Report 2018-132 Recommendation 4 Responses

Report 2018-132: Bureau of Gambling Control and California Gambling Control Commission: Their Licensing Processes Are Inefficient and Foster Unequal Treatment of Applicants (Release Date: May 2019)

Recommendation #4 To: Justice, Department of

To help it identify which portions of the background investigation process most contribute to lengthy delays, the bureau should conduct an analysis of its investigation processes by November 2019 and should implement procedural changes to improve its timeliness in processing applications.

6-Month Agency Response

In the 60-day response, BGC identified several delays:

(1) Delays in legal review of transactions.

- The Indian and Gaming Law Section completed all of its pending legal reviews of transactions for BGC. BGC's in-house Deputy Attorney General (DAG) reviews all new transactions in a timely manner. As of October 24, 2019, there were four transactions pending review, the oldest received on September 23, 2019.

(2) Delays resulting from granting extensions to requests for information from applicants.

- BGC now requires manager approval prior to granting extensions to applicants requesting additional time to respond to information requests.

(3) Delays resulting from inefficient assignment of cases.

- BGC management assessed the organizational structure and the distribution of assignments. To capitalize on variations in workload and staff availability in different licensing units, the BCG now redistributes and assigns pending licensing investigations to analysts across all units who are not actively working on a case. Management meets on a bi-weekly basis to discuss the needs of specific units and redistribute assignments as necessary.

(4) Delays resulting from assignment of renewal investigations.

- BGC management identified initial application delays due to the prioritization of renewal investigations. Analysts working initial investigations are often redirected to complete renewal investigations that must be completed within a short timeframe. BGC is determining whether designating a team specifically assigned to work on renewal investigations could eliminate these delays.

Additionally, BGC identified and eliminated unnecessary procedures in the background investigation process that were contributing to delays.

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

The bureau's updated analysis has expanded on the issues it identified in its 60-day response. At our request, the bureau also provided additional details about the unnecessary procedures it has eliminated from the background investigation process. If followed, these changes would help address some issues we noted during our review as likely contributing to delays.

60-Day Agency Response

CSA's recommendation was to complete the analysis of delays in the background investigation process by November 2019. BGC has begun the process of conducting a thorough review of its investigation processes and immediately identified several delays that it is currently addressing:

(1) delays in legal review of transactions,

-BGC has identified the outstanding cases and is working with the Indian and Gaming Law Section to complete all legal reviews within the next two months.

-Additionally, all new transactions are reviewed by BGC's in-house Deputy Attorney General (DAG).

(2) delays resulting from granting extensions to responses for information from applicants, and

-BGC has been denying requests for extensions to provide information from applicants unless approved by a manager.

(3) delays resulting from inefficient assignment of cases.

-BGC management also receives each analyst's time on a weekly basis and meets on a bi-weekly basis to discuss how best to utilize resources to address cases exceeding the 180-day time frame. Analysts are being utilized across all cardroom and third party provider licensing units to address the pending workload. A more thorough analysis will be completed within the time frame recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

As the bureau indicates in its response, its analysis is not yet complete. The bureau did not provide any documentation related to the initial determinations it listed in its response. Our audit report identified inefficiencies with legal review and with the bureau's use of its staffing resources, which are consistent with the bureau's response. The bureau clarified for us that it is still providing extensions to applicants who provide reasonable explanations for why they require extensions. Given the inefficiencies we identified in the bureau's current processes, and as we explained in our comments on the bureau's response to our audit report, we believe it is premature for the bureau to begin denying applicants' requests for extensions on a default or comprehensive basis.

All Recommendations in 2018-132

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.