The audit showed that the amounts of the general subsidy for education obtained by the local government units for the functioning of non-public schools in their area represented a sufficient source of income related to grants for those schools. Only a part of funds from the education subsidy received by districts for the functioning of non-public schools was actually allocated to the grants. In all the audited districts some irregularities were identified in terms of providing grants to the schools. First of all, the districts did not observe the principles of determining the levels of grants for non-public schools. The resolutions of district councils incorrectly defined the mode of providing and settling grants. In particular, they did not specify the grant calculation basis in case of the absence of schools of the same type as the non-public school applying for a grant in the given district area. In line with the effective legal provisions, to establish the grant level one should adopt the current expenses incurred by the given district in public schools of the same type. If there are no such schools, the expenses incurred by the nearest district for operating the public school of the given type should be considered. The lack of statutory definition of „the nearest district” enabled free interpretation of that term among the districts which resulted in discretionary approach and inconsistency in that matter. The selection of the nearest district from which the comparative data came from had a direct impact on the level of the grant calculation basis and thus on its final amount. For instance, the management of Gniezno District, when determining the grant level for an upper secondary school for adults, adopted the expenses incurred in Pleszew District (not neighbouring the Gniezno District) as the grant calculation basis - PLN 133.07. The adopted grant calculation basis was the lowest among the data gathered in that regard in other districts.
The audit also showed that decisions concerning the method of calculating grants were taken by the district managements although it was a statutory competence of the district councils.
NIK also negatively evaluated the supervision of local governments over non-public schools. The auditors stated that the districts insufficiently used their right to control accuracy of using grants by the schools. In several cases some of the local government units went beyond the scope of their rights while performing the controls. Despite identified irregularities NIK positively evaluates the activity of non-public schools in terms of running databases of the educational information system, notifying the districts of the current number of students, settling the grants. The irregularities in schools were mainly related to the fact that a smaller number of students was indicated in the monthly reports for the local government unit than was shown in the teaching documentation.
In the light of the identified irregularities, NIK proposed to change the method of calculating the grants for non-public schools in which the compulsory education or compulsory schooling requirement is not fulfilled.
