Report I2009-0702 All Recommendation Responses
Report I2009-0702: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Its Poor Internal Controls Allowed Facilities to Overpay Employees for Inmate Supervision (Release Date: November 2009)
Case Number I2009-0702
Recommendation #1 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of
To ensure that employees who receive the pay differential supervise the required number of inmates for the required number of hours, Corrections should require employees at all of its facilities to submit copies of the supervised inmates' time sheets to their personnel offices each month along with their own time sheets. Supervisors who qualify for the pay differential because their subordinates supervise inmates should submit their own time sheets and the names of those they supervise. Personnel staff should use these documents to verify each employee's eligibility to receive the pay differential.
Agency Response From December 2009
Corrections reported that in May 2010 it issued a department-wide operational procedure that clarified and defined the criteria for receiving inmate supervision pay, identified documentation and training needs, and established an internal audit process. Corrections also reported that in June 2010 it had conducted training with its personnel officers and personnel staff regarding its new department-wide procedure. In November 2010 Corrections stated that it was still developing an internal audit process to examine compliance with the operating procedure and that it anticipated scheduling its first annual audit between July and September 2011. (See 2011-406 p. 46)
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
Case Number I2009-0702
Recommendation #2 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of
To ensure that employees who receive the pay differential supervise the required number of inmates for the required number of hours, Corrections should take steps to develop clearer requirements for receiving the pay differential that specifically define what constitutes the "regular" supervision of inmates.
Agency Response From December 2009
Corrections reported that in May 2010 it issued a department-wide operational procedure that clarified and defined the criteria for receiving inmate supervision pay, identified documentation and training needs, and established an internal audit process. Corrections also reported that in June 2010 it had conducted training with its personnel officers and personnel staff regarding its new department-wide procedure. In November 2010 Corrections stated that it was still developing an internal audit process to examine compliance with the operating procedure and that it anticipated scheduling its first annual audit between July and September 2011. (See 2011-406 p. 46)
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
Case Number I2009-0702
Recommendation #3 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of
To ensure that employees who receive the pay differential supervise the required number of inmates for the required number of hours, Corrections should instruct employees who supervise inmates on how to qualify and remain qualified for the pay differential. The instruction should include what documentation the employees need to complete, the length of time they should retain this documentation, the location where they should store the documentation, and the actions they should take when they no longer meet the pay differential requirements.
Agency Response From December 2009
Corrections reported that in May 2010 it issued a department-wide operational procedure that clarified and defined the criteria for receiving inmate supervision pay, identified documentation and training needs, and established an internal audit process. Corrections also reported that in June 2010 it had conducted training with its personnel officers and personnel staff regarding its new department-wide procedure. In November 2010 Corrections stated that it was still developing an internal audit process to examine compliance with the operating procedure and that it anticipated scheduling its first annual audit between July and September 2011. (See 2011-406 p. 46)
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
Case Number I2009-0702
Recommendation #4 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of
To ensure that employees who receive the pay differential supervise the required number of inmates for the required number of hours, Corrections should conduct training for its personnel office staff to ensure that they are familiar with the requirements and policies associated with the inmate supervision pay differential.
Agency Response From December 2009
Corrections reported that in May 2010 it issued a department-wide operational procedure that clarified and defined the criteria for receiving inmate supervision pay, identified documentation and training needs, and established an internal audit process. Corrections also reported that in June 2010 it had conducted training with its personnel officers and personnel staff regarding its new department-wide procedure. In November 2010 Corrections stated that it was still developing an internal audit process to examine compliance with the operating procedure and that it anticipated scheduling its first annual audit between July and September 2011. (See 2011-406 p. 46)
California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
Case Number I2009-0702
Recommendation #5 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of
To ensure that all overpayments are returned to the State, Corrections should initiate accounts receivable for the employees identified as receiving improper payments and should begin collection efforts for these accounts.
Agency Response From May 2010
Corrections informed us that it had decided not to pursue collection efforts against the employees whom we had identified as receiving improper payments. It explained that it did not believe it would prevail in an arbitration hearing since it had not established a formal operating procedure at the time of our investigation and it lacked documentation to demonstrate that the payments were improper.