At a meeting of the Portland Public Schools (PPS) audit committee, members received a status update on implementation of the 2020 contracts audit recommendations for student‑facing personal service contracts.

Janice Danson, the district's internal auditor, told the committee the 2020 audit covered personal service contracts across the district (about 400 in total) and narrowed to 51 contracts that directly serve students; 23 of those are managed by Dr. Bernard Adams' team. Danson said the audit office has limited follow‑up capacity (it is a two‑person office) and therefore prioritized contracts representing the largest portion of district spending.

Dr. Bernard Adams said he has overseen the portfolio of student‑facing contracts for roughly two years and that the portion he manages is "a little over $7,000,000" and, based on the data he was shown in the meeting, represents roughly 75% of the district's student‑facing contract spending. He emphasized the audit scope was narrower than some media coverage suggested: "we have had media outlets assume that this contract this contract conversation is about all PPS contracts, and it is not."

Committee members pressed staff on how the district evaluates partner performance. Adams described a multi‑part approach: unannounced site visits, communications with building principals, and partner narrative reports. He said three partners that were reviewed in the prior year are not under contract this year—one closed its business and two were not renewed because they failed to begin providing services—and that no payments were made to those providers.

A recurring issue discussed was timing of outcome data. Several committee members noted that measures tied to state or end‑of‑year assessments arrive after contract renewal decisions, limiting the district's ability to use those metrics in a timely way. Adams explained part of the problem is a loss of internal evaluation capacity after the district reduced or eliminated a research and evaluation team: "we have greatly reduced capacity. One of the departments that we basically eliminated through last budget cycle was the department of research and evaluation." He said staff will work to align partner outcomes with evaluative capacity and consider leading indicators (for example, attendance or measures of sense of belonging) that the district can collect on a more timely basis.

On documentation and templates, Adams said purchasing/contracting cover memos were based on an existing office template but modified to meet program needs; staff believe that change satisfies the intent of a recommendation even if not identical to the exact template OIPA described. He also said performance‑review documents will be uploaded into the district contract system (Cobblestone) and that the uploads will be completed by the 15th of the month.

Committee members asked for clearer, auditable evidence that contract management responsibilities are assigned and evaluated. Adams said contract‑management duties were added to the job description of the staff member who serves as contract manager and that those duties are discussed in one‑on‑one supervisory meetings; he noted annual evaluations for central office staff do not use a separate, uniformly structured competency checklist but said managers can and do adapt the evaluation form to include job‑specific responsibilities.

Members also asked whether site‑visit evidence exists; Adams confirmed the district keeps records of visits and observations and said the visits sometimes involve multiple central‑office staff and building principals. He described three annual partner meetings (quarterly cadence described as first, second and third quarter meetings) as additional opportunities to collect information and share best practices.

The committee and staff discussed concrete next steps that would help close outstanding audit recommendations: add a prompt in the performance‑review template or partner narrative to document changes made to services based on review findings; provide a calendar of expected data submissions to partners so they know timing and what data the district can use; and ensure performance goals include measurable percentages or counts when appropriate. Adams said the team will "make sure that, for next cycle, goals written as a theory of action will contain data that we can provide or we can access, and we'll have the percentages in all of them to make sure that this is met."

Committee members suggested additional feedback channels, including continuing the principal rating idea Adams described (an internal school leader review of partner performance) and exploring student feedback as another evidence source. Adams said the team will continue to iterate on the partner narrative form to capture barriers and successes so patterns can be identified across partners.

No formal motions or votes occurred. The committee set follow‑up expectations (documentation uploads to Cobblestone by the 15th, further conversations about evaluation form language, and a scheduled check‑in in January or February on bond‑audit implementation items) and confirmed the next audit committee meeting for Dec. 4 at 5 p.m.

Why it matters: the contracts discussed fund culturally specific, community‑based providers who deliver wraparound and mentorship services for students. Committee members emphasized the district's fiscal stewardship while also acknowledging community concerns about perceived disparate scrutiny of Black‑ and Brown‑led organizations. The discussion focused on creating measurement and documentation practices that are both rigorous and practicable given current district data access and staff capacity.

What's next: staff committed to providing clearer documentation and timelines to support audits and the board; committee members asked staff to return with evidence that required actions are documented and in place so outstanding OIPA recommendations can be closed.