Report 2021-616 Recommendation 5 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 #5 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 a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications, including the justification for awards and an explanation of how it will solve instances in which an application does not comply with the solicitation's requirements, so that its decision to approve each application is justified.
See above response to question 4.
- Completion Date: December 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented
We do not agree with Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation. Although Community Corrections updated its grant proposal evaluation process to include a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications, it does not address how it will solve instances in which an application does not comply with the solicitation's requirements. 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
See above response to question 4.
- Completion Date: December 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented
We do not agree with Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation. Although Community Corrections updated its grant proposal evaluation process to include a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications, it does not address how it will solve instances in which an application does not comply with the solicitation's requirements. 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
See above response to question 4.
- Completion Date: December 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented
We do not agree with Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation. Although Community Corrections updated its grant proposal evaluation process to include a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications, it does not address how it will solve instances in which an application does not comply with the solicitation's requirements. 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
See above response to question 4.
- Completion Date: December 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented
We do not agree with Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation. Although Community Corrections updated its grant proposal evaluation process to include a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications, it does not address how it will solve instances in which an application does not comply with the solicitation's requirements. Thus, until this information is included, we will continue to report the status of this recommendation as not fully implemented.
- Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation
See above response to question 4.
- Completion Date: December 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented
We do not agree with Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation. Although Community Corrections updated its grant proposal evaluation process to include a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications, it does not address how it will solve instances in which an application does not comply with the solicitation's requirements. Thus, until this information is included, we will continue to report the status of this recommendation as not fully implemented.
- Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation
See above response to question 4.
- Completion Date: December 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented
We do not agree with Community Corrections' assertion that it has fully implemented our recommendation. Although Community Corrections updated its grant proposal evaluation process to include a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications, it does not address how it will solve instances in which an application does not comply with the solicitation's requirements. 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
See above response to question 4.
- Completion Date: December 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending
As we stated on our assessment of Recommendation 4, we disagree with Community Corrections' insinuation that its practices are sufficient. Specifically, as we describe on page 7 of the report, Community Corrections did not require CDCR to provide any documentation to support its need for the initial $15 million award or for the subsequent $7 million award. We would have expected Community Corrections to require CDCR to provide documentation to support its need for the funds or, at a minimum, to verify the number of inmates CDCR planned to house and an estimate of the associated costs. Because CDCR provided this amount as the funding it needed, it is reasonable to expect that CDCR would have had this information readily available. By failing to require CDCR to provide this information, Community Corrections had no assurance that the funding it provided to CDCR was reasonable, appropriate, or necessary. Further, on pages 17 and 18 of our report, we note that in our review of 31 applications, we identified 18 for which Community Corrections found that the counties did not meet certain requirements. Notably, in 16 instances, Community Corrections' staff indicated that the counties did not adequately form local advisory committees. Finally, Community Corrections' response to Recommendation 4 does not address the specific action to improve it standard grant policies and procedures to address a thorough and documented evaluation of grant applications. We look forward to reviewing Community Corrections' updated grant policies and procedures in its future responses.
- Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
- Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation
See above response to question 4.
- 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 describe on pages 7 and 8 of the audit report, Community Corrections did not require CDCR to provide any documentation to support its need for $22 million in CESF funds. We would have expected Community Corrections to require CDCR to provide documentation to support its need for the funds or, at a minimum, to verify the number of inmates CDCR planned to house and an estimate of the associated costs. By failing to require CDCR to provide this information, Community Corrections had no assurance that the funding it provided to CDCR was reasonable, appropriate, or necessary. As a result, it risks the possibility that it may have to return unspent or misused funds to the federal government. Additionally, in its response to our audit report, Community Corrections tried to minimize its decision to award funds to counties that did not fully comply with its grant requirements. Specifically, on pages 17 and 18 of our report, we note that in our review of the 31 applications, we identified 18 for which Community Corrections found that the counties did not meet certain requirements. Notably, in 16 instances, Community Corrections' staff indicated that the counties did not adequately form local advisory committees, even though in several places in Community Corrections' response, it emphasized the importance that it placed on counties forming these committees.
Therefore, 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.
- 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.