Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's Compliance with the Commonwealth's Anti-Hazing Law

NOVEMBER 1, 2009 · Department of Elementary and Secondary Education · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published NOVEMBER 1, 2009 Audit covers July 1, 2004 – November 1, 2009 Under A. Joseph DeNucci · 1987–2011

In plain English
The audit found that DESE was not properly tracking whether secondary schools followed the state anti-hazing reporting rules, leaving the state with little confidence that schools were doing what the law required.
source
“Our audit disclosed that DESE did not have adequate internal controls in place and had not conducted any meaningful oversight of its anti-hazing law responsibilities.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a State Auditor review of whether Massachusetts secondary schools and DESE followed the state’s anti-hazing reporting requirements.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor conducted an audit of DESE to determine whether all Commonwealth secondary schools, both public and private, had complied with the anti-hazing reporting requirements of Chapter 269, Section 19, of the General Laws and 603 CMR 33.00.”
Why was it audited?

Auditors wanted to know whether schools filed required yearly anti-hazing reports by October 1 and whether DESE reported schools that failed to file by November 1.

“Specifically, we sought to determine whether all secondary schools filed annual compliance reports with DESE by October 1 of each year and whether DESE notified the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) by November 1 of each year concerning any secondary schools that had not filed the required annual compliance report.”
Why it matters

Anti-hazing rules are meant to help protect students, and weak oversight means the state could not be sure schools were meeting those safety obligations.

“Because of DESE’s inadequate oversight of the anti-hazing program, there is inadequate assurance that all the Commonwealth secondary schools are meeting anti-hazing requirements and that students’ right to a safe environment is upheld.”
The bottom line

The audit found major gaps: DESE had only a small number of reports on file and did not report thousands of missing reports to the Attorney General.

“Accordingly, during this time period more than 4,300 reports should have been reported as delinquent to the OAG.”
What happens next

DESE told auditors it had begun building systems to track reports, communicate with schools, maintain school lists, and monitor compliance.

“The DESE has worked with the OAG’s Civil Rights Division to create communication protocols for compliance with notifying the OAG by November 1 of each year of a secondary school not filing a report as required by the law; developed and is maintaining an up-to-date list of all public and private secondary schools as defined by the anti-hazing law, including contact information for school leaders to facilitate communication about the anti-hazing law; developed a system for tracking and maintaining compliance reports; communicated with school leaders about the requirements of the anti-hazing law; and, has developed a compliance monitoring system to ensure schools’ compliance with the anti-hazing law requirements.”
Jargon, unpacked

An anti-hazing compliance report is a yearly school filing saying the school shared the anti-hazing law and has a discipline policy for hazing organizers and participants.

“Each institution of secondary education . . . shall file, at least annually, a report with . . . the board of education, certifying that such institution has complied with its responsibility to inform student groups and each full time student enrolled by it of the provisions of this section and sections seventeen and eighteen and also certifying that said institution has adopted a disciplinary policy with regard to the organizers and participants of hazing, and that such policy has been set forth with appropriate emphasis in the student handbook or similar means of communicating the institution’s policies to its students.”

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

DESE did not adequately oversee secondary schools' anti-hazing reporting and compliance requirements.
public safetyinternal controlsrecordkeeping/documentationreporting timeliness

Why it matters: There was inadequate assurance that all secondary schools met anti-hazing requirements and that students' right to a safe environment was protected.

Standard: Chapter 269, Sections 17 through 19, of the General Laws and 603 CMR 33.00 ( Chapter 269, Section 19, of the General Laws; Chapter 71, Section 37H, of the General Laws )

5 recommendations
  • Establish written policies and procedures and management oversight controls to ensure secondary schools comply with anti-hazing reporting and filing requirements and that OAG is informed annually of noncompliant schools.agency: already implemented
  • Ensure proper communication channels exist so PQA roles and responsibilities are defined, understood, and monitored.agency: already implemented
  • Create and maintain a central repository database of all Commonwealth secondary schools authorized by district school committees.agency: already implemented
  • Collaborate with secondary schools to use technology to improve communication and anti-hazing compliance.agency: already implemented
  • Conduct periodic spot checks of secondary schools' anti-hazing certifications.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The Department does not dispute the general findings of noncompliance described in the Report…"
DESE's internal control plan was incomplete and annual risk assessments were not documented.
internal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: Without risk analysis, DESE lacked adequate assurance that major risks to mission, goals, and objectives would be identified and mitigated.

Standard: Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 and the Office of the State Comptroller's Internal Control Guide ( Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989; Office of the State Comptroller Internal Control Guide )

3 recommendations
  • Update the internal control plan to include all ERM components described in the OSC Internal Control Guide.
  • Base the internal control plan on a department-wide risk assessment and retain evidence of risk analysis.
  • Ensure the Audit and Compliance Unit plays an active role in ERM implementation and Chapter 647 internal control requirements.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "However, the Department will seriously consider the State Auditor’s recommendation to update our Internal Control Plan to include all Enterprise Risk Management components as described in the OSC Internal Control Guide."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Department of Elementary and Secondary Education .

See this entity's page with all 5 audits →