← Back to home

ESPARTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTLocal Government

EIN: 582083344

UEI: PTYEMAZLVK56

Audited by: James Marta & Company

Oversight agency: 84 [Department of Education]

View federal awards & risk assessment →

Data as of August 28, 2026

ESPARTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT10 audit years1 findings
10
Audit Years
1
Total Findings
0
Repeat Findings
$1.5M
Federal Awards Expended (FY 2025)

FY 2025-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$1,470,205 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization

The FAC accepted this audit on December 15, 2025. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by June 15, 2026 (76 days ago).

What is a management decision? →

FY 2024-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$1,619,286 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on November 18, 2024 — management decision was due May 18, 2025.

FY 2023-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$1,543,026 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on December 8, 2023 — management decision was due June 8, 2024.

FY 2022-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$2,671,116 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on December 1, 2022 — management decision was due June 1, 2023.

FY 2021-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$2,388,500 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on February 21, 2022 — management decision was due August 21, 2022.

FY 2020-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$1,002,282 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on January 12, 2021 — management decision was due July 12, 2021.

FY 2019-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$951,563 federal awards expended

FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.

2019-001
Special Tests & Provisions
OTHER MATTERS

The District selected the alternative sample size while performing the verification test, however they were ineligible to do so as the non-response rate for the preceding school year?s verification was more than 20%. Context: The verification collection from prior year noted a 50% response rate. As such, the District should have selected samples from the ?error-prone applications? as opposed to all applications as allowed under the alternative sample size. Cause: The District was not aware they were ineligible to use the alternative sample size. Effect: The District did not perform verifications over the error prone applications. Recommendation: We recommend the District review the requirements for the verification testing and ensure they are using the correct sampling method. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: The District will ensure that the correct verification sample for the National School Lunch Program is used in the future. We will continue to use the alternative sample size from eTrition as long as our non-response rate from the preceding school year's verification was less than 20%. If our prior-year non-response rate is greater than 20% we will sample 3% of our total applications selecting from error-prone applications.

Show full finding ▾
Full finding narrative

Federal Program: National School Lunch Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture CFDA Number: 10.555 State Agency: California Department of Education Pass-through number: 13391 Criteria: The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Children Nutrition Act of 1966 required that by November 15th of each school year, the LEA must verify the current free and reduced price eligibility of households selected from a sample of applications that it has approved for free and reduced meals, unless the LEA is otherwise exempt from the verification requirement. The standard sample size is the lesser of 3 percent or 3000 of the approved applications on file as of October 1, selected from error-prone applications. Alternative sample sizes are available only if the LEA?s non-response rate for the preceding school year?s verification was less than 20%. Condition: The District selected the alternative sample size while performing the verification test, however they were ineligible to do so as the non-response rate for the preceding school year?s verification was more than 20%. Context: The verification collection from prior year noted a 50% response rate. As such, the District should have selected samples from the ?error-prone applications? as opposed to all applications as allowed under the alternative sample size. Cause: The District was not aware they were ineligible to use the alternative sample size. Effect: The District did not perform verifications over the error prone applications. Recommendation: We recommend the District review the requirements for the verification testing and ensure they are using the correct sampling method. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: The District will ensure that the correct verification sample for the National School Lunch Program is used in the future. We will continue to use the alternative sample size from eTrition as long as our non-response rate from the preceding school year's verification was less than 20%. If our prior-year non-response rate is greater than 20% we will sample 3% of our total applications selecting from error-prone applications.

Corrective Action Plan

Rebecca Spiva, Chief Business Official Corrective Action: The District will ensure that the correct verification sample for the National School Lunch Program is used in the future. We will continue to use the alternative sample size from eTrition as long as our nonresponse rate from the preceding school year's verification was less than 20%. If our prior-year non-response rate is greater than 20% we will sample 3% of our total applications selecting from error-prone applications. We just completed the verification for the 2019-20 school year using the eTrition alternate method. Our 2018-19 verification response rate was 100% and it is also 100% for 2019-20. Proposed Completion Date: 11/19/2019

About Special Tests and Provisions →

FY 2018-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$811,106 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on December 19, 2018 — management decision was due June 19, 2019.

FY 2017-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$814,752 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on December 11, 2017 — management decision was due June 11, 2018.

FY 2016-06-30

LOW-RISK AUDITEE$817,441 federal awards expendedNo findings recorded this year

FAC accepted this audit on December 20, 2016 — management decision was due June 20, 2017.

Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.

Browse other Single Audit organizations in California

Are you this organization?

Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.

Start tracking findings →

Do you fund this organization?

Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.

Start monitoring →

Product

Resources

Legal

Single Audit Intelligence is an independent tool powered by Federal Audit Clearinghouse data. Not affiliated with GSA, OMB, or any federal agency.

© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.