USBE finance committee approves rule to standardize reporting on at‑risk add‑on funding

The Utah State Board of Education (USBE) Finance Committee on April 29 approved, on first reading, a rule to standardize how school districts and charter schools report expenditure and outcome data tied to the state’s at‑risk add‑on funding.

The rule, staff said, responds to requirements in state code and to findings in the fiscal year 2023 minimum school program audit that the board lacked a consistent mechanism to collect intervention‑effectiveness data from LEAs. “This rule … stems from a little piece of code that requires the board to monitor the use of the at risk add on funding,” Director Ben Rasmussen said.

The committee’s action forwards R277632, “At Risk Add‑on Funding Report (Draft 1),” to the full board for second and final reading. Committee members voted unanimously.

Why it matters: lawmakers and auditors want comparable data showing whether at‑risk funds lead to measurable improvements. Staff told the committee the rule is intended to make LEA submissions usable for legislative review while preserving LEAs’ statutory flexibility to define who qualifies as “at‑risk.”

What the rule requires and how staff will collect it Staff said the draft specifies the deadline, the financial fields to be reported through the Utah grants system (UGS/Utah Grants) and a limited set of outcome and program‑definition fields to be collected from LEAs. Tanya Albornoz, the agency prevention coordinator, told the committee the reports will be due Oct. 1 each year for the prior fiscal year. “We have made the reports due on October 1, and that’s in alignment with all other intervention reporting requirements,” Albornoz said.

Staff proposed collecting the additional, nonfinancial data via a standardized instrument (Qualtrics was discussed) so the board and Legislature can compare intervention types, numbers of students served and basic measures of effectiveness. Todd Hopper, a business administrator who spoke for LEAs during the meeting, said many districts already track how they use at‑risk monies and the outcomes, but he flagged the potential for duplicative work if LEAs must produce a separate report beyond what they already provide to local governing boards: “Are we prescribed to … share with you what we’re already sharing with our own boards? And that’s where the time and effort will come in,” Hopper said.

Scope, timeline and flexibility Committee members pressed staff on whether formal rulemaking was necessary. Chair Cindy Davis said she wanted assurance the board was not making rules merely for the sake of new procedures. Rasmussen and staff said the FY23 MSP audit and existing statutory monitoring obligations created a need for a standard reporting vehicle that will produce usable data for legislators and auditors.

Staff repeatedly emphasized that LEAs retain the statutory flexibility to define their at‑risk populations and that the rule is intended to standardize reporting elements, not to impose a single local definition. The draft lists core data elements—LEA definition of at‑risk, number of students served, expenditure categories and a short description of intervention effectiveness—that staff said should be broad enough to accommodate varied LEA practices.

Next steps The committee approved Draft 1 on first reading and forwarded it to the full board for second and final reading. Staff will prepare the Qualtrics or other survey instrument and return with final rule language and the proposed data collection form. The committee recorded the action as approval to advance R277632; staff noted practical questions that will guide the final rule language, including minimizing duplicate reporting and aligning the new annual report with existing LEA financial reporting timetables.

Lede source quotes are from: Ben Rasmussen, Director of Law and Professional Practices; Tanya Albornoz, Coordinator for Prevention; Todd Hopper, Business Administrator (LEA representative); Cindy Davis, Finance Committee chair.