Report 2011-129 Recommendation 12 Responses

Report 2011-129: Juvenile Justice Realignment: Limited Information Prevents a Meaningful Assessment of Realignment's Effectiveness (Release Date: September 2012)

Recommendation #12 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that counties do not maintain excessive balances of unexpended block grant funds, the board should develop procedures to monitor counties' unspent funds and follow up with them if the balances become unreasonable.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds is incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendices D and E of BSCC's March 2013, March 2014, March 2015, and March 2016 legislative reports show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. The BSCC has a limited role in administering YOBG/JJCPA funding, which has further been limited by AB 1998. As such, the BSCC does not plan on further monitoring the account balances or evaluate whether carried forward balances become "unreasonable."

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

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds are incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendices D and E of BSCC's March 2013, March 2014, and March 2015 legislative reports show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. BSCC does not plan to develop anything further in this area.

This topic invites an important reminder about the changed nature of public safety since enactment of YOBG. Given today's post-realignment and post-Proposition 30 landscape, it is essential to allow counties the flexibility to manage their funds in accordance with local needs and priorities. Indeed, Proposition 30 clearly stated "The [realignment] legislation shall provide local agencies with maximum flexibility and control over the design, administration, and delivery of Public Safety Services..." (Section 36(a)(2) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) For the purposes of this section, Public Safety Services is defined (in part) as "... providing housing, treatment and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders." (Section 36(a)(1) of Article XIII of the California Constitution)

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds is incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendicies D and E of BSCC's March 2013 and March 2014 legislative reports show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. BSCC does not plan to develop anything further in this area, pending recommendations from the JJDWG.

This topic invites an important reminder about the changed nature of public safety since enactment of YOBG. Given today's post-realignment and post-Proposition 30 world, it is essential to allow counties the flexibility to manage their funds in accordance with local needs and priorities. Indeed, Proposition 30 clearly stated "The [realignment] legislation shall provide local agencies with maximum flexibility and control over the design, administration, and delivery of Public Safety Services..." (Section 36(a)(2) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) For the purposes of this section, Public Safety Services is defined (in part) as "... providing housing, treatment and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders." (Section 36(a)(1) of Article XIII of the California Constitution)

Should the recommendations of the JJDWG support a change in direction, the BSCC would re-evaluate the State Auditor's suggestion at that time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Please refer to our one-year response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

Please refer to the one-year response assessment.

1-Year Agency Response

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds is incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendicies D and E of BSCC's March 2013 legislative report show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. Unspent funds equal the difference between the two. BSCC does not plan to develop anything further in this area.

This topic invites an important reminder about the changed nature of public safety since enactment of YOBG. Given today's post-realignment and post-Proposition 30 world, it is essential to allow counties the flexibility to manage their funds in accordance with local needs and priorities. Indeed, Proposition 30 clearly stated "The [realignment] legislation shall provide local agencies with maximum flexibility and control over the design, administration, and delivery of Public Safety Services..." (Section 36(a)(2) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) For the purposes of this section, Public Safety Services is defined (in part) as "... providing housing, treatment and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders." (Section 36(a)(1) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) In further support of the need to align YOBG with the broader realignment mandates, the most recent amendments to Government Code Section 30025 place the Juvenile Justice Subaccount, including the Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account, within the Local Revenue Fund 2011 bringing it clearly under the umbrella of Public Safety Realignment. (Senate Bill 1020, enacted 6/27/12)

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

The report that the board attached in its annual report is not a complete representation of counties' unspent funds given that counties are not required to spend all block grant funds each year. As a result, counties may save block grant funds from one year to the next. Further, our recommendation does not impinge on a county's ability to spend funds how its sees fit and therefore it is unclear to us why the board seemed to make that our recommendation does so. On the contrary, our recommendation simply suggests that the board should monitor unspent funds in the event that they become excessive. We consider this to be a sound business practice, particularly given that the three of the counties we visited held unspent funds for at least four years.

6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC stated that its most recent legislative report will include data on counties' unexpended block grant funds. It also indicated that additional attention will be given to this recommendation during the next reporting cycle.

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

The most recent legislative report did not explicitly include any information regarding counties' unspent funds. In addition, the BSCC indicated it would provide additional policies and procedures relating to monitoring counties' unspent funds in its 1-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

The board did not address this recommendation in its response. (See 2013-406, p. 233)

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

All Recommendations in 2011-129

Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.