Report 2021-616 Recommendation 4 Responses

Report 2021-616: Board of State and Community Corrections: Its Administration of Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funds Has Been Marred by Delays, Unfair Awards, and Insufficient Monitoring (Release Date: October 2021)

Recommendation #4 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that it efficiently and effectively administers state and federal grants, including any future emergency funds it might receive, Community Corrections should improve its standard grant policies and procedures by December 2021 to address the circumstances under which it will deviate from its solicitation requirements and the steps it will take to ensure that it informs all applicants--and potential applicants--of the deviations, such as by including this information in its grant solicitation or in subsequent communications made available to all potential applicants.

Each competitive proposal that the BSCC administers describes the proposal review process that will be followed, disqualification criteria, the rating and scoring process, and the conditions under which a prospective applicant will be contacted. The BSCC has and will continue this practice.

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

We do not agree with Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation. In our review of Community Corrections' updated grant proposal evaluation process, we found that it does not address the circumstances under which it will deviate from its solicitation requirements and the steps it will take to ensure that it informs all applicants--and potential applicants--of the deviations, such as by including this information in its grant solicitation or in subsequent communications made available to all potential applicants. Thus, until this information is included, we will continue to report the status of this recommendation as not fully implemented.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

: Each competitive proposal that the BSCC administers describes the proposal review process that will be followed, disqualification criteria, the rating and scoring process, and the conditions under which a prospective applicant will be contacted. The BSCC has and will continue this practice.

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Completion Date: December 2021

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

We disagree with Community Corrections' insinuation that its practices are sufficient. As we state on page 18 of the report, Community Corrections did not clearly answer our question about whether it took any steps to inform applicants about its departure from grant requirements, and it could not demonstrate that it notified all potential applicants about the deviations. Moreover, Community Corrections states that its solicitation for this formula grant was not intended to screen out eligible applicants. However, as we note on page 14, there were 26 counties that chose to not apply for a CESF grant, some of which told us that they believed they were unable to meet grant requirements. Had Community Corrections notified counties it was willing to deviate from its requirements, more counties may have applied for CESF funding. Therefore, we are disappointed that Community Corrections does not recognize the need for improvements to its grant process. As we describe on page 19 of the report, the problems we found with Community Corrections' grant process for the CESF grant likely occurred because it lacks robust grant procedures. Therefore, the recommendations we made for Community Corrections to improve its grant procedures are applicable to any other emergency grant funds that it may receive as well as to the other 18 federal and state grants that it administers. These improvements would add clarity and transparency to future grant solicitations. We look forward to receiving Community Corrections' future responses so that we can assess its progress and plans for implementing our recommendations.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Applicants for noncompetitive funding streams must ensure that submitted proposals address the grant requirements. When applicable, the BSCC has and will continue to offer technical assistance to ensure that submitted proposals align with grant requirements.

Completion Date: December 2021

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

Contrary to Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation, it has failed to take action to improve its grant policies and procedures to address the circumstances under which it will deviate from its solicitation requirements and inform all applicants and potential applicants of the deviations. As we discussed in our comments to Community Corrections' response to the audit on page 40 of our report, best practices indicate that Community Corrections should have notified all potential applicants about deviations from the grant requirements it was willing to accept. Doing so is a matter of fairness to all potential applicants. As we state on page 18 of the audit report, Community Corrections did not clearly answer our question about whether it took any steps to inform applicants about its departure from grant requirements, and it could not demonstrate that it notified all potential applicants about the deviations. Further, as we note on page 14 of the report, there were 26 counties that chose to not apply for a CESF grant, some of which told us that they believed they were unable to meet grant requirements. Had Community Corrections notified counties that it was willing to deviate from its requirements, more counties may have applied for CESF funding.

We are disappointed that Community Corrections does not recognize the need for improvements to its grant process accordingly. As we describe on page 19, the problems we found with Community Corrections' grant process for the CESF grant likely occurred because it lacks robust grant procedures. Therefore, the recommendations we made for Community Corrections to improve its grant procedures are applicable to any other emergency grant funds that it may receive as well as to the other 18 federal and state grants that it administers. These improvements would add clarity and transparency to future grant solicitations.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

All Recommendations in 2021-616

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.