72 



a - Indicates frequency prescribed is yearly. 

b - Indicates frequency prescribed in once each two years. 

e - Frequency aa prescribed by law, 

d - Indicates frequency is dependent on board action. 

e - Ho frequency Indicated. 

f - Indicates districts that hams no board policy. 



11 

Audit requested by admlnls era tor s on aopUca^on for position 

11m study results indicated that of the 129 respondents , 47 had 
requested an audit of the districts funds on application for the position 
they occupied during the 1963-64 school year. It was further indicated 
la Table 71 that 37 respondents did not request an audit. The reason 
stated by 45 of the 82 administrators who had not requested an audit was 
that an audit had been made by the district prior to their acceptance of 
the position. It was significant to the author that 46 of the 47 admin- 
istrators that had requested am audit did get the request granted. 



TABLE VI 

AUDIT REQUESTED IT ADMINISTRATORS 



Type of 




Audit 


Not 


No 


Previous 


district 


Responses 


requested 


granted 


request 


audit 


Second class city 


9 


6 




3 




Rural high school 


30 


9 




12 


9 


Common school (1-8) 


49 


12 




13 


22 


Common school (1-12) 


24 


9 


1* 


S 


10 


County community high 


17 


11 




2 


4 



♦This number waa not included in the total for this row 



Table VI shows that of the 129 administrators who responded, 47 or 
36 per cent requested an audit prior to acceptance of the new position. 
Am audit was not requested by 37 or 29 per cent of the respondents and 
45 or 35 per cent had accepted a previous audit. 



12 

AgdUor'j report. 

The study results indicated that of the 106 respondents to the 
question concerning transmission of the audit report to their respective 
school boards, 105 administrators had done so. One administrator In a 
common school distrlct(l-8) indicated that the report was not transmitted. 

Publicity, other than that gives to the board, vaa given to the 
auditor's report by SA of the 117 administrators responding to the 
applicable question. Of this number, 40 respondents indicated the type 
of publicity given. 

As shown in Table VII, 44 per cent of the second clasa city 
district administrators gave additional publicity to the audit report. 
Forty-five per cent of the administrators of the rural high school dis- 
tricts gave additional publicity to the audit report aa did S3 per cent 
of those la common school districts ( 1-8) . Fifty-five per cent of the 
common school dlatrlct(l-12) administrators gave additiosal publicity 
to the audit report aa did 13 per cent of the county community high 
school district administrators. Forty-seven per cent of all districts 
studied gave additional publicity to the auditor' a report. 

The type and amount of publicity given to the report was varied. 
The moat com m on practice was indicated by administrators of common 
school districts (1-8), it— as school districts (1-12) , and rural high 
school districts and was indicated to be the publicity given the report 
during the annual meeting. 



13 

Adainlstrators indicated that the means of obtaining publicity 
for the auditor's report other than through the annual district meeting 
vera through local newspaper articles, radio public service progress, and 
reports to the county clerk. 

TABLE VII 
PUBLICITY GIVES AUDIT REPORT 



Type of 




Publicity 




district 


Responses 


given 


Per cent* 


Second class city 


16 


7 


44 


Rural high school 


22 


10 


45 


Coonon school (1-8) 


u 


24 


55 


Concern school (1-12) 


20 


11 


13 


County community high 


15 


2 


13 


*Per cents vera rounded 


to the nearest whole number. 





Budgetary px«c*lcea 

Table VIII points out that in all five types of districts, less 
than one-half of the respondents indicated that the audit report helped 
in preparation of the budget. The study further indicated that in 53 
of the 94 districts responding to the appropriate question, budget 
preparations had not been helped by the audit report. This uusamr 
represented 56 per cent of the returns. 

Both types of eejsjsjM school district administrators indicated 
that 55 per cent of thea had received help by the auditor's report in 



14 

the preparation of the budget. Only thirteen per cent of the county 
community high school district respondents indicated that they had 
been helped by the audit report In budget preparations. 

TABLE VIII 
CHANGES IK BUDGETARY PRACTICES 



Type of 


Improveme 


at because of audit 


district 


yes 


no 


Second class city 





2 


Rural high school 


7 


11 


Common school(l-8) 


19 


22 


Common school(l-12) 


9 


10 


County commit ty high 


6 


8 



if Icial results of the post audit 

The study Indicated that the most beneficial outcome of the post- 
audit in all five types of districts studied was that the audit helped 
to assure the public of the honesty of the business practices being used. 
Many respondents Indicated that efficiency in business practices was also 
a direct result of hawing a postaudlt p e rfo r med. 



The purposes of this study were to determine to what extent post- 
audits were being used in Kansas schools at the end of the 1963-64 school 



15 

year and to identify, if possible, some of the results of the audit aa 
indicated by the administrators of districts selected for the study. 

It was found that 86 per cent of the districts studied had had a 
post audit of their accounts at the end of the 1963-64 school year. 

It was found that over one-half, or 51 per cent, of the audits 
performed were made by certified public accountants or by licensed 
municipal accountants. The remaining audits were performed by a variety 
of individuals and/or agencies. 

It was found that slightly more than one-half of all districts 
studied did have a written policy regarding the frequency of postaudlts. 
The most c o mmo n frequency indicated was once each year. 

It was found that 46 per cent of the 47 administrators who had 
requested an audit previous to acceptance of the position they held 
during the 1963-64 school year did have their request granted by the 
board. 

It was found that the auditor's report was transmitted to the 
school board by the administrator in 105 of the 106 districts sampled. 
Lass than one-half of the administrators indicated that other publicity 
was given to the report. 

Generally, results of the study showed that all five types of 
districts had a high rate of post audit performance on the general 
accounts of the district. The rate of postaudlts performed on activity 
fund accounts was not as high in rural high school districts, common 
school districts (1-8), and In common school districts (1-12) . The results 



16 

of the study showed that common school districts (1-8) rarely required 
postaudlts of their activity fund accounts. 

The awareness of the importance of the postaudit on the part of 
the administrators in all five types of districts was indicated by the 
large number of administrators who had requested postaudlts when applying 
for new positions in districts that had not previously audited their 
accounts. One common school district (1-12) did not grant the request of 
the administrator for an audit when applying for a new position in that 
district. 

The audit report was transmitted to the hoard of education by most 
respondents. One administrator in a common school district (1-8) Indicated 
that the report was not transmitted to the board* About one-half of the 
second class city districts, rural high school districts, aad common 
school districts (1-8), gave additional publicity to the auditor's report. 
The study indicated that common school dlstricts(l-12) and county com- 
munity high school districts rarely gave additional publicity to the 
report . 

Administrators responding indicated that in over one-half the dis- 
tricts budgetary practices had not been Improved as a result of the post- 
audit. The most beneficial result of the postaudit Indicated was that 
public awareness of the honesty in the business practices of the district 
had increased. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



A* BOOKS 



u 



De Young, Chris A. Budgeting In Public Schools . Chicago: John Swift and 
Company, 19S0. 

Knesevich, Stephen J. and John Guy Fowlfces. Busin ess Hsnaaomsnt of L ocal 
S choo l 8ycgcop. Mow York! Harper and Brothers, I960. 

Mort, Paul R. , Walter C. Reusser and John W, Pol ley. Public School 

Finance. Third edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Coop any, i960. 

B e e c h es ) , J. E. (coop.) . Kansas Sohoo .l Laws? 1957. Topeke: State 
Printing Plant, 1958. 



B. PERIODICALS 



de Bruin, Hendrick C. "A Closer Look at School District Audits," 
American School and University. 36:47-48, October, 1963. 

Erviti, Janes. "State Audits Could Weaken Local Control," School 
■jtecu tlve , 72:54-55, August, 1956. 

Bormen, Loyal V. "A Model State School Audit Statute," School Executive, 
73:80-82, March, 1954. 

Norman, Loyal V. "Conduct, and Report of the School Audit,'" American 
School Beard Journal, 127:44-45, October, 1953. 

Bosenstengel, William E. "The Annuel Financial Audit," American School 
Board Journal. 102:42-43, May, 1941. 

State Department of Public Instruction, State of taaeae Statistical 
Annual Renortj. for WSJ^W, County Superi ntendents Reports. Topeka: 
State Printing Office, 1960. 

The National Cost of Education Index 1964-65," School Management. 9:106, 
January, 1965. 

Ti dwell, Sen B. "Financial School Fund Accounting," American School 
Board Journal. 134:37-38, May, 1957. 

United Stetes Department of Health, Education, end Welfare. Public 

School Finance Programs. Washington: Gove turnout Printing Office, 1960. 



19 

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. CotMjlesl on 
for the WW^houee Conference, A Report to the Prertdme. We«hin R tou: 
C o Ter n aent Printing Office, pp. 6-7, April, 1956. 

Whit lock , J case v. 'Financial Accounting aad Reporting t Where to 
Improve, 1 School Life, 43 1 18-21, June, 1961. 



NPfMHU 



21 



May 17, 1965 



Dear Sir: 

The enclosed questionnaire Is part of a study, "Status Study of 
Auditing Practices in Kansas Schools, 1963-64", I am conducting for a 
Master's Report at Kansas State University. This study has bean devel- 
oped with the approval and cooperation of ay advisor, Dr. 0. Kenneth 
0' Pal Ion. 

By answering the enclosed questionnaire promptly, you will be 
doing me a valuable service and contributing, perhaps, information which 
will be beneficial to all concerned with auditing practices in Kansas 
schools . 

Please cooperate in this study by completing the attached 
questionnaire and returning it in the enclosed envelope by June 4, 1965. 
In return for your consideration the results of this study will be 
available to you in September, 1965 by sending s csrd to me. 

Although I have requested the identity of you, your position, and 
your school, no person will be identified In the results of this study. 

Sincerely yours, 



Donald K. Hedges 
Director of the Study 



:sf 



Enclosure: Questionnaire 



QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING AUDITING PRACTICES IS 
KANSAS SCHOOLS (1963-64) 



When you have completed the questionnaire, please return It 
In the enclosed envelope addressed to: Donald E. Radges 

208 Downing toad 
Scott City, Kansas 
67871 

Directions: The questions pertain to the 1963-64 school year. 
Please do not consider an audit by a public 
utilities accountant aa an audit for the purposes 
of answering the questions below. Please indi- 
cate with a cross (X) your answers to the ques- 
tions. 

1. Did your school have a post swdlt of all school accounts 
in 1963-64? 

_ Tes 



2. Was an audit of the Activity funds made at the sane time? 

Tea 



3. Please indicate below by whom the audit waa 
Licensed municipal accountant 



.Certified Public Accountant 
Other (Please Specify) 



4. If no audit wan made, please indicate reason. 

Funds not available 

Wot traditional to audit 



Could not get board approval 
Audits not made every year 
J&ther (Please Specify) 



S. Dees your Board of Education have a written policy aa to 
how often an audit shall be made? 



Tea (Pleaae Specify) 
Ko 



23 



6. Did you, as highest administrative official, request an 
audit of all accounts whan being considered for your 
position? 

Tea 



So 

An audit had baas made the previous year. 



7. If you answered question #6 yes, was this request granted? 
Yes 



8. Has the auditor's report transmitted to the school board? 
Tea 



9. Vaa any other publicity given the auditor's report? 
Yes (Please Specify) mmmm _ 



10. Do you feel thst your budgetary practices have improved 
because of the annual post audit? 

Yes (Please specify on reverse side) 



11. What do you feel is the most beneficial outcome of your 
annual post audit? 

Increased efficiency in business practices 

Improved budgetary practices 

Helped to assure public of honesty of business 

practices 

Helped administration install newer business 

practices 

O ther (Please Specify) 



SCHOOL 



A STUDY Of EAHSAS SCHOOL 
AOTITISC PRACTICES 1963-64 

DONALD ERFIH HKDCE8 
B.S., Kansas State University, 1959 



AH ABSTRACT OF A MASTER'S 1000 
submitted In partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the degree 

MASTER OF SCIENCE 

College of Education 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 
Manhattan, Kansas 

1965 



The purposes of this study were to determine to what extent post-* 
audits were being used in Kansas schools at the end of the 1963-44 school 
year and to identify, if possible, sou* of the results of the audit at 
indicated by the districts selected for the study. 

For the study, 195 schools were selected from a population of 899 
schools of five types of districts. The types of districts included in 
the study wave, second class city districts, rural high school districts, 
common school districted-?!), common school districts (1-12) , and county 
community high school districts. 

Replies were received from 151 or 77 per cent of the total number 

•eat. 

It was found that 86 per cent of the districts in the study had 
had a postaudlt of their accounts at the end of the 1963-64 school year. 

It was found that over one-half or 51 per cent of the audits per- 
formed warm made by certified public accountants or by licensed municipal 
accountants. The remaining audits were performed by a variety of indi- 
viduals and/or agencies. 

It was found that slightly more than one-half of all districts 
studied do have a written policy regarding the frequency of postaudlt. 
The most common frequency indicated was once a year. 

It was found that forty-six of the forty-saves administrators who 
had requested an audit prior to acceptance of the position they held 
during the 1963-64 school year did have their request granted by the 
board of education. 



It was found that the auditor's report was transmitted to the 
school Ward by the administrator In a large majority of the districts 
studied. less than one-half of the respondents Indicated that other 
publicity was given the report. 

More than one-half of the administrators responding indicated that 
their budgetary preparations bed not been Improved as a result of the 
postaudlt. 

Generally, results of the study show that all five types of dis- 
tricts studied had a high rate of postaudlt performance at the end of 
the 1963-64 school year. The extent of the postaudlt for activity fund 
accounts vas substantially lower In common school districts (1-8) than In 
the other four types of districts studied. Only 15 per cent of the 
common school districts (1-8) had audited this fund. 

Budgetary procedures in many districts had not Improved as a result 
of the postaudlt. The beneficial result of the postaudlt most often 
Indicated by administrators vas that auditing helped to essure the public 
of the honesty of business practices being used in the school.