Report 2020-102 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2020-102: Public Safety Realignment: Weak State and County Oversight Does Not Ensure That Funds Are Spent Effectively (Release Date: March 2021)

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure that inmates serving lengthy terms in county jails have adequate educational and exercise opportunities, the Legislature should amend state law to limit the time inmates can spend in county jails to terms of no more than three years. In the event that the total sentence exceeds three years, its should require that the person serve the sentence in state prison.

Description of Legislative Action

As of March 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of May 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #2 To: Los Angeles County

To comply with the State's jail capacity standards, Los Angeles should take steps to address overcrowding in its jails, while ensuring public safety.

60-Day Agency Response

Efforts to reduce LA County's jail population continue to be guided by LA County's "Care First, Jails Last" priorities. On May 18, 2021, the LA County Board of Supervisors (Board) issued a motion to publish the "Care First L.A.: Tracking Jail Decarceration" data dashboard developed by the Office of Diversion and Re-entry's Jail Population Review Council. On June 22, 2021, the Board approved the depopulation and closure of the Men's Central Jail, including establishing a Jail Closure Implementation Team that will be responsible for the closure, coordination of LA County departments, and stakeholder engagement.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

Although it will be an ongoing effort to comply with the State's jail capacity standards, Los Angeles has taken steps to address overcrowding in its jails, while ensuring public safety.

Recommendation #3 To: Fresno, County of

To comply with the State's jail capacity standards, Fresno should take steps to address overcrowding in its jails, while ensuring public safety.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

Fresno County's response has not changed from the May 2021 response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Although during its previous responses, Fresno indicated that it had documentation from the Board of State and Community Corrections, approving an increase in the rated capacity above the Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations requirements, we have yet to receive such documentation. Until Fresno provides us with documentation to support its assertion, we will not consider this recommendation fully implemented.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

Fresno County's response has not changed from the May 2021 response

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

In each of its previous responses, Fresno indicated that it had documentation from the Board of State and Community Corrections approving an increase in the rated capacity above the requirements of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. We have yet to receive such documentation. Until Fresno provides us with documentation to support its assertion, we will not consider this recommendation fully implemented.

1-Year Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 6-month response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Although during its 60-day and 6-month responses, Fresno indicated that it had documentation from the Board of State and Community Corrections, approving an increase in the rated capacity above the Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations requirements, we have yet to receive such documentation. Until Fresno provides us with documentation to support its assertion, we will not consider this recommendation fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 60-day response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Although during its 6-month response, Fresno stated that it would provide us documentation from the Board of State and Community Corrections, approving an increase in the rated capacity above the Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations requirements, we have yet to receive such documentation. We look forward to reviewing this documentation from Fresno during its 1-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

Fresno County has documentation from the California Board of Corrections, now Board of State and Community Corrections, approving an increase in the rated capacity above California Code of Regulations, Title 15 requirements. This approved alternate means of compliance included the population limits incorporated into the Cruz v. County of Fresno federal consent decree which is still in effect. Fresno County will be sending documentation to the Auditor of the State of California within the next 30 days.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to Fresno providing our office with the documentation it mentions in its 6-month response.

Recommendation #4 To: Alameda County

To ensure that county jails identify inmates with mental illnesses and provide them with adequate mental health care, Alameda should immediately begin conducting mental health screening of all inmates upon admission to the county's jails.

1-Year Agency Response

All inmates are screened upon entry to Santa Rita Jail (SRJ). Further mental health screening is conducted either immediately after booking (most) or shortly after being placed in a housing unit. The Santa Rita Jail healthcare provider (Wellpath) screens all inmates for immediate mental health and substance use concerns. Adult Forensic Behavioral Health (AFBH) does a more comprehensive screening for mental health and substance abuse and has established a goal of completing this screening process entirely at booking once clinical staff who will be principally assigned to booking have been onboarded. Currently, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) relies on AFBH to conduct evaluations of incarcerated individuals upon intake in order to assess mental health needs. Per ACSO policy, our Classification Unit interviews every person booked into our facility prior to being housed. During this initial Classification review, if an incarcerated person displays behavior which the trained Classification Deputy recognizes as part of a Behavioral Health need, they will refer the inmate to AFBH. When assessments are completed by AFBH they are documented on a form which is then provided to the Classification Unit. That document is stored in the inmate's Classification file as well as in our Jail Management System.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Alameda did not provide documentation to support its assertion that it has fully implemented this recommendation. Further, Alameda recognizes in its response that it has a goal of completing the screening process entirely at booking, but that it has not yet onboarded clinical staff, who it will principally assign to conducting comprehensive screenings of inmates. We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress during its next annual response.

6-Month Agency Response

All inmates are screened upon entry to Santa Rita Jail (SRJ). Further mental health screening is conducted either immediately after booking (most) or shortly after being placed in a housing unit. The Santa Rita Jail healthcare provider (Wellpath) screens all inmates for immediate mental health and substance use concerns. Adult Forensic Behavioral Health (AFBH) does a more comprehensive screening for mental health and substance abuse and has established a goal of completing this screening process entirely at booking once clinical staff who will be principally assigned to booking have been onboarded. Currently, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) relies on AFBH to conduct evaluations of incarcerated individuals upon intake in order to assess mental health needs. Per ACSO policy, our Classification Unit interviews every person booked into our facility prior to being housed. During this initial Classification review, if an incarcerated person displays behavior which the trained Classification Deputy recognizes as part of a Behavioral Health need, they will refer the inmate to AFBH. When assessments are completed by AFBH they are documented on a form which is then provided to the Classification Unit. That document is stored in the inmate's Classification file as well as in our Jail Management System.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

As Alameda recognizes in its response, it does not conduct a comprehensive mental health screening during its booking process until it has onboarded clinical staff who will be principally assigned to booking. During its 1-year response, we look forward to Alameda being able to demonstrate that it has onboarded clinical staff and that it is conducting mental health screenings of all inmates upon admission to the county's jails.

Recommendation #5 To: Alameda County

To ensure that county jails have sufficient information to determine appropriates housing and supervision of inmates with mental illness, by June 2021 Alameda should develop a process requiring mental health providers to share with jails the mental health status of all inmates, such as whether they have a mild, moderate, or serious mental illness.

1-Year Agency Response

Currently all incoming inmates are screened at booking for the presence and severity of mental health and substance abuse disorders. A brief clinical risk assessment conducted by AFBH staff determines the presence and severity of symptoms.

AFBH and ACSO are finalizing the updated data sharing MOU, which will allow AFBH to share information on the mental health status of AFBH clients with ACSO for the purposes of classification, housing, care coordination, client safety, and supervision. The data sharing MOU is on target to be completed by the identified date of June 30, 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Alameda did not provide documentation to support its assertion that it screens all inmates for the presence of mental health disorders during it booking process. We look forward to reviewing such documentation and its data sharing agreement during Alameda's next annual response.

6-Month Agency Response

Currently all incoming inmates are screened at booking for the presence and severity of mental health and substance abuse disorders. A brief clinical risk assessment conducted by AFBH staff determines the presence and severity of symptoms.

AFBH and ACSO are developing an MOU to address the sharing of legally allowable information for inmates being served by AFBH. The MOU is estimated to be completed and approved by December of 2021. AFBH also provides ACSO leadership with a monthly aggregate report for AFBH clients. Currently, all incarcerated persons, who have been evaluated by AFBH, and deemed a Behavioral Health Care Inmate are classified and housed with that information taken into consideration. AFBH is responsible for notifying ACSO when an incarcerated person's Behavioral Health status changes. If an incarcerated person is determined to be Severely Mentally Ill, AFBH places a notation in the jail management system. AFBH determines an individual's acuity level as: stable, assaultive, agitated, suicidal, history of assault, cooperative, homicidal, threatening, or no longer suicidal, or other.

ACSO is working on several aspects to further improve the classification process, housing unit capital improvement, and additional staff training. We anticipate these changes will roll out in early 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

As we discuss in our evaluation of Alameda's response to Recommendation 4, Alameda recognizes that it does not conduct a comprehensive mental health screening during its booking process. We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress toward conducting mental health screenings of all inmates upon admission to the county's jails and requiring its mental health providers to share the mental health status of all inmates with the jails during its 1-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

Currently all incoming inmates are screened at booking for the presence and severity of mental health and substance abuse disorders. A brief clinical risk assessment conducted by AFBH staff determines the presence and severity of symptoms.

AFBH and ACSO are developing an MOU to address the sharing of legally allowable information for inmates being served by AFBH. The MOU is estimated to be completed and approved by September of 2021. AFBH also provides ACSO leadership with a monthly aggregate report for AFBH clients. Currently, all incarcerated persons, who have been evaluated by AFBH, and deemed a Behavioral Health Care Inmate are classified and housed with that information taken into consideration. AFBH is responsible for notifying ACSO when an incarcerated person's Behavioral Health status changes. If an incarcerated person is determined to be Severely Mentally Ill, AFBH places a notation in our jail management system. AFBH determines an individual's acuity level as: stable, assaultive, agitated, suicidal, history of assault, cooperative, homicidal, threatening, or no longer suicidal, or other.

ACSO is working on several aspects to further improve our classification process. We anticipate these changes will be implemented in June of 2021.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress in implementing this recommendation as part of its 6-month response.

Recommendation #6 To: Fresno, County of

To ensure that county jails have sufficient information to determine appropriate housing and supervision of inmates with mental illness, by June 2021 Fresno should develop a process requiring mental health providers to share with jails the mental health status of all inmates, such as whether they have a mild, moderate, or serious mental illness.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

Fresno County's response has not changed from the May 2021 response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

In its previous responses, Fresno indicated that its Sheriff's Office would work with its medical/mental health provider to increase the sharing of all inmates' mental health statuses, including those with mild and moderate mental illnesses, with its custody partners. We look forward to Fresno's next annual response to review the progress it has made in implementing this recommendation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

Fresno County's response has not changed from the May 2021 response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

In its previous responses, Fresno indicated that its Sheriff's Office would work with its medical/mental health provider to increase the sharing of all inmates' mental health statuses, including those with mild and moderate mental illnesses, with its custody partners. We look forward to Fresno's next annual response to review the progress it has made in this regard.

1-Year Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 6 month response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

In its previous responses, Fresno indicated that its Sheriff's Office would work with its medical/mental health provider to increase the sharing of all inmates' mental health statuses, including those with mild and moderate mental illnesses, with its custody partners. We look forward to Fresno's next annual response to review the progress it has made in this regard.

6-Month Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 60-day response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

In its initial response and its 6-month response, Fresno indicated that its Sheriff's Office would work with its medical/mental health provider to increase the sharing of all inmates' mental health statuses, including those with mild and moderate mental illnesses, with its custody partners. We look forward to Fresno's 1-year response to review the progress it has made in this regard.

60-Day Agency Response

Fresno County's response to this recommendation has not changed from the initial response to the public Safety realignment report.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

In its initial response, Fresno indicated that its Sheriff's Office would work with its medical/mental health provider to increase the sharing of all inmates' mental health statuses, including those with mild and moderate mental illnesses, with its custody partners. We look forward to Fresno's 6-month response to review the progress it has made in this regard.

Recommendation #7 To: Alameda County

To ensure that it appropriately follows up on inmate deaths and works to prevent similar deaths from occurring in the future, Alameda should implement its updated inmate death follow-up process by June 2021.

1-Year Agency Response

AFBH continues to meet monthly with ACSO and Wellpath to identify high-risk clients and create plans to improve safety and care coordination for these clients. AFBH also continues to participate in the death review panel process facilitated by ACSO with a goal of identifying areas for improvement for AFBH's clinical services.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

As we noted in our evaluation of Alameda's previous response, although Alameda conducted meetings with its Inmate Death Investigation Review Board (Review Board) after each inmate death since it revised its process in March 2020, Alameda did not demonstrate that its Review Board conducts its meetings within 30 days of the inmate death as its policy requires. Alameda did not provide any further documentation during this response to support its assertion of full implementation. Until Alameda provides such documentation, we will continue to evaluate this recommendation as partially implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

In March of 2020, ACSO revised our Inmate Death policy to ensure thorough, consistent, and objective criminal and administrative investigations are conducted. AFBH meets monthly with ACSO/Wellpath for a Suicide Prevention Program, the policy includes improvements to our administrative in-custody death review panel process, and ACSO coordinates a retrospective sentinel event review or "death review" which includes AFBH, Wellpath, and other pertinent parties relative to inmate care and coordination. County Public Health completes an annual review of all deaths at SRJ and AFBH reports incidents and coordinates with ACBH Quality Assurance unit to complete a separate review. ACSO created a Special Investigations Unit and a Jail Litigation Unit within SRJ to ensure critical incidents within the jail are investigated timely and comprehensively. To ensure transparency, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Eden Township Substation (ETS) Crime's Against Persons Unit parallels the initial death investigation to quickly address potential criminal behavior, any deviations from policy, and addresses safety and security concerns identified by staff. The panel is convened by the Jail Litigation Unit and includes members of ACSO Command Staff, the Special Investigations Unit, Classification Unit, and representatives from our medical and mental health provider. The panel reviews the entirety of the incident and the personal, mental, medical and criminal history of the decedent. Deficiencies in staff response to the incident, feedback and direction to investigators, policy concerns, and recommendations to mitigate future incidents are included in the panel report. Further refinements to the policy are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

Although Alameda conducted meetings with its Inmate Death Investigation Review Board (Review Board) after each inmate death since it revised its process in March 2020, the Review Board did not conduct its meetings within 30 days of the inmate death as its policy requires. Specifically, in one instance the Review Board held its meeting nearly 5 months after the inmate's death. As a result, Alameda is hindered in its ability to quickly identify and implement corrective actions to prevent similar deaths from occurring in the future. We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress in complying with its inmate death follow-up process during its 1-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

In March of 2020, ACSO revised our Inmate Death policy to ensure thorough, consistent, and objective criminal and administrative investigations are conducted. AFBH meets monthly with ACSO/Wellpath for a Suicide Prevention Program, the policy includes improvements to our administrative in-custody death review panel process, and ACSO coordinates a retrospective sentinel event review or "death review" which includes AFBH, Wellpath, and other pertinent parties relative to inmate care and coordination. County Public Health completes an annual review of all deaths at SRJ and AFBH reports incidents and coordinates with ACBH Quality Assurance unit to complete a separate review. ACSO created a Special Investigations Unit and a Jail Litigation Unit within SRJ to ensure critical incidents within the jail are investigated timely and comprehensively. To ensure transparency, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Eden Township Substation (ETS) Crime's Against Persons Unit parallels the initial death investigation to quickly address potential criminal behavior, any deviations from policy, and addresses safety and security concerns identified by staff. The panel is convened by the Jail Litigation Unit and includes members of ACSO Command Staff, the Special Investigations Unit, Classification Unit, and representatives from our medical and mental health provider. The panel reviews the entirety of the incident and the personal, mental, medical and criminal history of the decedent. Deficiencies in staff response to the incident, feedback and direction to investigators, policy concerns, and recommendations to mitigate future incidents are included in the panel report. Further refinements to the policy are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

Although Alameda conducted meetings with its Inmate Death Investigation Review Board (Review Board) after each inmate death since it revised its process in March 2020, the Review Board did not conduct its meetings within 30 days of the inmate death as its policy requires. Specifically, in one instance the Review Board held its meeting nearly 5 months after the inmate's death. As a result, Alameda is hindered in its ability to quickly identify and implement corrective actions to prevent similar deaths from occurring in the future. We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress in complying with its inmate death follow-up process during its 6-month response.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure consistency between state allocations and county accounting records, the Legislature should amend state law to require counties to separate mental health funding for public safety realignment from previously enacted mental health funding.

Description of Legislative Action

As of March 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of May 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #9 To: Alameda County

Unless the Legislature clarifies its intent otherwise, to ensure that the counties prudently and appropriately spend realignment funds, the Partnership Committee at Alameda should, starting with its next annual budget, review and make budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non-law enforcement departments and community-based organizations. Further, Alameda should ensure that it budgets all realignment funds to eliminate excessive surpluses in realignment accounts and prevent future surpluses beyond a reasonable reserve.

1-Year Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services. Alameda County continues to disagree with the State's analysis of Public Safety realignment surplus amounts cited in the State Audit report 2020-102. The attached letter from the Alameda County Auditor-Controller to the State Auditor provides background information and additional details.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Alameda's contention that its Partnership Committee is not required to review and make recommendations for all public safety realignment accounts. As we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Alameda's Partnership Committee should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Alameda has not provided any evidence demonstrating that the State Auditor's analysis of public safety surpluses is incorrect. Alameda communicated with our office after the State Auditor published this report in late March 2021, stating that it was unable to reconcile the surpluses we reported for its public safety accounts. We were surprised to learn of Alameda's concerns, as we provided county staff with these surpluses without question several times throughout the audit. Specifically, we discussed Alameda's surpluses with them by phone and emails from October through December 2020, during an exit conference in January 2021, and finally during Alameda's formal review of the draft report in February 2021. At no time did Alameda express concern with the accuracy of our calculations. In responses to Alameda's concern, in early April, we requested that Alameda provide evidence that demonstrates that our calculations were inaccurate; however, it has not done so. The surpluses we present in our report are consistent with the revenue and expenditure reports generated from Alameda's financial management system for each of the public safety accounts. Although Alameda disagrees with the surplus calculations, it is unclear why it is unwilling to eliminate excessive surpluses or prevent excessive surpluses in its public safety accounts in the future.

6-Month Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services. Alameda County continues to disagree with the State's analysis of Public Safety realignment surplus amounts cited in the State Audit report 2020-102. The attached letter from the Alameda County Auditor-Controller to the State Auditor provides background information and additional details.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Alameda's contention that its Partnership Committee is not required to review and make recommendations for all public safety realignment accounts. As we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Alameda's Partnership Committee should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Alameda has not provided any evidence demonstrating that the State Auditor's analysis of public safety surpluses is incorrect. Alameda communicated with our office after the State Auditor published this report in late March 2021, stating that it was unable to reconcile the surpluses we reported for its public safety accounts. We were surprised to learn of Alameda's concerns, as we provided county staff with these surpluses without question several times throughout the audit. Specifically, we discussed Alameda's surpluses with them by phone and emails from October through December 2020, during an exit conference in January 2021, and finally during Alameda's formal review of the draft report in February 2021. At no time did Alameda express concern with the accuracy of our calculations. In responses to Alameda's concern, in early April, we requested that Alameda provide evidence that demonstrates that our calculations were inaccurate; however, it has not done so. The surpluses we present in our report are consistent with the revenue and expenditure reports generated from Alameda's financial management system for each of the public safety accounts. Although Alameda disagrees with the surplus calculations, it is unclear why it is unwilling to eliminate excessive surpluses or prevent excessive surpluses in its public safety accounts in the future.

60-Day Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services. Alameda County continues to disagree with the State's analysis of Public Safety realignment surplus amounts cited in the State Audit report 2020-102. The attached letter from the Alameda County Auditor-Controller to the State Auditor provides background information and additional details.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Alameda's contention that its Partnership Committee is not required to review and make recommendations for all public safety realignment accounts. As we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Alameda's Partnership Committee should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Alameda has not provided any evidence demonstrating that the State Auditor's analysis of public safety surpluses is incorrect. Alameda communicated with our office after the State Auditor published this report in late March 2021, stating that it was unable to reconcile the surpluses we reported for its public safety accounts. We were surprised to learn of Alameda's concerns, as we provided county staff with these surpluses without question several times throughout the audit. Specifically, we discussed Alameda's surpluses with them by phone and emails from October through December 2020, during an exit conference in January 2021, and finally during Alameda's formal review of the draft report in February 2021. At no time, did Alameda express concern with the accuracy of our calculations. In responses to Alameda's concern, in early April, we requested that Alameda provide evidence that demonstrates that our calculations were inaccurate; however, it has not done so. The surpluses we present in our report are consistent with the revenue and expenditure reports generated from Alameda's financial management system for each of the public safety accounts. Although Alameda disagrees with the surplus calculations, it is unclear why it is unwilling to eliminate excessive surpluses or prevent excessive surpluses in its public safety accounts in the future.

Recommendation #10 To: Fresno, County of

Unless the Legislature clarifies its intent otherwise, to ensure that the counties prudently and appropriately spend realignment funds, the Partnership Committee at Fresno should, starting with its next annual budget, review and make budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non-law enforcement departments and community-based organizations. Further, Fresno should ensure that it budgets all realignment funds to eliminate excessive surpluses in realignment accounts and prevent future surpluses beyond a reasonable reserve.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

Fresno County's response to the recommendation requiring the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors of all realignment funds has not changed from the initial response provided in the Public Safety Realignment Report issued on March 2021 and previous responses related to this recommendation.

Due to the continued unprecedented statewide growth payments from FY 2021-22, received in FY 2022-23, many of the Realignment funds have seen increases in their surpluses. The CCP and County Departments will continue to review the surpluses in the Realignment funds over which they have oversight. The County continues to seek additional programs, expanded services, and one-time projects to fund which will reduce the surpluses to a reasonable level over the next several years depending on economic conditions

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We did not receive any updated information from Fresno regarding its implementation of this recommendation as indicated in its initial response. Further, we disagree with Fresno's narrow interpretation of public safety realignment legislation and its assertion that its Partnership Committee is only required to oversee the Community Corrections account. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should oversee all public safety realignment accounts. Thus, unless Fresno demonstrates that it has eliminated its surpluses in all public safety accounts, we will not consider this recommendation fully implemented.

We look forward to reviewing documentation during its next annual response of Fresno's progress toward eliminating its excessive surpluses in its public safety realignment accounts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

Fresno County's response to the recommendation requiring the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors of all realignment funds has not changed from the initial response provided in the Public Safety Realignment Report issued on March 2021 and previous responses related to this recommendation.

Due to the unprecedented growth payments from FY 2020-21, received in FY 2021-22, many of the Realignment funds have seen increases in their surpluses. The CCP and County Departments will continue to review the surpluses in the Realignment funds over which they have oversight. The County is currently considering additional programs and expanded services to fund which will reduce the surpluses to a reasonable level over the next several years

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We did not receive any updated information from Fresno regarding its implementation of this recommendation as indicated in its previous responses. Until Fresno demonstrates that it has eliminated its surpluses in all public safety accounts, we will not consider this recommendation fully implemented. We look forward to reviewing documentation during Fresno's next annual response of its progress toward eliminating excessive surpluses in its public safety realignment accounts.

1-Year Agency Response

Fresno County's response to the recommendation requiring the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors of all realignment funds has not changed from the initial response provided in the Public Safety Realignment Report issued on March 25, 2020. It is our understanding that your office received a letter from Diane Cummings, former Special Advisor to Governor Brown, that provided her perspective of this issue.

Due to the significant growth payments from FY 2020-21, received in FY 2021-22, many of the Realignment funds have seen increases in their surpluses. Over the next three-months, the CCP and departments will review the surpluses in the Realignment funds that they have oversight. It is expected that an expenditure plan for each of the funds that have significant surpluses will be developed, which in some cases will be multi-year, in order to reduce the surpluses to a reasonable level.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

We did not receive any updated information from Fresno regarding its implementation of this recommendation as indicated in its initial response. Further, we disagree with Fresno's narrow interpretation of public safety realignment legislation and its assertion that its Partnership Committee is only required to oversee the Community Corrections account. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should oversee all public safety realignment accounts. Thus, unless Fresno demonstrates that it has eliminated its surpluses in all public safety accounts, we will not consider this recommendation fully implemented.

We look forward to reviewing documentation during its next annual response of Fresno's progress toward eliminating its excessive surpluses in its public safety realignment accounts.

6-Month Agency Response

Fresno County's response regarding the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) making recommendations on all accounts has not changed from the initial response.

An email will be sent providing a response regarding the surpluses in the Realignment funds.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

We did not receive any updated information from Fresno regarding its implementation of this recommendation as indicated in its initial response. Further, we disagree with Fresno's narrow interpretation of public safety realignment legislation and its assertion that its Partnership Committee is only required to oversee the Community Corrections account. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should oversee all public safety realignment accounts.

The email Fresno provided does not demonstrate that it has eliminated excessive surpluses in its realignment accounts and, in fact, indicates that surpluses will likely increase in some of its accounts based on a significant increase in estimated growth funds.

We look forward to reviewing documentation during its 1-year response of Fresno's progress toward eliminating its excessive surpluses in its public safety realignment accounts.

60-Day Agency Response

Fresno County's response to the recommendation requiring the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors of all realignment funds has not changed from the initial response provided in the Public Safety Realignment Report issued on March 25, 2020. It is our understanding that your office received a letter from Diane Cummings, former Special Advisor to Governor Brown, that provided her perspective of this issue.

Fresno County is currently preparing its FY 2021-22 Budget with budget hearings scheduled for September 13-17, 2021. As part of the preparation process, the Community Corrections Partnership and Departments who have oversight of the various Realignment funds will be reviewing fund balances for their respective funds. Based on the usage of Realignment funds in the FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget, plans (some multi-year) will be developed for each fund, as necessary, to bring the surpluses to a reasonable level.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We did not receive any updated information from Fresno regarding its implementation of this recommendation as indicated in its response. Further, we disagree with Fresno's narrow interpretation of public safety realignment legislation and its assertion that its Partnership Committee is only required to oversee the Community Corrections account. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should oversee all public safety realignment accounts.

We look forward to reviewing documentation during its 6-month response of Fresno's progress toward eliminating its excessive surpluses in its public safety realignment accounts.

Recommendation #11 To: Los Angeles County

Unless the Legislature clarifies its intent otherwise, to ensure that the counties prudently and appropriately spend realignment funds, the Partnership Committee at Los Angeles should, starting with its next annual budget, review and make budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non-law enforcement departments and community-based organizations. Further, Los Angeles should ensure that it budgets all realignment funds to eliminate excessive surpluses in realignment accounts and prevent future surpluses beyond a reasonable reserve.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The County disagrees with the finding that the Community Corrections Partnership Committee should review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (Board) for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non law enforcement departments and community-based organizations.

Consistent with State law (Government Code section 29062), budget recommendations are submitted to the Board by the County Chief Executive Officer. The County Chief Executive Office takes a global and holistic approach when making all budget recommendations including those involving realignment revenues. The Chief Executive Office budget recommendations are informed by input and feedback from the Community Corrections Partnership, County departments, public testimony, and Board policy and direction.

On October 3, 2023, the Board approved supplemental changes to the County's annual budget. As in prior phases of developing the County's annual budget, the Board considered all funding sources available to be used to further its "Care First, Jails Last" priorities when making these supplemental changes, including realignment account surpluses.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its 6-month response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

The County disagrees with the finding that the Community Corrections Partnership Committee should review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (Board) for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non law enforcement departments and community-based organizations.

Consistent with State law (Government Code section 29062), budget recommendations are submitted to the Board by the County Chief Executive Officer. The County Chief Executive Office takes a global and holistic approach when making all budget recommendations including those involving realignment revenues. The Chief Executive Office budget recommendations are informed by input and feedback from the Community Corrections Partnership, County departments, public testimony, and Board policy and direction.

On October 5, 2021, the Board approved supplemental changes to the County's annual budget. As in prior phases of developing the County's annual budget, the Board considered all funding sources available to be used to further its "Care First, Jails Last" priorities when making these supplemental changes, including realignment account surpluses. Using the same budgeting principles, the County presented its Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommended budget to the Board on April 19, 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its previous responses, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on pages 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, serving at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

1-Year Agency Response

The County disagrees with the finding that the Community Corrections Partnership Committee should review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (Board) for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non law enforcement departments and community-based organizations.

Consistent with State law (Government Code section 29062), budget recommendations are submitted to the Board by the County Chief Executive Officer. The County Chief Executive Office takes a global and holistic approach when making all budget recommendations including those involving realignment revenues. The Chief Executive Office budget recommendations are informed by input and feedback from the Community Corrections Partnership, County departments, public testimony, and Board policy and direction.

On October 5, 2021, the Board approved supplemental changes to the County's annual budget. As in prior phases of developing the County's annual budget, the Board considered all funding sources available to be used to further its "Care First, Jails Last" priorities when making these supplemental changes, including realignment account surpluses. Using the same budgeting principles, the County prepared its FY 2022-23 Recommended budget, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 19, 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its 6-month response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

6-Month Agency Response

The County disagrees with the finding that the Community Corrections Partnership Committee should review and make budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non-law enforcement departments and community-based organizations.

Consistent with State law (Government Code section 29062) budget recommendations are submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the County Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The County CEO takes a global and holistic approach when making all budget recommendation including those involving realignment revenues. The CEO's budget recommendations are informed by input and feedback from the Community Corrections Partnership, County departments, public testimony and Board policy and direction.

On October 5, 2021, the County Board of Supervisors approved supplemental changes to the County's annual budget. As in prior phases of developing the County's annual budget, the Board considered all funding sources available to be used to further its "Care First, Jails Last" priorities when making these supplemental changes, including realignment account surpluses.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its 6-month response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

60-Day Agency Response

LA County's Public Safety Realignment Team (PSRT) has worked through an intensive process to update LA County's AB 109 implementation plan. The plan has been submitted to the Board for review and can be provided to the BSCC following action by the Board.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Recommendation #12 To: Alameda County

To ensure that the programs and services funded by public safety realignment funds are effective, beginning immediately, Alameda should conduct evaluations of the effectiveness of its programs and services at least every three years.

1-Year Agency Response

On November 15, 2021, the Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee approved a plan to evaluate the County's AB109 programs on a 3-year rotation. The plan identified a schedule to ensure all programs will be evaluated, prioritized by time in service and set on a rotation schedule to ensure that all programs and services are evaluated every 3 years. The first step of this plan is to develop an up-to-date inventory of all programs and services that require evaluation, which will cover AB 109-funded programs from the Community Corrections subaccount, for which it has jurisdiction. ACPD is currently working with County justice partners to update this inventory and it is expected to be complete by 4/30/2022. Once the program inventory is updated, an RFP will be developed to secure an evaluator. Additionally, Alameda County Probation is working with George Mason University (GMU) to conduct a Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Simulation Tool Assessment of AB109 Providers. GMU used its RNR Simulation Tool to assess the extent the county's AB109 providers' service models are evidence-based and how they are meeting the population's needs. The RNR Simulation Tool assesses the level and dosage of services, adoption of EBPs, and implementation issues, identifying areas where services can be strengthened. AB 109 programs have completed this assessment and received program reports which detail strengths, improvement areas, and recommendations across six domains related to best practices. This program information, in combination with data from ACPD about the AB109 population (e.g., risk level, criminogenic needs, other responsivity factors or service need areas), is currently under analysis to understand the county's capacity to meet the needs of the population through these programs. These analyses identify critical gaps or areas where program availability may be mismatched with population needs. Reporting of these results is expected to occur by Summer 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

The State Auditor's recommendation is not limited to evaluations of only those programs funded through the Community Corrections account, as Alameda describes in its response. Rather, to fully implement this recommendation, Alameda should evaluate the programs it funds through all of its public safety realignment accounts. We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress toward implementing this recommendation during its next annual response.

6-Month Agency Response

The Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee will develop an inventory of all programs and services that require evaluation, prioritized based on length of time in service; and provide a schedule that ensures all identified programs and services are evaluated every 3 years. This will cover AB 109-funded programs from the Community Corrections subaccount, for which it has jurisdiction. The CCPEC will establish this schedule by 12/31/2021. Additionally, Alameda County Probation is working with George Mason University (GMU) to conduct a Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Simulation Tool Assessment of AB109 Providers. GMU will use its RNR Simulation Tool to assess the extent these AB109 providers' service models are evidence-based and how they are meeting the population's needs. The RNR Simulation Tool has a program assessment which can assess the level and dosage of services, adoption of EBPs, and implementation issues, identifying areas where services can be strengthened. After completing this assessment, the program receives a report that: (1) classifies the program based on information provided; (2) identifies the type of clients that are most suitable for the program; (3) rates the program in six areas related to program quality and fidelity to EBPs and (4) provides recommendations to improve the program quality within each of these domains. This program information will then be used in combination with data from ACPD about the AB109 population (e.g., risk level, criminogenic needs, other responsivity factors or service need areas) to assess the county's capacity to meet the needs of the population through these programs. These analyses identify critical gaps or areas where program availability may be mismatched with population needs. This process is anticipated to take 30 months to complete.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

The State Auditor's recommendation is not limited to evaluations of only those programs funded through the Community Corrections account, as Alameda describes in its response. Rather, to fully implement this recommendation, Alameda should evaluate the programs it funds through all of its public safety realignment accounts. We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress toward implementing this recommendation during its 1-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

The Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee will develop an inventory of all programs and services that require evaluation, prioritized based on length of time in service; and provide a schedule that ensures all identified programs and services are evaluated every 3 years. This will cover AB 109-funded programs from the Community Corrections subaccount, for which it has jurisdiction. The CCPEC will establish this schedule by 12/31/2021. Additionally, Alameda County Probation is working with George Mason University (GMU) to conduct a Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Simulation Tool Assessment of AB109 Providers. GMU will use its RNR Simulation Tool to assess the extent these AB109 providers' service models are evidence-based and how they are meeting the population's needs. The RNR Simulation Tool has a program assessment which can assess the level and dosage of services, adoption of EBPs, and implementation issues, identifying areas where services can be strengthened. After completing this assessment, the program receives a report that: (1) classifies the program based on information provided; (2) identifies the type of clients that are most suitable for the program; (3) rates the program in six areas related to program quality and fidelity to EBPs and (4) provides recommendations to improve the program quality within each of these domains. This program information will then be used in combination with data from ACPD about the AB109 population (e.g., risk level, criminogenic needs, other responsivity factors or service need areas) to assess the county's capacity to meet the needs of the population through these programs. These analyses identify critical gaps or areas where program availability may be mismatched with population needs. This process is anticipated to take 30 months to complete.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

The State Auditor's recommendation is not limited to evaluations of only those programs funded through the Community Corrections account, as Alameda describes in its response. Rather, to fully implement this recommendation, Alameda should evaluate the programs it funds through all of its public safety realignment accounts. We look forward to reviewing Alameda's progress toward implementing this recommendation during its 6-month response.

Recommendation #13 To: Fresno, County of

To ensure that the programs and services funded by public safety realignment funds are effective, beginning immediately, Fresno should conduct evaluations of the effectiveness of its programs and services at least every three years.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), at their June 13, 2022, meeting, received the Scope of Work to evaluate the CCP funded entities. The Research, Evaluation and Technology (RET) sub-committee of the CCP developed the Scope of Work in consultation with the California State Association of Counties Support Hub for Criminal Justice Programming. The CCP approved a motion that allowed the sub-committee to move forward with developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to be issued by Fresno County's Internal Services, Purchasing Division with an annual budget of $100,000. The Probation Administrative Services Division, with input from the RET sub-committee, developed the RFP and on March 15, 2023, the County of Fresno issued RFP No. 23-027 to vendors registered in Public Purchase. The RFP response period closed on April 13, 2023. An evaluation panel composed of representatives from the Probation Department, Department of Behavioral Health, District Attorney's Office, and the Sheriff's Office evaluated the proposal solely on the requirements of the RFP. The tentative award notice was issued on June 16, 2023, and the Probation Administrative Services Division is currently working on finalizing the contract with the recommended vendor. The department anticipates on having this contract on the December 12, 2023, Board of Supervisors calendar, and if approved, implementation can begin in January 2024.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), at their June 13, 2022 meeting, received the Scope of Work to evaluate the CCP funded entities. The Research, Evaluation and Technology sub-committee of the CCP developed the Scope of Work in consultation with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Support Hub for Criminal Justice Programming. The CCP approved a motion that allowed the sub-committee to move forward with developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to be issued by Fresno County's Internal Services, Purchasing Division. In addition, the CCP approved a motion to increase the yearly budget amount for this work from $76,960 to $100,000. The Probation Administrative Services Division is currently working on developing the required RFP document and anticipates on having the RFP released in January of 2023.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing Fresno's progress in implementing our recommendation during its next annual response.

1-Year Agency Response

The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), at their March 7, 2022 meeting, received a status report from the Research Sub-committee of the CCP on development of a scope of work to obtain a contractor to evaluate funded programs. The Research Committee in working with the CSAC Support Hub recommended areas of focus for the scope of work for the Request For Proposal (RFP) to obtain a program evaluator. Based on the CCP's direction, it is anticipated the Sub-committee will bring an item to the June 2022 CCP meeting for review of a draft RFP. Once this is completed, Fresno County Purchasing Guidelines will be used in obtaining a contractor.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), at their June 14, 2021 meeting, directed the Research Sub-committee of the CCP to develop a scope of work to be used to obtain a contractor that would evaluate funded programs. The Research Sub-committee is in the process of developing the scope of work. Once this is completed, Fresno County Purchasing Guidelines will be used in obtaining a contractor.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

As was provided in the initial response to the Public Safety realignment Report, the CCP provides ongoing evaluations of programs funded with Community Corrections revenue. The Departments that oversee funding for specific realignment funds will continue to have the responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs. The Chief Probation Officer will be adding an agenda item to the next Community Corrections Partnership meeting, scheduled for June 14, 2021, to discuss and provide direction regarding the evaluation of funded programs.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #14 To: Los Angeles County

To ensure that the programs and services funded by public safety realignment funds are effective, beginning immediately, Los Angeles should conduct evaluations of the effectiveness of its programs and services at least every three years.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The County remains committed to ongoing outcome-measurement efforts. In addition to the regular review process accompanying budget development, efforts to enhance the County's data infrastructure in support of outcome evaluation activities continue. The County launched a study series on realignment matters in 2020 and is in the process of continuing that effort.

- Consistent with a motion approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 25, 2022, the County Public Safety Realignment Team (PSRT), in coordination with the Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC), Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Executive Office, developed an expanded framework in 2022 for evaluating AB 109-funded programs through a series of studies.

- A study on justice outcomes among AB 109 populations was completed and presented to PSRT in December 2022.

- The County has developed a scope of work and solicitation process to engage an external researcher for the next phase: evaluation of AB 109 behavioral health program outcomes. The solicitation will commence in October 2023 with an anticipated start date in early 2024.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

The County is committed to ongoing outcome-measurement activities. In addition to continuing efforts to enhance the County's data infrastructure, the County launched a study series on realignment matters in 2020 and is continuing with that work.

On January 25, 2022, the Board approved a motion related to the Assembly Bill (AB) 109 program evaluation, requesting deliverables in two phases:

- Phase 1: The County PSRT, in coordination with the Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC), Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Executive Office, are to develop a plan to evaluate all County and community programs that receive AB 109 funding.

- Phase 2: The CCJCC, in consultation with the Chief Executive Office, are to develop contract guidelines for a consultant(s) to perform the analysis, consistent with Phase 1 planning.

County stakeholders finalized the evaluation framework of Phase 1 in April 2022, and an assessment of departmental data availability on programs to be evaluated was conducted shortly thereafter.

The County has also launched a justice outcomes study which will leverage and update prior pertinent analysis, such as the 2020 Justice Metrics Framework Baseline Report and the 2020 Public Safety Realignment Evaluation Study. This ongoing effort will establish the following:

- Justice outcomes for the Post-Release Community Supervision population and the AB 109 straight-sentenced and split-sentenced populations;

- One-year outcomes for the 2011-2020 cohorts; and

- Three-year outcomes for the 2011-2018 cohorts.

The justice outcomes study will serve as a foundational baseline for subsequent program evaluations in Phase 2.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Although Los Angeles acknowledged that it is still working to implement this recommendation, it did not provide us with documentation to support the efforts is has taken to date. We look forward to reviewing its next update as part of our annual follow-up process.

1-Year Agency Response

The County remains committed to ongoing outcome-measurement efforts. In addition to the regular review process accompanying budget development, efforts to enhance the County's data infrastructure in support of outcome evaluation activities continue. The County launched a study series on realignment matters in 2020 and is in the process of continuing that effort.

Furthermore, on January 25, 2022, the Board approved a motion related to the AB 109 program evaluation. The motion requests deliverables in two phases.

Phase 1: The County Public Safety Realignment Team (PSRT), in coordination with the Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC), Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Executive Office, are to develop a plan to evaluate all County and community programs that receive AB 109 funding. The development of this plan is currently in progress.

Phase 2: The CCJCC, in consultation with the Chief Executive Office, are to develop contract guidelines for a consultant(s) to perform the analysis, consistent with Phase 1 planning.

The PSRT and partnering stakeholders are actively engaged in scoping and phasing activities as part of the evaluation project.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The County remains committed to ongoing outcome-measurement efforts. In addition to the regular review process accompanying budget development, efforts to enhance the County's data infrastructure in support of outcome evaluation activities continue. The County launched a study series on realignment matters in 2020 and is in the process of continuing that effort with the next study.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

LA County remains committed to ongoing outcome-measurement efforts. In addition to the regular review process accompanying budget development, efforts to build and enhance LA County's data and evaluation infrastructure - including data sharing initiatives and master services agreements - will support evaluation activities.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #15 To: Alameda County

To ensure that the county reports accurate and consistent information to the Corrections Board, beginning with its next annual report, Alameda should consistently report all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment.

1-Year Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Although Alameda's response does not specifically address our recommendation, we disagree with its insinuation that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Alameda's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

6-Month Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that " Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

Although Alameda's response does not specifically address our recommendation, we disagree with its insinuation that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Alameda's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

60-Day Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

Although Alameda's response does not specifically address our recommendation, we disagree with its insinuation that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Alameda's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

Recommendation #16 To: Fresno, County of

To ensure that the county reports accurate and consistent information to the Corrections Board, beginning with its next annual report, Fresno should consistently report all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

Fresno County's response has not changed from the original response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

Fresno County's response has not changed from the original response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

We continue to disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

1-Year Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 6-month response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

6-Month Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 60-day response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

60-Day Agency Response

Fresno County response to this recommendation has not changed from the initial response to the Public Safety Realignment Report issued on March 25, 2021. Fresno County disagrees with this recommendation for the reasons stated in the response to the first recommendation provided in the initial response to the first recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

Recommendation #17 To: Los Angeles County

To ensure that the county reports accurate and consistent information to the Corrections Board, beginning with its next annual report, Los Angeles should consistently report all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The County reports the expenditures of the three realignment subaccounts that fund various "law enforcement expenditures":

1. Community Corrections Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of housing and supervision.

2. District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of revocation hearings.

3. Local Innovation Subaccount, which may fund the same activities as the Community Corrections Subaccount and District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount.

These are the three subaccounts overseen by the County's Public Safety Realignment Team.

There are other subaccounts under the umbrella of 2011 realignment, such as Behavioral Health and Protective Services, which fund "non-law enforcement expenditures" that the County has interpreted as not required to be reported in its reporting of law enforcement expenditures.

Therefore, the County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts as public safety realignment expenditures. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" and "public safety realignment," and maintains its position that it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its 6-month response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

The County reports the expenditures of the three realignment subaccounts that fund various "law enforcement expenditures":

1. Community Corrections Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of housing and supervision.

2. District Attorney and Public Defender's Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of revocations hearings.

3. Local Innovation Subaccount, which may fund the same activities as the Community Corrections Subaccount and District Attorney and Public Defender's Subaccount.

These three subaccounts are overseen by the County's Public Safety Realignment Team (PSRT).

There are other subaccounts under the umbrella of 2011 realignment, such as Behavioral Health and Protective Services, which fund "non-law enforcement expenditures" that the County has interpreted not required to be reported in its reporting of law enforcement expenditures.

Therefore, the County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" versus public safety realignment and it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with a previous response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on pages 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, serving at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

1-Year Agency Response

The County reports the expenditures of the three realignment subaccounts that fund various "law enforcement expenditures":

1. Community Corrections Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of housing and supervision.

2. District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of revocations hearings.

3. Local Innovation Subaccount, which may fund the same activities as the Community Corrections Subaccount and District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount.

Likewise, these are the three subaccounts overseen by the County's PSRT.

There are other subaccounts under the umbrella of 2011 realignment, such as Behavioral Health and Protective Services, which fund "non-law enforcement expenditures" that the County has interpreted not required to be reported in its reporting of law enforcement expenditures.

Therefore, the County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" versus public safety realignment and it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its 6-month response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

6-Month Agency Response

The County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" versus public safety realignment and it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Los Angeles's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through law enforcement accounts. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Los Angeles's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

60-Day Agency Response

LA County is analyzing the scope and detail required by the Legislature for reporting to the Corrections Board regarding law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through public safety realignment accounts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure that the counties and the Corrections Board are aware of their oversight responsibilities and resolve inconsistencies we identified from county to county, the Legislature should amend state law to clearly identify the specific accounts in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 it requires county Partnership Committees to plan for and oversee and the Corrections Board to include in its annual reports to the Legislature.

Description of Legislative Action

As of March 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of May 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #19 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that the county Partnership Committees report consistent and complete, and comparable information regarding their public safety realignment funding and activities, by September 2021 the Corrections Board should develop and distribute guidance to counties of its expectations for reporting financial information related to all public safety realignment accounts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

As noted in our original response letter, we do not agree with the auditor's legal analysis. We do not believe that the BSCC is responsible for reporting financial information related to all Realignment accounts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we state on page 48 of our report, state law requires the Corrections Board to collect, analyze, and report information from each county to the Governor and the Legislature. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment was limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Thus, we stand by our recommendation that the Corrections Board develop and distribute guidance to counties of its expectations for financial reporting related to all public safety realignment accounts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

As noted in our response letter, we do not agree with the auditor's legal analysis. We do not believe that the BSCC is responsible for reporting financial information related to all public safety realignment accounts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we state on page 48 of our report, state law requires the Corrections Board to collect, analyze, and report information from each county to the Governor and the Legislature. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment was limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Thus, we stand by our recommendation that the Corrections Board develop and distribute guidance to counties of its expectations for financial reporting related to all public safety realignment accounts.

1-Year Agency Response

As noted in our response letter, we do not agree with the auditor's legal analysis. We do not believe that the BSCC is responsible for reporting financial information related to all public safety realignment accounts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As we state on page 48 of our report, state law requires the Corrections Board to collect, analyze, and report information from each county to the Governor and the Legislature. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment was limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Thus, we stand by our recommendation that the Corrections Board develop and distribute guidance to counties of its expectations for financial reporting related to all public safety realignment accounts.

6-Month Agency Response

As noted in our response letter, we do not agree with the auditor's legal analysis. We do not believe that the BSCC is responsible for reporting financial information related to all public safety realignment accounts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As we state on page 48 of our report, state law requires the Corrections Board to collect, analyze, and report information from each county to the Governor and the Legislature. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment was limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Thus, we stand by our recommendation that the Corrections Board develop and distribute guidance to counties of its expectations for financial reporting related to all public safety realignment accounts.

60-Day Agency Response

As noted in our response letter, we do not agree with the auditor's legal analysis. We do not believe that the BSCC is responsible for reporting financial information related to all public safety realignment accounts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

As we state on page 48 of our report, state law requires the Corrections Board to collect, analyze, and report information from each county to the Governor and the Legislature. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment was limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Thus, we stand by our recommendation that the Corrections Board develop and distribute guidance to counties of its expectations for financial reporting related to all public safety realignment accounts.

Recommendation #20 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that the county Partnership Committees report consistent and complete, and comparable information regarding their public safety realignment funding and activities, by September 2021 the Corrections Board should develop and implement a process to review and analyze the information that counties provide about their realignment activities and expenditures each year.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The BSCC's Ninth Annual Report on the Implementation of Community Corrections Partnership Plans (July 2021 and each report thereafter) included two new sections:

1. Data Collection Method - provided a brief description of the method for collecting information from counties on the implementation of their CCP plans.

2. Statewide Summary of Key Information - provided a summary of survey information received from the counties focusing on the CCP composition, evaluation of programs and services, percent of funds allocated toward the use of evidence-based practices, types of programs, and services offered.

These two new sections will be included in the Tenth Annual Report on the Implementation of Community Corrections Partnership Plans (July 2022).

Please see the link as follows:

https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021-Community-Corrections-Partnership-FINAL.pdf.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Although the Corrections Board asserts that it provided additional analysis of county realignment activities and expenditures, it did not provide us with documentation to support its claims. In fact, the July 2021 Partnership Committee report, which the Corrections Board references in its response, clearly states that it completed the 2020 Partnership Committee surveys prior to the release of our audit. As a result, the Corrections Board has not demonstrated that it has developed a process to ensure the counties' Partnership Committees are reporting consistent, complete, and comparable information regarding their public safety realignment funding and activities. Until the Corrections Board provides us with documentation that demonstrates its additional analysis of realignment activities and expenditures, we will continue to report this recommendation as not fully implemented.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

The BSCC's Ninth Annual Report on the Implementation of Community Corrections Partnership Plans (July 2021) included two new sections:

1. Data Collection Method - provided a brief description of the method for collecting information from counties on the implementation of their CCP plans.

2. Statewide Summary of Key Information - provided a summary of survey information received from the counties focusing on the CCP composition, evaluation of programs and services, percent of funds allocated toward the use of evidence-based practices, types of programs, and services offered.

These two new sections will be included in the Tenth Annual Report on the Implementation of Community Corrections Partnership Plans (July 2022).

Please see the link as follows:

https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021-Community-Corrections-Partnership-FINAL.pdf.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Although the Corrections Board asserts that it provided additional analysis of county realignment activities and expenditures, it did not provide us with documentation to support its claims. In fact, the July 2021 Partnership Committee report, which the Corrections Board references in its response, clearly states that it completed the 2020 Partnership Committee surveys prior to the release of our audit. Further, the July 2022 Partnership Committee report does not clearly describe from which public safety realignment accounts that counties should report activities. As a result, the Corrections Board has not demonstrated that it has developed a process to ensure the counties' Partnership Committees are reporting consistent, complete, and comparable information regarding their public safety realignment funding and activities. Until the Corrections Board provides us with documentation that demonstrates its additional analysis of realignment activities and expenditures, we will continue to report this recommendation as not fully implemented.

1-Year Agency Response

The BSCC's Ninth Annual Report on the Implementation of Community Corrections Partnership Plans (July 2021) included two new sections:

1. Data Collection Method - provided a brief description of the method for collecting information from counties on the implementation of their CCP plans.

2. Statewide Summary of Key Information - provided a summary of survey information received from the counties focusing on the CCP composition, evaluation of programs and services, percent of funds allocated toward the use of evidence-based practices, types of programs, and services offered.

These two new sections will be included in the Tenth Annual Report on the Implementation of Community Corrections Partnership Plans (July 2022).

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Although the Corrections Board asserts that it provided additional analysis of county realignment activities and expenditures, it did not provide us with documentation to support its claims. In fact, the July 2021 Partnership Committee report, which the Corrections Board references in its response, clearly states that it completed the 2020 Partnership Committee surveys prior to the release of our audit. As a result, the Corrections Board has not demonstrated that it has developed a process to ensure the counties' Partnership Committees are reporting consistent, complete, and comparable information regarding their public safety realignment funding and activities. Until the Corrections Board provides us with documentation that demonstrates its additional analysis of realignment activities and expenditures, we will continue to report this recommendation as not fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

For the 2021 CCP report, BSCC provided additional analysis of county realignment activities and expenditures. This CCP report was released on July 1, 2021.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Although the Corrections Board asserts that it provided additional analysis of county realignment activities and expenditures, it did not provide us with documentation to support its claims. In fact, the July 2021 Partnership Committee report, which the Corrections Board references in its response, clearly states that it completed the 2020 Partnership Committee surveys prior to the release of our audit. As a result, the Corrections Board has not demonstrated that it has developed a process to ensure the counties' Partnership Committees are reporting consistent, complete, and comparable information regarding their public safety realignment funding and activities. Until the Corrections Board provides us with documentation that demonstrates its additional analysis of realignment activities and expenditures, we will continue to report this recommendation as not fully implemented.

60-Day Agency Response

For the 2021 CCP report, BSCC will provide additional analysis of county realignment activities and expenditures. This CCP report will be released by July 1, 2021.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing Community Correction's additional analysis of county realignment activities and expenditures as part of its 6-month response.

Recommendation #21 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that the county Partnership Committees report consistent and complete, and comparable information regarding their public safety realignment funding and activities, by September 2021 the Corrections Board should develop definitions for terms its asks counties to report on, including assault on staff and inmate risk level.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The BSCC has updated the definition of assault on staff in the Jail Profile Survey, as of 4/28/21. We do not intend to define inmate risk levels, as the responsibility for determining inmate risk levels resides with the county.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing the Corrections Board's progress toward defining key terms that it asks counties to report on, such as "mental health cases" and "Public Safety Realignment funding," as part of its next annual response.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

The BSCC has updated the definition of assault on staff in the Jail Profile Survey, as of 4/28/21. We do not intend to define inmate risk levels, as this responsibility resides with the county

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing the Corrections Board's progress toward defining key terms that it asks counties to report on, such as "mental health cases" and "Public Safety Realignment funding," as part of its next annual response.

1-Year Agency Response

The BSCC has updated the definition of assault on staff in the Jail Profile Survey, as of 4/28/21. We do not intend to define inmate risk levels, as this responsibility resides with the county.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing the Corrections Board's progress toward defining key terms that it asks counties to report on, such as "mental health cases" and "Public Safety Realignment funding," as part of its next annual response.

6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC has updated the definition of assault on staff in the Jail Profile Survey, as of 4/28/21. We do not intend to define inmate risk levels, as this responsibility resides with the county.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing the Corrections Board's progress toward defining key terms that it asks counties to report on, such as "mental health cases" and "Public Safety Realignment funding," as part of its 1-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

The BSCC has updated the definition of assault on staff in the Jail Profile Survey, as of 4/28/21. We do not intend to define inmate risk levels, as this responsibility resides with the county.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

We look forward to reviewing the Corrections Board's progress toward defining key terms that it asks counties to report on, such as "mental health cases" and "Public Safety Realignment funding," as part of its six month response.

Recommendation #22 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To comply with state law, the Corrections Board should include the cost of bringing jail facilities up to state standards in its biennial jail facility reports to the Governor and the Legislature, beginning with its 2018-2020 biennial report.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

In the Legislative Report titled "Community Corrections in California: A Report on the 2020-2022 Biennial Inspection Cycle, Fiscal Years 2020-2022" (pursuant to Penal Code Section 6031.2), information about the estimate cost to bring facilities into compliance is included on pages 2-3 of the report.

The report may be accessed at https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020-2022-PC-6031.2-Legislative-Report-FINAL.pdf

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

1-Year Agency Response

As part of the 2020 - 2022 inspection process, the BSCC will request estimates from counties about the cost of bringing jail facilities to state standards.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

As part of the 2020 - 2021 inspection process, the BSCC will request estimates from counties about the cost of bringing jail facilities up to state standards.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

As part of the 2020 - 2021 inspection process, the BSCC will request estimates from counties about the cost of bringing jail facilities up to state standards.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing Community Correction's next biennial jail facility report to the Governor and the Legislature during our review of its future responses.

Recommendation #23 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that the counties' detention facilities address health, fire, and life safety deficiencies in a timely manner and that the Governor and the Legislature are aware of these deficiencies, beginning with its next biennial report, the Corrections Board should incorporate inspection information that the state fire marshal and county departments of public health provide to counties into its corrective action process and its reports to the Governor and the Legislature.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

BSCC will provide links on our website to available reports the state fire marshal and county departments of public health and Corrective Action Plans as part of the enhanced inspection process, which we are currently implementing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

BSCC will provide links on our website to available reports the state fire marshal and county departments of public health and Corrective Action Plans as part of the enhanced inspection process, which we are currently implementing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

BSCC will provide links on our website to available reports the state fire marshal and county departments of public health and Corrective Action Plans as part of the enhanced inspection process, which we are currently implementing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

BSCC will provide links on our website to available reports that state fire marshal and county departments of public health and Corrective Action Plans as part of the enhanced inspection process, which we are currently implementing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

BSCC will provide links on our website to available reports the state fire marshal and county departments of public health and Corrective Action Plans as part of the enhanced inspection process, which we are currently implementing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing these website enhancements as part of the Corrections Board's future responses.

Recommendation #24 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that it provides state leadership and promotes best practices for counties to use, by March 2022 the Corrections Board should conduct an independent analysis of best practices, such as effective practices for restitution or rehabilitative programs, related to public safety realignment and publish the results.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

Restitution is outside of the BSCC's responsibility and authority. The BSCC is not able to complete independent analysis of effective practices without significant additional resources.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

The Corrections Board's insinuation that promoting effective practices for county restitution programs is outside of its authority or responsibility is extremely concerning. Specifically, state law designates the Corrections Board as the entity responsible for providing statewide leadership and promoting best practices to counties regarding public safety, which includes restorative justice programs, such as restitution programs. We look forward to its future responses to determine what actions it has taken to assign the resources necessary to analyze best practices and publish the results on its website

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

Restitution is outside of the BSCC's responsibility and authority. The BSCC is not able to complete independent analysis of effective practices without significant additional resources.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Corrections Board's assertion that promoting effective practices for county restitution programs is outside of its authority or responsibility is extremely concerning. Specifically, state law designates the Corrections Board as the entity responsible for providing statewide leadership and promoting best practices to counties regarding public safety, which includes restorative justice programs, such as restitution programs. We look forward to its future responses to determine what actions it has taken to assign the resources necessary to analyze best practices and publish the results on its website.

1-Year Agency Response

Restitution is outside of the BSCC's responsibility and authority. The BSCC is not able to complete independent analysis of effective practices without significant additional resources.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

The Corrections Board's insinuation that promoting effective practices for county restitution programs is outside of its authority or responsibility is extremely concerning. Specifically, state law designates the Corrections Board as the entity responsible for providing statewide leadership and promoting best practices to counties regarding public safety, which includes restorative justice programs, such as restitution programs. We look forward to its future responses to determine what actions it has taken to assign the resources necessary to analyze best practices and publish the results on its website.

6-Month Agency Response

Restitution is outside of the BSCC's responsibility and authority. The BSCC is not able to complete independent analysis of effective practices without significant additional resources.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

The Corrections Board's insinuation that promoting effective practices for county restitution programs is outside of its authority or responsibility is extremely concerning. Specifically, state law designates the Corrections Board as the entity responsible for providing statewide leadership and promoting best practices to counties regarding public safety, which includes restorative justice programs, such as restitution programs. We look forward to its future responses to determine what actions it has taken to assign the resources necessary to analyze best practices and publish the results on its website.

60-Day Agency Response

Restitution is outside of the BSCC's responsibility and authority. The BSCC is not able to complete independent analysis of effective practices without significant additional resources.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

The Corrections Board's insinuation that promoting effective practices for county restitution programs is outside of its authority or responsibility is extremely concerning. Specifically, state law designates the Corrections Board as the entity responsible for providing statewide leadership and promoting best practices to counties regarding public safety, which includes restorative justice programs, such as restitution programs. We look forward to its future responses to determine what actions it has taken to assign the resources necessary to analyze best practices and publish the results on its website.

Recommendation #25 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that it provides state leadership and promotes best practices for counties to use, by March 2022 the Corrections Board should categorize the best practices it lists on its website for ease of reference to the counties.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

BSCC will be conducting a significant update to our website over the next two years, and we will consider ways to ensure that information about best practices will be easy to locate.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Although the Corrections Board indicated it would implement this recommendation by June 2023, it has not provided documentation to support its efforts toward implementation. We look forward to reviewing its progress during its next annual response.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

BSCC will be conducting a significant update to our website over the next two years, and we will consider ways to ensure that information about best practices will be easy to locate.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

BSCC will be conducting a significant update to our website over the next two years, and we will consider ways to ensure that information about best practices will be easy to locate.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

BSCC will be conducting a significant update to our website over the next two years, and we will consider ways to ensure that information about best practices will be easy to locate.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

BSCC will be conducting a significant update to our website over the next two years, and we will consider ways to ensure that information about best practices will be easy to locate.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing website updates in the Corrections Board's future responses.

Recommendation #26 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that it provides state leadership and promotes best practices for counties to use, by March 2022 the Corrections Board should determine common county needs stemming from realignment and promote specific best practices that meet the common needs of counties, including best practices developed and adopted by California counties.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The BSCC is not able to determine common county needs without additional resources. As part of our strategic planning effort, we will consider how additional resources might be available for this purpose.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Although the Corrections Board indicated it would implement this recommendation by December 2022, it has not provided documentation to support its efforts toward implementation. We look forward to reviewing its progress during its next annual response.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From March 2023

The BSCC is not able to determine common county needs without additional resources. As part of our strategic planning effort, we will consider how additional resources might be available for this purpose.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The BSCC is not able to determine common county needs without additional resources. As part of our strategic planning effort, we will consider how additional resources might be available for this purpose.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC is not able to determine common county needs without additional resources. As part of our strategic planning effort, we will consider how additional resources might be available for this purpose.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The BSCC is not able to determine common county needs without additional resources. As part of our strategic planning effort, we will consider how additional resources might be available for this purpose.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to the Corrections Board's future response to assess its planning efforts to implement this recommendation.

All Recommendations in 2020-102

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.