Report 2014-109 Recommendations
When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below, is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor's assessment of auditee's response based on our review of the supporting documentation.
Recommendations in Report 2014-109: Sexual Assault Evidence Kits: Although Testing All Kits Could Benefit Sexual Assault Investigations, the Extent of the Benefits Is Unknown (Release Date: October 2014)
| Recommendations to Justice, Department of | ||
|---|---|---|
| Number | Recommendation | Status |
| 4 | To report to the Legislature about the effectiveness of its RADS program and to better inform decisions about expanding the number of analyzed sexual assault evidence kits, Justice should amend its agreements with the counties participating in the RADS program to require those counties to report case outcome information, such as arrests and convictions for the sexual assault evidence kits Justice has analyzed under the program. Justice should then report annually to the Legislature about those case outcomes. |
Partially Implemented |
| Recommendations to Legislature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Number | Recommendation | Status |
| 5 | To establish more comprehensive information about sexual assault evidence kits, specifically the number of kits collected and the number of kits analyzed across the State, the Legislature should direct law enforcement agencies to report to Justice annually how many sexual assault evidence kits they collect and how many kits they analyze each year. The Legislature should also require an annual report from Justice that details this information. |
Legislation Enacted |
| 6 | To provide the Legislature and the public with more complete information about agency decisions not to analyze sexual assault evidence kits, the Legislature should direct agencies to report annually to Justice their reasons for not analyzing sexual assault evidence kits. The Legislature should require an annual report from Justice that details this information. |
Legislation Enacted |
| 7 | To ensure that agencies preserve the option to extend the statute of limitations in unknown assailant cases, the Legislature should require law enforcement agencies to submit sexual assault evidence kits to a crime lab for analysis in all cases where the identity of the assailant is unknown, and it should require the labs to complete analysis of those sexual assault evidence kits within two years of the date of the associated offense. The Legislature should exempt from this requirement all cases where victims specifically request that law enforcement not analyze their kit, as well as cases where investigators determine that no crime occurred. |
No Action Taken |
| Recommendations to Oakland Police Department | ||
|---|---|---|
| Number | Recommendation | Status |
| 1 | To ensure that sexual assault evidence kits are not overlooked and the reason why they are not sent for analysis is clear, by December 1, 2014, the Oakland Police Department should adopt a policy that requires investigators to document the reason they do not submit a request for sexual assault evidence kit analysis to a crime lab. |
Fully Implemented |
| 3 | To ensure that it maximizes the amount of time available for prosecuting sexual offenses, by December 1, 2014, the Oakland Police Department should formalize in a policy document its new practice of analyzing sexual assault evidence kits within two weeks of the department receiving the kits into evidence, and it should continue to implement that policy. |
Fully Implemented |
| Recommendations to San Diego Police Department | ||
|---|---|---|
| Number | Recommendation | Status |
| 2 | To ensure that sexual assault evidence kits are not overlooked and the reason why they are not sent for analysis is clear, by December 1, 2014, the San Diego Police Department should adopt a policy that requires investigators to document the reason they do not submit a request for sexual assault evidence kit analysis to a crime lab. |
Fully Implemented |