Summary

Departments of Public Health and Social Services Weaknesses in the Administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State Children’s Trust Fund Limit Their Effectiveness November 2012 Report 2012-105 Independent NONPARTISAN Accountability TRANSPARENT The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033 OR This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.auditor.ca.gov The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an online subscription service. For information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456, or visit our Web site at www.auditor.ca.gov. Alternate format reports available upon request. Permission is granted to reproduce reports. For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Doug Cordiner B u r e a u o f S t a t e A u d i t s Chief Deputy 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.445.0255 916.327.0019 fax www.auditor.ca.gov November 27, 2012 2012-105 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor (state auditor) presents this audit report concerning the administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund (health and safety fund) and the State Children’s Trust Fund (trust fund). The Legislature designed these funds to address the need for the prevention of childhood injuries and abuse. This report concludes that the Department of Public Health (Public Health) and the Department of Social Services (Social Services) exhibited weaknesses in their administration of these funds. Public Health is responsible for managing the part of the health and safety fund known as the Kids’ Plates Program, a prevention program for unintentional childhood injuries. However, Public Health and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health Services (Health Services), violated state law when they contracted with the San Diego State University Research Foundation (research foundation) to manage the Kids’ Plates Program from 2004 to 2010. Specifically, they did not comply with provisions of state law that prohibit state agencies from contracting with private entities to perform work that state employees could perform. Further, Public Health continued to have the research foundation perform services without an approved contract, in violation of state law. Because the research foundation had been operating without a contract, it was not able to award any grants to prevent unintentional childhood injuries between July 2010 and May 2011. Moreover, Public Health and Health Services paid the research foundation to administer the program from the funds that the Legislature had intended it to use directly for childhood injury prevention programs. They spent roughly 40 percent of their total appropriations received between fiscal years 2006–07 and 2009–10, or nearly $2.1 million, on the research foundation’s administrative costs for the Kids’ Plates Program. Nearly two years after it stopped contracting with the research foundation, Public Health awarded 115 grants to community agencies, but it did not comply with its own contracting procedures when it awarded these grants. Our review also noted weaknesses in Social Services’ administration of the trust fund. Social Services did not fulfill certain monitoring requirements for payments it made to grantees that operate local child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs. For example, we found instances in which Social Services may have used money from the trust fund to pay expenditures that did not meet the trust fund’s requirements. In addition, although our review found that the five grantees we reviewed appear to have met the performance measures established in their grant agreements, Social Services’ Office of Child Abuse Prevention (office) can improve its monitoring of grantees’ progress. Specifically, the office’s guidelines do not include a process for ensuring that its consultants review the grantees’ reports and document their assessments of whether the grantees met the measurable outcomes contained in their grant agreements. Further, the office was unable to provide us with documentary evidence demonstrating that it had done so. Finally, the office has not fully complied with the state law that requires it to publish information about the trust fund. For example, the law requires the office to identify the programs it pays for using the trust fund and the target populations these programs serve. However, the office’s Web site does not include conferences, education services, and outreach it paid for with the trust fund. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA State Auditor California State Auditor Report 2012-105 vii November 2012 Contents Summary 1 Introduction 5 Chapter 1 The Department of Public Health Has Not Adequately Managed the Kids’ Plates Program 15 Recommendations 29 Chapter 2 The Department of Social Services Has Not Sufficiently Managed, Spent, or Reported on the State Children’s Trust Fund 31 Recommendations 44 Appendix A Department of Public Health’s Child Health and Safety Fund Grants 47 Appendix B Department of Social Services’ State Children’s Trust Fund Grants 65 Responses to the Audit California Health and Human Services Agency, California Department of Public Health 69 California Health and Human Services Agency, California Department of Social Services 73 viii California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 1 November 2012 Summary Results in Brief Audit Highlights . . . Thousands of California’s children are injured or killed every Our audit of the administration of the Child year as the result of unintentional injuries and child abuse. To Health and Safety Fund (health and safety address the need for the prevention of childhood injuries and fund) and the State Children’s Trust Fund abuse, the Legislature created two state funds: the Child Health (trust fund) highlighted the following: and Safety Fund (health and safety fund) and the State Children’s Trust Fund (trust fund). The Legislature designed the health and » The Department of Health Services safety fund to support the State’s childcare regulatory functions, (Health Services) and the Department child abuse prevention programs, and child injury prevention of Public Health (Public Health) violated programs. Similarly, it created the trust fund to carry out child state law by hiring a private contractor to abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs statewide. manage the Kids’ Plates Program, rather than having state employees perform The Department of Social Services (Social Services) and the the work. Department of Public Health (Public Health) are each responsible for managing different aspects of the health and safety fund. While » The contractor performed services without Social Services is the fund’s designated administrator, Public Health an approved contract, and was unable is responsible for managing the part of the fund known as the Kids’ to award any funds that could have Plates Program, a prevention program for unintentional childhood been used to help prevent unintentional injuries. The Kids’ Plates Program receives its revenue in part from childhood injuries. the sale of Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids specialized license plates. Public Health is responsible for using the program’s revenue » Health Services and Public Health to award grants to community-based organizations throughout the spent roughly 40 percent of their total State for projects and programs that prevent childhood injuries. appropriations received during four fiscal years, or nearly $2.1 million on the However, Public Health and its predecessor agency, the Department contractor’s administrative costs for of Health Services (Health Services), violated state law when they the Kids’ Plates Program. contracted with the San Diego State University Research Foundation (research foundation) to manage the Kids’ Plates Program from 2004 » Public Health did not comply with its own to 2010. Specifically, when contracting with the research foundation, contracting procedures when it awarded Health Services and Public Health did not comply with provisions 115 grants to community agencies. of state law that prohibit state agencies from contracting with private entities to perform work that state employees could perform. » The Department of Social Services (Social After repeatedly approving Health Services’ and Public Health’s Services) did not fulfill certain monitoring contracts with the research foundation, the Department of General requirements for trust fund expenditures. Services (General Services) finally identified this violation in As a result, one grantee overcharged October 2010, when Public Health submitted its 2010 contract to Social Services by $10,189, and Social have the research foundation operate the Kids’ Plates Program for Services’ Office of Child Abuse Prevention the following two fiscal years. Public Health was unable to provide a may have used trust fund money to pay justification for contracting with a private entity rather than having for expenditures that did not meet the state employees perform the work, and ultimately Public Health trust fund’s requirements. determined it could not contract with the research foundation. » Social Services failed to fully publish During the time that Public Health was attempting to resolve the certain information about the trust fund problems with the 2010 contract, it continued to have the research on its Web site as state law requires. foundation perform services without an approved contract, in violation of state law. When Public Health told the research 2 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 foundation 10 months later that it could not pay for the work the foundation had performed, the foundation filed a claim for more than $300,000 with the State, which the State approved in June 2012. However, because the research foundation had been operating without a contract during those 10 months, it was not able to award any grants during that period of time. In other words, the State ended up paying more than $300,000 in administrative costs without awarding any funds that might have helped to prevent unintentional childhood injuries. Also, although the Legislature appropriated health and safety funds for the Kids’ Plates Program, it did not appropriate funds for Health Services and Public Health to pay for the program’s administration. Consequently, Health Services and Public Health paid the research foundation to administer the program from the funds that the Legislature had intended they use directly for childhood injury prevention programs. Health Services and Public Health spent roughly 40 percent of their total appropriations received between fiscal years 2006–07 and 2009–10, or nearly $2.1 million, on the research foundation’s administrative costs for the Kids’ Plates Program. Moreover, Public Health has not fully complied with state contract monitoring requirements. In particular, Public Health did not substantiate the amounts the research foundation claimed on its invoices. Public Health’s other efforts to administer the Kids’ Plates Program have also been flawed. Nearly two years after it stopped contracting with the research foundation, Public Health awarded 115 grants to community agencies. However, Public Health did not comply with its own contracting procedures when it awarded these grants. As previously discussed, the trust fund is similar to the health and safety fund but focuses on the prevention of child abuse. Specifically, the law establishing the trust fund states that its purpose includes providing for the development of public-private funding partnerships, promoting public awareness regarding child abuse and available intervention services, and carrying out research and demonstration projects exploring the nature of and the long-term solutions to child abuse. Social Services does this by awarding grants to private nonprofit organizations and public institutions of higher education. Social Services is responsible for administering and managing the trust fund. However, Social Services’ Office of Child Abuse Prevention (office) did not fulfill certain monitoring requirements for 10 payments it made to grantees that operate local child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs. Because the office did not properly monitor its grantees it inappropriately paid one of them $10,189. We also found three instances in which California State Auditor Report 2012-105 3 November 2012 the office may have used money from the trust fund to pay for expenditures that did not meet the trust fund’s requirements. In addition, although our review found that the five grantees we reviewed appear to have met the performance measures established in their grant agreements, the office can improve its monitoring of grantees’ progress. Specifically, the office’s guidelines do not include a process for ensuring that its consultants review the grantees’ reports and document their assessments of whether the grantees met the measurable outcomes contained in their grant agreements. Further, the office was unable to provide us with documentary evidence demonstrating that it had done so. Finally, the office has not fully complied with the state law that requires it to publish information about the trust fund. For example, the law requires the office to identify the programs it pays for using the trust fund and the target populations these programs serve. However, the office’s Web site does not include conferences, education services, and outreach it paid for with the trust fund. Moreover, although state law requires the office to publish the trust fund amount as of June 30 of each year, it has not published on its Web site the trust fund’s balance as of June 30, 2012. Recommendations To ensure that it does not violate provisions of state law that prohibit contracts for services that state employees can perform, Public Health should establish that it has adequate justification for hiring a private contractor before submitting contracts to General Services for approval. To comply with state contracting laws and policies that protect the State’s interest, Public Health should do the following: • Ensure that its staff do not allow contractors to work before General Services has approved the contracts. • Ensure that its staff comply with its internal contracting policies. To comply with the State Contracting Manual, Public Health should direct its staff to substantiate the expenditures contractors claim. For example, Public Health could ask the contractors to submit for review detailed records substantiating all or a sample of their invoices. To ensure compliance with the State Contracting Manual, Social Services should direct the office to substantiate the expenditures that grantees claim. For example, the office could ask the grantees to submit detailed records for all or a sample of their invoices for review. 4 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 To ensure that the office complies with the State Contracting Manual, Social Services should do the following: • Direct the office to update its guidelines for grant administration to establish a formal process for reviewing the grantees’ progress reports and interim products, which includes documenting its review and assessment of whether the grantees met the measurable outcomes in their grant requirements. • Direct the office to retain the documentary evidence of its review and assessment in the grantee files. To ensure compliance with the state law that requires the office to publish certain trust fund information, Social Services should do the following: • Require the office to establish procedures to ensure the inclusion on its Web site of all programs and services it funded using the trust fund. • Require the office to publish on its Web site the amount in the trust fund as of June 30 each year. Agency Comments Public Health stated that it agrees with our recommendations and provided its plans for implementing them. In addition, although Social Services did not specifically state that it agrees with each of our recommendations, it provided its plans for implementing them. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 5 November 2012 Introduction Background Every year thousands of children are the victims of child abuse and unintentional childhood injury. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (center), between the years 2000 and 2006 an average of 12,175 children under the age of 19 died annually in the United States from an unintentional injury. In addition, the center reported that more than 1,700 children under the age of 17 died from child abuse and neglect in 2008. According to the center, prevention is the most effective way to improve children’s health, lower societal costs for children’s medical care, and reduce other negative effects related to both childhood injury and abuse. In California the Legislature created two state funds to address the need for prevention of childhood injuries and abuse. The Legislature established the Child Health and Safety Fund (health and safety fund) in 1992 for the purpose of supporting the State’s childcare regulatory functions, child abuse prevention programs, and child injury prevention programs. It also established the State Children’s Trust Fund (trust fund) in 1982 to carry out child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs statewide. Although the health and safety fund’s primary purpose is to prevent unintentional injury to children and the trust fund’s primary purpose is to prevent child abuse, their larger goal is the same: to protect children. We discuss the intent, funding, and management of these two funds in more depth in the sections that follow. The Child Health and Safety Fund The amount of revenue the health and safety fund receives ranges from $4.3 million to $5 million each year. As shown in Figure 1 on the following page, the health and safety fund derives its revenue in part from the sale of Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids specialized license plates (specialized license plates). The Department of Motor Vehicles (Motor Vehicles) collects fees for the registration, renewal, and transfer of the specialized license plates and deposits the revenue into the health and safety fund. As of June 2012 Motor Vehicles had issued approximately 265,000 specialized license plates. The health and safety fund also receives revenue from investments and penalty assessments the Department of Social Services (Social Services) imposes on child day care facilities for noncompliance with the Child Day Care Facilities Act. 6 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Figure 1 The Flow of Receipts and Disbursements for the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State Children’s Trust Fund as of June 26, 2012 Birth certificate Grants, gifts, or Interest income Moneys derived fees bequests from from the from the sale of Have a Interest income private sources Surplus Money from the Heart, Be a Star, and Help Funds from Investment Fund Surplus Money Our Kids specialized license other State Investment Fund plates (specialized programs* license plates) Contributions by taxpayers in excess of their tax liability Child Health and Safety Fund† State Children’s Trust Fund 2.5% (health and safety fund) (trust fund) 25% 25% § 100% 50% ‡ 22.5% Department of Social Services Department of Public Health (Social Services) (Public Health) Community Care Office of Child State and Local Licensing Division Abuse Prevention Injury Control Section Counties’ Children’s Private nonprofit Public institutions of Community-based Trust FundsII organizations higher education organizations Sources: Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 18285, 18962, and 18965-18971. In addition, Social Services’ and Public Health’s financial and program information. * This funding represents the appropriation from the Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment (CAPIT) Program, which is a state-funded program supporting child abuse, neglect prevention, and intervention programs for high-risk populations. Although the majority of the CAPIT funding goes to the counties, the allocation to any county that declines the funding for services under CAPIT reverts to the trust fund. † The health and safety fund also contains revenue resulting from civil penalties Social Services imposes upon child day care facility providers. However, state law requires Social Services to use this revenue exclusively for the technical assistance, orientation, training and education of child day care facility providers. ‡ Under Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 18285 (d), 50 percent of the moneys derived from the sale of specialized license plates is available for Social Services to regulate child care licensees. § Effective June 27, 2012, Public Health no longer received 25 percent of the moneys derived from the sale of specialized license plates. Under the amended law, Social Services receives 50 percent of the moneys from the sale of specialized license plates plus an additional $501,000. Public Health receives the balance of funds remaining after Social Services’ appropriation. II The Counties’ Children’s Trust Funds support local child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs. The counties’ board of supervisors make the final decision on the programs they will fund. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 7 November 2012 Social Services and the Department of Public Health (Public Health) are responsible for managing different aspects of the health and safety fund. Social Services is the fund’s designated administrator, which means that it is responsible for the operations of the fund. As the fund administrator, Social Services is also responsible for the preparation of the health and safety fund’s financial statements, fund condition statements, and other budget documents. In addition, half of the revenue from the sale of specialized license plates supports Social Services’ Community Care Licensing Division, which provides oversight of licensed facilities that serve children, parents, and the elderly. State law requires Social Services to spend this revenue on childcare facility site visits, monitoring of the childcare advocate program, training for investigative and licensing field staff, other aspects of the childcare advocate program, and the salary for the chief of the childcare branch. In this audit, we did not examine the Community Care Licensing Division’s use of the health and safety fund. In addition, Public Health is partially responsible for the management of the health and safety fund. Specifically, 25 percent of the specialized license plate revenue supports Public Health’s unintentional childhood injury prevention program, referred to throughout this report as the Kids’ Plates Program. Public Health’s State and Local Injury Control Section oversees and manages the Kids’ Plates Program. The program’s main mission is to distribute grants from the health and safety fund to community-based organizations throughout the State to build capacity for childhood injury prevention. When the Legislature established funding for the Kids’ Plates Program, it required that its areas of focus include bicycle, gun, fire, and vehicular safety and the prevention of drowning, childhood lead poisoning, and sudden infant death syndrome. We discuss this program in more depth in Chapter 1. Of the remaining 25 percent of the health and safety fund, the Legislature allocates 22.5 percent to the Counties’ Children’s Trust Funds to support local child abuse prevention programs. Our audit did not focus on the Counties’ Children’s Trust Funds. The Legislature appropriated the last 2.5 percent to the trust fund to fund public education, training, and technical assistance related to child abuse prevention. Figure 2 on the following page presents the health and safety fund revenues, expenditures, and fund balances for fiscal years 2006–07 through 2011–12. 8 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Figure 2 Child Health and Safety Fund Fiscal Years 2006–07 Through 2011–12 Revenue—Specialized license plate fees* Revenue—Penalty assessments† Income from surplus money investments Local assistance expenditures‡§II $8 Administrative expenditures‡# Fund balance 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 snoilliM nI 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Fiscal Year Sources: Department of Social Services’ (Social Services) Child Health and Safety Fund (health and safety fund) year-end financial statements, Department of Motor Vehicles’ year-end statement of revenue reports, State Controller’s Office’s (controller’s office) accounting records, and Department of Public Health’s (Public Health) accounting records. We used these data for background purposes only, and they do not support findings, recommendations, or conclusions. Therefore, we did not assess the reliability of these data. * As of June 26, 2012, in accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 18285 (d), 50 percent of the revenues derived from the Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids license plate program pursuant to Vehicle Code, Section 5072, shall be available upon appropriation to Social Services for the purpose of administering its Community Care Licensing Division. † Social Services can impose penalty assessments upon child day care facility providers for noncompliance with the California Day Care Facilities Act and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this act. In accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 18285 (f), revenue derived from civil penalties imposed upon child day care facility providers shall be made available, upon appropriation, to Social Services exclusively for technical assistance, orientation, training, and education of child day care facility providers. ‡ The Department of Finance (Finance) defines local assistance as support for local government activities. It also defines state operations as expenditures for support of state government exclusive of capital outlay and expenditures for local government activities. For the purposes of our report, we refer to state operations expenditures as administrative expenditures. § Local assistance appropriations are comprised of amounts from Social Services and Public Health. The Department of Health Services (Health Services) was Public Health’s predecessor agency prior to July 1, 2007. Therefore, some health and safety fund expenditures shown above were managed by Health Services. II Public Health incorrectly recorded $1,384,000 as an encumbrance for fiscal year 2010–11, which affects the expenditures. Public Health recorded this encumbrance in anticipation of approval of its contract with the San Diego State University Research Foundation, but the contract was not executed. # Administrative expenditures are comprised of amounts from Social Services, controller’s office, the Department of Human Resources, Finance, and transfers to the State Children’s Trust Fund. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 9 November 2012 State Children’s Trust Fund The trust fund was established in 1982 for the purpose of providing for the development of public-private funding partnerships, promoting public awareness regarding child abuse and available intervention services, and carrying out research and demonstration projects exploring the nature of and long-term solutions to child abuse. Similar to the health and safety fund, Social Services is the designated administrator of the trust fund. Therefore, it is responsible for the trust fund’s operations, financial statements, fund condition statements, and other budget documents. Social Services is also responsible for managing programs supported by the trust fund through its Office of Child Abuse Prevention (office). The office awards grants from the trust fund to private nonprofit organizations or public institutions of higher education that operate local child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs. As of March 2012 the office had 15 employees with 13 split between two units. Six employees work for the Family and Community Support Services unit, which is responsible for the research, development, and implementation of innovative programs that lead to the dissemination of promising and evidence-based practices. For example, Strategies is a statewide training and technical assistance project that benefits community-based family-support organizations and public agencies. The remaining seven employees work for Prevention Network Development, which provides oversight of federal- and state-funded grants and supports the implementation of programs and services funded through these sources. This unit also provides technical assistance and coordinates statewide training for county child welfare service agencies and community-based organizations. The trust fund’s total revenue varies from year to year, ranging from $801,000 to $1.5 million over the last six fiscal years. As shown in Figure 3 on the following page, the trust fund has two main sources of revenue. Each year it received $388,000 to $526,000 from contributions that taxpayers made by checking a box on their state income tax forms. It also received $92,000 to $646,000 from birth certificate fees that the State Registrar imposed when individuals requested copies of birth records. The statute governing the trust fund authorizes Social Services to spend no more than 5 percent of its trust fund appropriation on administration. However, between fiscal years 2006–07 and 2011–12, the Legislature appropriated an average of $347,000 each year for Social Services to administer the trust fund, an amount in excess of the 5 percent limit. Table 1 on page 11 presents Social Services’ trust fund administrative appropriation, total appropriation, and our calculation of the percent this represents by fiscal year. Although Social Services’ actual administrative appropriation has consistently exceeded the 5 percent 10 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 limit, this does not represent a violation of state law because the Legislature has the right to override its past decisions. By enacting appropriations for administrative purposes, the Legislature authorized Social Services to spend the funds. Figure 3 State Children’s Trust Fund Fiscal Years 2006–07 Through 2011–12 Revenue—Birth certificate fees Revenue—Transfer-in from other state programs* Revenue—Taxpayer contributions Income from surplus money investments Revenue—Grants, gifts, or bequests from private sources Local assistance expenditures† Administrative expenditures†‡§ Ending fund balance $8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 -1 snoilliM nI 1 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Fiscal Year Sources: Department of Social Services’ (Social Services) State Children’s Trust Fund (trust fund) year-end financial statements, Department of Public Health’s accounting records, Franchise Tax Board’s (Franchise Tax) status report for voluntary contributions, and State Controller’s Office’s (controller’s office) accounting records. We used these data for background purposes only, and they do not support findings, recommendations, or conclusions. Therefore, we did not assess the reliability of these data. * This funding represents of the appropriation from the Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment (CAPIT) Program, which is a state-funded program supporting child abuse neglect prevention and intervention programs for high-risk populations. Although the majority of the CAPIT funding goes to the counties, the allocation to any county that declines the funding for services under CAPIT reverts to the trust fund. † The Department of Finance defines local assistance as support for local government activities. It also defines state operations as expenditures for support of state government exclusive of capital outlay and expenditures for local government activities. For the purposes of our report, we refer to state operations expenditures as administrative expenditures. ‡ Administrative expenditures are comprised of amounts from Social Services, Franchise Tax, and the controller’s office. § The fiscal year 2009–10 administrative expenditures have a credit balance primarily because the transfer from the Child Health and Safety Fund of $140,000 exceeded the actual expenditures. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 11 November 2012 Table 1 Department of Social Services’ Administrative Appropriations for the State Children’s Trust Fund (Dollars in Thousands) FISCAL YEAR 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Appropriation for administrative costs* $208 $331 $361 $393 $394 $395 Total appropriation 1,808 4,086 4,116 4,148 4,180 3,995 Administrative appropriation as a 11.5% 8.1% 8.8% 9.5% 9.4% 9.9% percent of total appropriation Sources: The Department of Finance’s (Finance) Final Budget Summary for each fiscal year and the California State Auditor’s calculations based on Finance’s summaries. * The administrative appropriations shown in the table do not include transfers made by the State Controller’s Office from the Child Health and Safety Fund to the State Children’s Trust Fund. Scope and Methodology The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) asked the California State Auditor (state auditor) to audit the expenditures from the health and safety fund and the trust fund to assess whether their administering agencies used the funds to pay for activities that aligned with the funds’ intended purposes. The audit analysis that the audit committee approved contained seven objectives. Table 2 lists the seven objectives and the methods we used to address them. Table 2 Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 1 Review and evaluate the laws, • Reviewed relevant state laws pertaining to the Child Health and Safety Fund (health and safety fund), rules, and regulations significant the State Children’s Trust Fund (trust fund), Public Contract Code, and the Government Code. to the audit objectives. • Reviewed state contracting and administrative manuals, and the contracts and other agreements that establish spending requirements for the funds. 2 Review and assess the current • Identified funding streams established in law. fiscal condition of the trust fund • Reviewed financial statements and information related to the Department of Social Services (Social and health and safety fund. Services), the Department of Public Health (Public Health), and the Department of Health Services (Health Services). • Interviewed management at Social Services and Public Health. 3 For the most recent six fiscal • Reviewed contracts and grant agreements at Social Services, Public Health, and the San Diego State years, determine whether funds University Research Foundation (research foundation). from the trust fund and health • Obtained and analyzed electronic expenditure information from Social Services, Public Health, and the and safety fund have been used research foundation. in accordance with state laws by performing the following for each • Documented the history of Public Health’s contract with the research foundation. Researched fiscal year: and documented the claim the research foundation filed with the California Victim’s a. Identify the entities that have Compensation and Government Claims Board. received funding, as well as • Interviewed Public Health’s management about its plans to administer the Kids’ Plates Program. the programs and purposes for which the funds were used. continued on next page . . . 12 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD b. Determine the amount • Reviewed laws that govern the trust fund and the health and safety fund to determine any and percentage of funds administrative limits. used for administration • Interviewed Social Services’ and Public Health’s management. by the administering state departments. • Reviewed Public Health’s and Health Services’ contracts with the research foundation. • Examined Social Services’ and Public Health’s appropriations for local assistance and state operations. • Obtained and analyzed electronic expenditure, transfer, and revenue data from Social Services, Public Health, and the research foundation from fiscal year 2006–07 through March 30, 2012. Obtained and analyzed Health Services’ expenditure data from fiscal years 2006–07 through 2009–10. • Obtained financial information from Social Services and Public Health from March 31, 2012, to June 30, 2012. c. For a sample of expenditures • Reviewed Social Services’, Public Health’s, and the research foundation’s policies and procedures. and transfers, determine if the • Selected expenditures and transfers to test for compliance with internal controls, laws, and/or amounts and activities were contract specifications. for programs and purposes allowed by law. • State law governing the trust fund prohibits Social Services from supplanting any federal, state, or county funds with any funds made available through the trust fund. It also prohibits Social Services from using the trust fund to supplant the State’s General Fund money for any purpose. Our legal d. Determine if any of the counsel advises that the prohibition against supplanting is construed to prevent Social Services moneys were used to supplant from allocating moneys appropriated from the trust fund in order to “free up” other state and federal programs and services moneys that it receives for program purposes. Conversely, transfers are not deemed to be supplanting otherwise funded through of funds if the following criteria are met: federal and other state funds have been reduced and federal, state, or county funds. moneys from the trust fund are shifted to make up that shortfall, Social Services has continued to meet program responsibilities, and those programs have purposes that are within the description of allowable trust fund expenditures. We did not identify any instances of supplanting during this audit. 4 Review and assess the extent to • Reviewed Social Services’, Public Health’s, and the research foundation’s contracts and grant which any performance standards agreements to identify and assess performance measurements. have been developed for the • Reviewed reports and deliverables for selected contracts or grant agreements to determine whether programs and services funded by the pertinent parties had met the performance measurements. the trust fund or health and safety fund. Further, determine whether such measures are appropriate and reasonable, and whether the respective state departments are meeting them. 5 Identify any program evaluations • Interviewed Social Services’ and Public Health’s management to determine whether they prepared any or studies that have been evaluations or studies for the trust fund and health and safety fund. conducted and assess the results • Selected grant agreements identified in Social Services’ spending plans for the trust fund to determine to determine whether the funding whether it had conducted studies or evaluations. In addition, collected and reviewed the deliverables objectives for the trust fund and for the studies or evaluations we had identified to determine whether the results were achieved health and safety fund were effectively or efficiently in accordance with the desired outcomes established in the grant agreements. achieved effectively or efficiently. • Public Health stated that the only evaluation or study conducted for the Kids’ Plates Program was an evaluation funded by the research foundation in fiscal year 2006–07. However, Public Health and the research foundation were unable to provide us with the final report for this evaluation. 6 Review and assess the extent • Interviewed staff from Social Services, Public Health, and the research foundation to document their to which Social Services and processes for monitoring contracts and grant agreements. Public Health monitored their • Examined and documented evidence of Social Services’, Public Health’s, and the research foundation’s respective program operations contract and grant agreement monitoring efforts. to ensure fiscal integrity was maintained and to identify any management issues and potential noncompliance. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 13 November 2012 AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 7 Review and assess any other • Reconciled the amounts shown in the health and safety fund year-end financial statements for fiscal issues that are significant to years 2006–07 through 2010–11 to the amounts shown in the State Controller’s Office’s (controller’s the State’s administration of the office) Budgetary/Legal Basis Annual Report and the Governor’s Budget for the same years. For fiscal trust fund or the health and year 2010–11, the difference between the amounts shown in the controller’s office’s report and the safety fund. Governor’s Budget was $506,000. • Reconciled the amounts shown in the trust fund year-end financial statements for fiscal years 2006–07 through 2010–11 to the amounts shown in the controller’s office’s Budgetary/Legal Basis Annual Report and the Governor’s Budget for the same years. For fiscal year 2010–11, the difference between the amounts shown in the controller’s office’s report and the Governor’s Budget was $19,000. • Reviewed the Department of Finance’s budget letter number 12-22 that reminds state departments that the data reported in the year-end financial reports should be consistent with the Governor’s Budget and the Budget Act. The budget letter also clearly delineates the responsibilities of the fund administrator. Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit request number 2012–105 and the analysis of information and documentation identified in the table column titled Method. Assessment of Data Reliability In performing this audit, we relied upon electronic data files extracted from the information systems listed in Table 3. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer-processed information that is used to support findings, conclusions, or recommendations. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis. Table 3 Methods Used to Assess Data Reliability INFORMATION SYSTEMS PURPOSES METHODS AND RESULTS CONCLUSIONS Department of To make a selection • This purpose did not require a data reliability assessment. Instead, we Complete for the Social Services of State Children’s needed to gain assurance the population was complete. purpose of this audit. (Social Services) Trust Fund (trust • We performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of fund) expenditures. key data elements and found no issues. California State Accounting and • We verified completeness by comparing the total trust fund expenditures Reporting System to the State Controller’s Office’s (controller’s office) appropriation control ledger. We found the data to be materially complete. Data for the period To identify the • We performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of Sufficiently reliable July 2006 through amounts paid key data elements and found no issues. for the purpose of March 2012 from the trust fund this audit. • We performed accuracy testing on a selection of 30 trust fund to grantees. expenditures by tracing key data elements to supporting documentation and found no errors. • We verified completeness by comparing the total trust fund expenditures to the controller’s office’s appropriation control ledger. We found the data to be materially complete. continued on next page . . . 14 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 INFORMATION SYSTEMS PURPOSES METHODS AND RESULTS CONCLUSIONS San Diego To make a selection • This purpose did not require a data reliability assessment. Instead, we Complete for the State University of expenditures needed to gain assurance the population was complete. purpose of this audit. Research Foundation the research • We performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of (research foundation) foundation charged key data elements and found no issues. to its contracts with Ellucian Banner system Public Health and • We verified completeness by comparing the total amount Public Health Health Services. and Health Services paid from the health and safety fund to the research Expenditure data foundation’s total expenditures. We found the data to be materially complete. related to Child To identify the • We performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of Sufficiently reliable Health and Safety administrative key data elements and found no issues. for the purpose of Fund (health and costs the research this audit. safety fund) contracts • We performed accuracy testing on a selection of 29 expenditures by foundation charged with the Department tracing key data elements to supporting documentation and found to its contracts with of Public Health no errors. Public Health and (Public Health) and Health Services. • We verified completeness by comparing the total amount Public Health the Department and Health Services paid from the health and safety fund to the of Health Services research foundation’s total expenditures. We found the data to be (Health Services) materially complete. for the period between July 2006 To identify the • We performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of Undetermined and June 2010. amounts the research key data elements and found no issues. reliability for the The data includes foundation paid • We performed accuracy testing on a selection of 29 expenditures by purpose of this audit. expenses through to grantees under tracing key data elements to supporting documentation and found February 2011. the Public Health no errors. and Health Services’ contracts. • We verified completeness by comparing the total amount Public Health and Health Services paid from the health and safety fund to the research foundation’s total expenditures. We found the data to be materially complete. • The expenditure data did not always contain grantee information, such as grantee name or grant number. Consequently, we relied on the research foundation to provide missing information enabling us to identify the amounts it paid to grantees. We did not validate the additional information provided by the research foundation. Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of various documents, interviews, and data obtained from the entities listed in the table. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 15 November 2012 Chapter 1 THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH HAS NOT ADEQUATELY MANAGED THE KIDS’ PLATES PROGRAM Chapter Summary From 1998 until 2010, the Department of Public Health (Public Health) and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health Services (Health Services), contracted with the San Diego State University Research Foundation (research foundation) to administer the Kids’ Plates Program. When they contracted with the research foundation, Public Health and Health Services violated state law’s prohibition against state agencies contracting with private entities to perform certain types of work that state employees could perform. After years of approving the contracts, the Department of General Services (General Services) finally identified this violation when Public Health attempted to enter into a new contract with the research foundation in 2010. Ultimately, Public Health determined that it could not justify continuing to contract with the research foundation. While it was attempting to resolve this issue, however, Public Health further violated state law by allowing the research foundation to perform services for 10 months without a contract. Public Health could not reimburse the research foundation for its efforts; therefore, the research foundation filed a claim against the State, which awarded it more than $300,000. Because the research foundation could not award grants without a contract, the State did not receive any benefits from the 10 months of work the research foundation performed and for which the State ultimately paid. In addition, Public Health and Health Services again violated state law when they paid the research foundation for its administrative expenses using local assistance funds, even though the Legislature intended the funds to be used only for costs directly associated with preventing unintentional childhood injury. In total, these departments inappropriately paid the research foundation nearly $2.1 million in local assistance funds to administer the Kids’ Plates Program between fiscal years 2006–07 and 2009–10. This amount represents 40 percent of Public Health’s and Health Services’ total Kids’ Plates Program appropriations of $5.2 million. Further, since it stopped contracting with the research foundation, Public Health has struggled to effectively administer the Kids’ Plates Program, in part because the Legislature did not award it funding for administrative costs until fiscal year 2012–13. In March 2012, 21 months after its contract with the research foundation expired, Public Health awarded 115 grants to community-based organizations. 16 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 This represented a fraction of the funds it had available to award, and it offered the grants only to organizations focused on certain childhood safety issues. Moreover, Public Health did not comply with its own contracting procedures when it awarded the grants. Finally, Public Health did not adequately California Government Code, Section 19130 (b), monitor the amounts it reimbursed the research states that personal services contracting shall be foundation when the foundation administered permissible when any of the following conditions the program, nor did it adequately monitor the are met: amounts it reimbursed the 115 grantees. 1. The functions contracted are exempt from civil service by the California Constitution. Health Services and Public Health Violated State 2. The contract is for a new state function and the Law When They Contracted With the Research Legislature has specifically mandated or authorized the Foundation to Perform Work That State Employees performance of the work by independent contractors. Could Have Performed 3. The services contracted are not available within civil service, cannot be performed satisfactorily by civil Health Services and Public Health did not service employees, or are of such a highly specialized properly justify their decision to pay the research or technical nature that the necessary expert foundation to administer the Kids’ Plates Program knowledge, experience, and ability are not available when state employees could have performed through the civil service system. this work. Health Services and Public Health 4. The services are incidental to a contract for the contracted with the research foundation purchase or lease of real or personal property. to develop and administer a grant program to 5. The legislative, administrative, or legal goals and distribute local assistance moneys to public and purposes cannot be accomplished through the nonprofit agencies throughout California to utilization of persons selected pursuant to the regular build capacity for childhood injury prevention. civil service system. In addition, the research foundation provided technical assistance and training to enhance the 6. The nature of the work is such that the California Government Code standards for emergency ability of local, regional, and statewide programs appointments apply. to deliver ongoing comprehensive interventions to reduce injuries, disabilities, and deaths among 7. State agencies need private counsel because of children and adolescents. a conflict of interest on the part of the Attorney General’s Office. Article VII of the California Constitution has 8. The contractor will provide equipment, materials, been interpreted by the courts to prohibit state facilities, or support services that could not feasibly agencies from contracting with private entities be provided by the State in the location where the to perform work that the State has historically services are to be performed. and customarily performed and can perform 9. The contractor will conduct training courses for which adequately and competently. Exceptions to this appropriately qualified civil service instructors are rule are set forth in California Government not available. Code, Section 19130 (b) (Section 19130 (b)) and 10. The services are of such urgent, temporary, or are shown in the text box. According to the State occasional nature that the delay incumbent in their Contracting Manual, State Personnel Board implementation under civil service would frustrate regulations require that any agency submitting their very purpose. a contract under Section 19130 (b), for General Services’ approval must attach a written Source: California Government Code, Section 19130 (b). California State Auditor Report 2012-105 17 November 2012 justification that includes detailed information demonstrating how the contract meets one or more of the conditions specified in Section 19130 (b). However, our review found that Health Services and Public Health consistently failed to follow the State’s policies and procedures for contracting for personal services when contracting with the research foundation. Although Health Services and Public Health included written justifications when submitting their contracts to General Services, they could not demonstrate their compliance with Section 19130 (b). For instance, when Health Services entered into a contract with the research foundation for the period of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2007, it stated that the contract was justified because “services are not available within civil service and, at the time the original mandate for this program was passed, the Legislature specifically authorized the performance of this work by an outside contractor.” Similarly, when Public Health entered into a contract with the research foundation for the period of Health Services and Public Health July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010, it justified this contract by were unable to provide stating “this service is contracted out because it is a new function documentation to support and the Legislature either mandated or authorized the contracting hiring an outside contractor, and out pursuant to Government Code, Section 19130 (b).” However, the legislation mandating the Health Services and Public Health were unable to provide us with establishment of the health and documentation to support these justifications, and the enabling safety fund did not specifically legislation mandating the establishment of the health and safety authorize an outside contractor fund did not specifically authorize an outside contractor to perform to perform this work. this work. In its justification for the contract for July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010, Public Health also cited the budget change proposal for fiscal year 1998–99 that Health Services submitted to the Department of Finance (Finance) in September 1997, for the Kids’ Plates Program. Specifically, Public Health stated that when Health Services submitted its budget change proposal, Finance instructed it to contract with an outside agency to administer the program in order to comply with the California Competes policy.1 Public Health also stated that because Health Services awarded the initial contract to the research foundation and because the State Administrative Manual, Section 1233, exempts contracts for the work or services of the state university systems or their foundations from advertising in the California State Contracts Register, it continued to directly award subsequent contracts to the research foundation. Although the State Administrative Manual, 1 Governor’s Executive Order W-127-95 issued on September 20, 1995, required each agency to submit to the Governor’s Office by December 8, 1995, a plan and schedule of actions to eliminate or modify those regulations affecting the business sector that were suitable for repeal. The order also directed each agency to submit recommended legislative changes needed to reduce all excessive regulatory burdens in California. Public Health refers to this executive order as the California Competes policy. 18 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Section 1233, exempts contracts for the work or services of the research foundation from the advertising requirement, it does not exempt state agencies from complying with Section 19130 (b). The state entities that should have identified that the research foundation’s contracts violated Section 19130 (b) failed to do so. The State Contracting Manual requires General Services’ Office of Legal Services (legal services) to review state agencies’ contracts for personal services to ensure compliance with applicable laws and General Services approved the policies. However, General Services approved the 2004 and 2007 research foundation’s contracts in research foundation contracts without ensuring that the contracts 2004 and 2007 without ensuring complied with Section 19130 (b). Legal services stated that it was compliance with applicable laws difficult to reconstruct the exact situation of any particular contract and policies. review because it typically communicates with the departments through informal e-mails and telephone calls and because it does not generally retain records, especially for approved contracts. Legal services stated that the attorney who approved Public Health’s 2007 contract was likely satisfied with Public Health’s verbal response. In addition, Public Health’s legal office did not review contracts involving personal services prior to November 2009, so it also did not identify that these contracts violated Section 19130 (b). In response to one of our previous reports recommending that Public Health’s legal services review the Section 19130 (b) justifications for high-risk personal services contracts, Public Health issued bulletin 09-13, which requires its staff to obtain the approval of their division chief and the legal office for any contracts or procurements that in whole or in part involve personal services that civil service staff could perform. That bulletin became effective on November 3, 2009. In October 2010, when Public Health submitted to General Services its proposed contract with the research foundation for the period of July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2012, General Services identified several areas of concern. Between November 2010 and February 2011, legal services worked with Public Health to resolve these concerns, which included Public Health’s lack of a sufficient justification to contract for personal services under Section 19130 (b). In February 2011 Public Health concluded that it was unable to provide a justification for contracting with the research foundation for personal services. Thus, Public Health was unable to continue contracting with the research foundation to administer the Kids’ Plates Program. When we asked the chief of legal services about the efforts General Services has made to ensure compliance with Section 19130 (b) contracts, he stated that in the last year legal services has placed additional emphasis on Section 19130 (b) compliance. It has begun pushing agencies to provide adequate justification. The chief also stated that to educate the agencies, legal services is holding quarterly meetings with agencies’ contracting and legal staff. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 19 November 2012 Health Services and Public Health Violated State Law When They Used Local Assistance Funds to Pay the Research Foundation to Manage the Kids’ Plates Program As discussed in the Introduction, the Kids’ Plates Program receives revenue from the sale of specialized license plates. The Department of Motor Vehicles deposits this revenue in the health and safety fund, and the Legislature then appropriates a portion to Public Health. State law requires Public Health to spend the revenue on efforts to prevent unintentional childhood injury or death, and the annual appropriation grants Public Health the authority to spend the moneys on local assistance only. Finance defines local assistance as expenditures made for the support of local government activities. In the case of the Kids’ Plates Program, these expenditures might include grants to community-based organizations for injury prevention programs, safety equipment such as car seats, and information given to local communities about injury prevention practices. Despite this restriction on their use of the funds, Health Services and Public Health paid the research foundation from 1998 to 2010 Between fiscal years 2006–07 to administer the Kids’ Plates Program. By using funds that the and 2009–10, the Legislature Legislature appropriated for local assistance for administrative appropriated $5.2 million to Health purposes, they violated state law. Between fiscal years 2006–07 and Services and Public Health for the 2009–10, the Legislature appropriated $5.2 million to Health Services Kids’ Plates Program—roughly and Public Health for the Kids’ Plates Program. They spent roughly 40 percent of this amount went 40 percent of this amount on the research foundation’s administration to the research foundation’s of the program. For example, Health Services and Public Health paid administration of the program. the research foundation nearly $1.1 million for salaries and benefits, $179,000 for facilities and administration costs, and $852,000 for other administrative expenses such as rent. These costs do not meet the definition of local assistance because they do not support local government activities. Further, our legal counsel did not find that Health Services and Public Health had any authority to spend funds appropriated as local assistance to administer the Kids’ Plates Program, whether by them or by their contract with the research foundation. Because Health Services and Public Health inappropriately spent local assistance funds to administer the program, only $3.1 million of the $5.2 million appropriation was available to award in grants to public and nonprofit agencies during this period. When the Legislature created the Kids’ Plates Program, it did not award Health Services any funds for administration. According to Public Health, Health Services submitted a budget change proposal for fiscal year 1998–99 to Finance in September 1997, but its effort was unsuccessful. Public Health stated that it also sought an administrative appropriation in fiscal years 2005–06 and 2007–08, but 20 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 its efforts also were unsuccessful. It was not until 2012 that Public Health and Finance worked with the Legislature to obtain funds to administer the Kids’ Plates Program, as we discuss in the next section. Since 2010 Public Health Has Struggled to Administer the Kids’ Plates Program Since fiscal year 2010–11, Public Health has not been able to successfully manage the Kids’ Plates Program. As previously stated, in November 2010 General Services raised concerns regarding Public Health’s contract with the research foundation, and in February 2011 Public Health concluded that it could not justify this contract. However, while Public Health was addressing General Services’ concerns with the contract, staff in its Safe and Active Communities Branch (branch) violated state law and contracting policies by allowing the research foundation to continue performing services without a contract from July 2010 through May 2011. In addition, the branch’s attempts to obtain funding to administer the program were unsuccessful until fiscal year 2012–13, two fiscal years after the expiration of Public Health’s previous contract with the research foundation. During these two fiscal years, Public Health spent only about $1 million of its $2.5 million local assistance appropriation. Further, of this roughly $1 million, it awarded only $544,000 in grants to public and nonprofit entities for childhood injury prevention. Finally, in awarding these grants, the branch did not comply with Public Health’s contracting procedures. Public Health Violated State Law and Contracting Policies When It Allowed the Research Foundation to Perform Services Without an Approved Contract State law generally provides that a contract entered into by a state agency does not take effect until General Services approves it. Consequently, according to the State Contracting Manual, the State’s policy is that a contractor should not start work until it receives a copy of the formally approved contract. However, between July 2010 and May 2011, the research foundation performed services for the Kids’ Plates Program without an approved contract with Public Health. During this period, the research foundation developed, distributed, and reviewed requests for proposals from public and nonprofit entities for the Kids’ Plates Program grants; marketed the program; and participated in professional development opportunities. However, it was unable to award the grants without a contract. According to the research foundation, it continued to administer the Kids’ Plates Program in good faith without an approved contract because Public Health continually reassured it that General Services would approve the contract. The research foundation also stated that Public Health had a history of issuing contracts related to the California State Auditor Report 2012-105 21 November 2012 Kids’ Plates Program late. For example, Public Health submitted the research foundation’s 2004 and 2007 contracts late, and thus General Services did not approve them until September and October, respectively, although both contracts had effective dates of July 1. Nevertheless, a contract serves to allocate responsibilities between the parties and to protect their respective interests. For example, the 2007 contract contained provisions allowing the State to inspect and evaluate the research foundation’s work and premises, requiring the research foundation to protect confidential information from unauthorized disclosure, and protecting against financial conflicts of interest. During the period the research foundation acted on behalf of the State without a contract, the State was unable to rely upon these contractual provisions to protect its interests. As previously discussed, Public Health was working with General Services to resolve concerns with its proposed contract with the research foundation. On May 10, 2011, almost 11 months after the expiration of the 2007 contract, Public Health sent a letter to the research foundation stating that because it could not successfully meet state constitutional requirements with the proposed personal services contract, it could not execute the contract. Further, Public Health stated that it could not reimburse the research foundation for any expenses it incurred after June 30, 2010. State law allows businesses and individuals to file claims against the State for money or damages related to contracts in which the terms are stated in words. Consequently, the research foundation filed a claim for almost $322,000 with the California Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (claims board). The claims board approved the research foundation’s claim, which the State paid in June 2012. As a result of the branch’s inability to execute a contract with the Public Health did not spend roughly research foundation, Public Health did not spend roughly $1 million $1 million of the $1.4 million the of the $1.4 million the Legislature appropriated in fiscal year 2010–11 Legislature appropriated in fiscal for the Kids’ Plates Program. Moreover, Public Health did not year 2010–11 for the Kids’ Plates award any grants during this fiscal year for the program’s intended Program and did not award any purpose—to prevent child injury. grants to prevent child injury. For Two Years After Its Contract With the Research Foundation Expired, Public Health Was Unsuccessful in Securing Funding to Administer the Kids’ Plates Program Public Health submitted to Finance budget change proposals seeking appropriations to administer the Kids’ Plates Program in fiscal years 2005–06 and 2007–08, but its efforts were unsuccessful. As a result of its inability to continue contracting with the research foundation, in September 2011, Public Health again submitted 22 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 to Finance a budget change proposal for fiscal year 2012–13. In October 2011, Finance recommended the approval of the redirection of $491,000 from the health and safety fund’s local assistance appropriation to pay for reassigning 4.5 permanent positions from Public Health’s existing workforce to resume the Kids’ Plates Program. According to Public Health, in the course of the fiscal year 2012–13 budget hearings, the Legislature made clear its intent that Public Health was to use the majority of Kids’ Plates Program funding for direct services and not for program administration. Legislative staff requested that Finance and Public Health propose an alternative solution that would ensure a competitive statewide process for allocating funds for purposes of childhood injury prevention, but with no more than 5 percent of the total funds being used for the administration of this program. Public Health stated that it developed a proposal to award up to three competitive regional contracts throughout the State, which would require minimal staff resources and enable regional contractors to execute subcontracts. The Legislature amended the distribution of funds derived from the specialized license plates for the Kids’ Plates Program on June 27, 2012. Specifically, the Legislature passed legislation that states that the Department of Social Services will receive $501,000 to support its responsibilities related to licensing childcare facilities, in addition to 50 percent of the funds derived from the specialized license plates. Prior to this legislation, Public Health typically would The 2012 Budget Act states that have received these funds for the Kids’ Plates Program. Further, the Public Health may use no more 2012 Budget Act states that Public Health may use no more than than 5 percent of the amount 5 percent of the total amount appropriated to it from the health and appropriated to it from the health safety fund to administer the Kids’ Plates Program. As a result, for and safety fund to administer the fiscal year 2012–13, Public Health received a $25,000 appropriation Kids’ Plates Program. to administer the Kids’ Plates Program; its local assistance appropriation was $469,000. According to the Final Change Book published by Finance, which lists changes to the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature directed Public Health to use the local assistance funding to create a regional grant program. Public Health stated that it has spent between $8,000 and $10,000 to develop and distribute the Request for Applications (RFA) for the regional grant program. Public Health also stated that it is unsure whether the $25,000 appropriation will be sufficient to cover the costs of administering the RFA and monitoring the awards. Public Health plans to assess its process and the staff costs for fiscal year 2012–13 to identify its actual costs. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 23 November 2012 Public Health Inappropriately Used Service Orders to Award Grants to Community-Based Organizations While Public Health was trying to secure an administrative appropriation, it awarded a total of $544,447 in grants to 115 public and nonprofit entities from its $1 million fiscal year 2011–12 appropriation for local assistance.2 The grants Public Health awarded in fiscal year 2012–13 focused primarily on pedestrian safety, bicycle-related safety, and child passenger safety. Public Health stated that it focused on childhood traffic safety issues because traffic safety is a long-standing Public Health priority. In Appendix A, Table A.2 presents the name of the grantee, grant type, grant amount, and the amount paid as of October 19, 2012. According to Public Health, it awarded these grants beginning in March 2012 by using the help of external partners, such as First 5 California, also known as the California Children and Families Commission, to develop the invitation to apply, disseminate the call for projects among eligible stakeholders, and select the grantees. First 5 California distributes funding to local communities, using the State’s 58 counties, to improve the lives of California’s young children and their families through a comprehensive system of education, health services, childcare, and other crucial programs. In addition, Public Health redirected its branch staff on a short-term basis to assume the additional workload necessary to process the paperwork. However, in awarding these grants, the branch did not comply with Public Health’s contracting procedures. Specifically, the branch used service orders to issue the grants. According to Public Health’s Contract Management Unit’s Service Order Manual, a service order is a contract to obtain “one-time, short-term occasional or annual services” within one fiscal year in an amount up to $4,999.99. The manual specifically states that Public Health cannot use service orders to make grant awards. The assistant division chief approved the service orders on behalf of the acting chief of the Chronic Disease and Injury Control Division. When we asked why she used service orders to issue the grants, she stated that she approved them after obtaining clearance from management to proceed. She also stated that Public Health used service orders because the projects and activities were one-time only, would be completed within a single fiscal year, and cost less than $5,000. Finally, she stated that unlike grants, service orders require the reporting and documentation of all expenses. Nevertheless, service orders are intended for services such as repair and maintenance, advertisements, or translation. 2 Public Health used service orders to award funds to the public and nonprofit entities. However, we use the terms “grant,” “grantees,” and “grant agreement” throughout this section because Public Health used a Request for Applications (RFA) to award the funds. In some instances, the RFA specifically stated “Request for Mini-Grant” Application. 24 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Generally, state law requires General Services to approve all contracts involving amounts of $5,000 or more. Because the branch limited the award amounts to up to $4,999.99 in order to use service orders, it was able to bypass state law and avoid the requirement that General Services approve the grant agreements. Public Health Did Not Provide Proper Oversight of the Research Foundation or Program Grantees Public Health did not fulfill all the responsibilities state policy requires in monitoring its contracts. Specifically, it did not substantiate invoices when it approved payments to the research foundation and to the recipients of the 115 grants it awarded beginning in March 2012. Similarly, although the research foundation’s grant agreements required grantees to maintain documentation for the amounts they claimed on their invoices, when we requested to see this documentation, a few of the grantees could not provide it because the record retention period in their agreements had elapsed. Public Health Could Have Done More to Monitor Examples of a Contract Contractors’ Expenses Manager’s Responsibilities • Monitor progress of work to ensure that the contractor Public Health did not fulfill certain contract performs services according to the quality, quantity, monitoring responsibilities related to the research objectives, time frames, and manner specified in the foundation’s 2007 contract. The State Contracting contract. This may entail reviewing progress reports and Manual states that the contract manager, usually interim products. a program staff member who is familiar with • Review and approve invoices for payment to substantiate the contract, is responsible for monitoring the expenditures for work the contractor performed. contractor’s performance. The text box lists some of the responsibilities of the contract manager. • Monitor contract expenditures to ensure that the agency has sufficient funds to pay for all services rendered as the contract requires. According to Public Health, it monitored its 2007 contract with the research foundation through • Identify low spending levels and consider partial various formal and informal methods. The disencumbrance and reassignment of funds. informal monitoring included regular telephone • Ensure that the contractor completes all work and that meetings and e-mails focused on strategies the agency accepts it before the contract expires. and the research foundation’s progress. As an • Verify that the contractor has fulfilled all requirements of example of its formal monitoring, Public Health the contract before approving the final invoice. cited that it required the research foundation to receive prior approval of requests for out-of-state • Identify and approve the final invoice, as appropriate, and travel, purchases such as supplies or services, and forward it to accounts payable for payment. subcontracts costing more than $5,000. It also • Approve the final products or service. required the research foundation to submit annual Source: State Contracting Manual, Section 9.04. reports for its review. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 25 November 2012 Public Health appears to have fulfilled some of its responsibilities as a contract manager. Its 2007 contract required the research foundation to submit invoices not more frequently than monthly and to itemize costs in its invoices in the same or greater level of detail as the budget contained in the contract. Further, the contract required the research foundation to maintain adequate documentation of all expenses claimed in order to determine whether the expenses were allowable. Typically, the research foundation submitted monthly invoices. Public Health’s chief of its administrative support unit in the branch stated that Public Health’s invoice review process included ensuring that the expenses the foundation claimed were in accordance with the contract’s approved budget, were within allowable category limits, and did not exceed the maximum annual amount of the contract. In addition, Public Health checked the invoices for mathematical accuracy. However, Public Health did not fulfill its responsibility to substantiate expenditures for work performed prior to approving the research foundation’s invoices for payment. Public Health’s review process was not sufficient to substantiate, which means to establish by proof or competent evidence, the expenses claimed by the research foundation. To substantiate the expenses, we would expect, at least on a sample basis, for Public Health to review evidence such as payroll information for the research foundation’s employees, receipts for travel and equipment, and the grantees’ invoices and their supporting documentation. For example, our review of Our review of payroll information the payroll information for 14 research foundation invoices paid for 14 research foundation under the 2007 contract found that Public Health may have been invoices found that Public Health overcharged by roughly $12,420 because the research foundation may have been overcharged by did not apply the allocation percentage stated in its original roughly $12,420. contract and adjust the allocation percentage for the subsequent amendments to the salaries of two individuals who were listed in the budgets. Until Public Health reviews the payroll information for these two individuals for the entire contract period, it has no way of knowing if the amounts it paid to the research foundation were in accordance with the terms of the contract. In addition, as we discuss in a later section, we could not substantiate a few of the research foundation’s grantees’ expenses. Public Health’s chief of its administrative support unit in the branch stated that it did not require the research foundation to submit supporting documentation with the invoices. Instead, Public Health directed the research foundation to maintain those records in the event that Public Health would need to review or audit them. The chief of its administrative support unit in the branch also stated that it was Public Health’s original intent to perform periodic site visits to verify the expenses, but that it was unable to do so because of insufficient staff and the State’s travel restrictions. Nevertheless, Public Health’s explanation is insufficient to justify not fulfilling its 26 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 contract manager responsibilities. As a result, Public Health paid the research foundation almost $4 million under the 2007 contract without properly scrutinizing its expenses. Similarly, Public Health did not substantiate expenses when it approved payments for the 115 grants it awarded beginning in March 2012. Public Health required that by no later than June 22, 2012, each grantee was to submit an invoice and a one-page summary of the project activities it had completed during the award period. According to Public Health, it limited its invoice review process to comparing the expenses on the invoices to the budgets included in the grantees’ applications, ensuring that the amounts did not exceed the service order’s maximum amount payable, and checking the mathematical accuracy of the invoices. The chief of Public Health’s state and local injury control section stated that it did not require the grantees to submit evidence such as receipts because it believed the invoices and one-page summaries of the project activities were sufficient. We reviewed invoices for 15 of the 115 grantees, totaling almost $55,000, and found that two grantees provided Public Health with documentation such as payroll information; receipts for the purchase of educational materials, course registration fees, and booster seats; and a copy of an instructor’s travel expense claim. Public Health could have requested a sample of the other grantees to submit similar evidence of their expenses. Instead, the 13 remaining invoices provided only a brief summary of the Public Health cannot ensure that expenses, with one grantee’s invoice containing a total of $4,999 the specialized license plate fees without any breakdown of how it spent the money. When that Californians pay are properly Public Health does not substantiate the expenses of its contractors, spent when it does not substantiate it cannot ensure that the specialized license plate fees that the expenses of its contractors. Californians pay are properly spent. We Could Not Substantiate the Expenses for a Few of the Grantees Paid by the Research Foundation The research foundation followed the expenditure processing procedures outlined in its project administration guide. However, the research foundation only imposes additional documentation requirements if it identifies a grantee as high risk. Although the research foundation was able to provide the grantees’ itemized invoices for five of the 30 expenses we reviewed that were reimbursed by Public Health, it could not provide their source documentation for the invoices, which further underscores the importance of Public Health adhering to the State’s contracting policies for reviewing contractors’ invoices. Twenty-two of California State Auditor Report 2012-105 27 November 2012 the expenses were for the research foundation’s personnel and operating expenses. As discussed in a previous section, these costs do not meet the definition of local assistance. Public Health’s 2004 and 2007 contracts required the research foundation to distribute local assistance moneys from the health and safety fund to develop and administer a grant program to public and nonprofit entities throughout California. Specifically, of the 30 invoices we reviewed, the remaining eight were payments the research foundation made to grantees for purposes such as developing programs and purchasing equipment. We found that the research foundation did not have source documentation for five of the eight. The research foundation’s agreements with these five grantees typically required them to submit itemized invoices after having their chief financial officers certify that the expenses on each invoice were appropriate for the grant purposes and in accordance with the provisions of the awards. The grantees’ agreements also generally required them to keep any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of the agreement for roughly four years for audit purposes. According to the research foundation’s project administration guide, its finance and accounting manager reviews the grantee’s audits performed in accordance with OMB Circular A133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non‑Profit Organizations, and only imposes additional documentation requirements if the foundation identifies a grantee as high risk. The research foundation stated that, based on the results of its risk assessment, it did not require these five grantees to provide source documentation for their invoices. Consequently, we contacted the grantees and asked them to provide supporting documentation for their expenses. We found the following: • Latino Health Access was able to provide documentation to support the $2,904 payment it received in September 2010 for its Make Me Safe, Buckle Me Up program. • The County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency was able to provide documentation to support the $5,774 payment it received in December 2006 for its bicycle safety program. • The Mercy San Juan Medical Center was able to provide documentation to support the $8,775 payment it received in August 2010 for the personnel costs of its bilingual car seat educator. • Central California Burn Aware was unable to provide sufficient documentation to support the $2,175 payment it received in August 2007 for its purchase of smoke detectors. For its 28 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 explanation, its current treasurer cited the grant agreement requirement of maintaining records for possible audit only until December 31, 2010. Consequently, we were unable to determine if the $2,175 was spent in accordance with the terms of the grant agreement and the requirements of the Kids’ Plates Program. • Queen of the Valley Hospital was unable to provide documentation to support the $1,335 payment it received in July 2007 for its health education manager to attend the Worldwide Safe Kids Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. For its explanation, its executive director cited the grant agreement requirement of maintaining records for possible audit only until December 31, 2010. Consequently, we are unable to determine whether the $1,335 was spent in accordance with the terms of the grant agreement and the requirements of the Kids’ Plates Program. Public Health’s 2007 contract with the research foundation required it to review and approve the grantees’ invoices. Although the research foundation followed the expenditure processing procedures outlined in its project administration guide, its procedures did not include a review of its grantees’ source documentation to substantiate their expenses for the Kids’ Plates Program in accordance with the State Contracting Manual. The Research Foundation Generally Met the Goals and Objectives That Public Health Established According to Public Health, the only performance measures it established for the research foundation were in its 2007 contract, which covered a three-year period. The contract’s scope of work section listed the goals and objectives for the program that Public Health required the research foundation to accomplish, Because Public Health did not and the goals are aimed at reducing unintentional injuries and establish any performance deaths among children. The research foundation generally measures for the program, it cannot met its objectives for the 2007 contract.3 However, none of the effectively measure the progress objectives are reasonable or appropriate for measuring whether it has made toward reducing the Kids’ Plates Program is effectively reducing childhood incidences of childhood injuries injuries and deaths. Because Public Health did not establish any and deaths. performance measures for the program, it cannot effectively measure the progress it has made toward reducing incidences of childhood injuries and deaths. Typically, as a best practice, management should establish performance measures and perform ongoing assessments of its progress toward reaching program goals. 3 The research foundation also generally met the objectives established in Health Services’ 2004 contract for fiscal year 2006–07. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 29 November 2012 The State Contracting Manual suggests that contract managers ensure compliance with all contract provisions by reviewing progress reports, among other things. Public Health’s contract required the research foundation to submit progress reports at intervals determined by Public Health. The chief of Public Health’s state and local injury control section stated that Public Health directed the research foundation to submit annual reports. The section chief stated that she reviewed the annual reports to identify indications that the research foundation was not accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined in the contract. However, because the section chief did not keep a record of her reviews, we were unable to verify that they occurred. Our comparison of the objectives in the 2007 contract with the research foundation’s annual reports found that the research foundation was generally able to fulfill the objectives within the specified time frames. Similarly, the research foundation’s agreements with its grantees contained goals and objectives for them to accomplish during the grant period. For instance, in February 2008 it awarded a grant for $27,000 to the Esperanza Community Housing Corporation (Esperanza) to implement a poison education and awareness program. As part of the contract, the research foundation established the objective that Esperanza would increase the level of poison prevention knowledge in the South Central Los Angeles community to 2,500 of its 5,000 residents by June 30, 2008. Our review of five grants, including the Esperanza grant, found that the grantees generally met their objectives. Recommendations To ensure that it does not violate provisions of state law that prohibit contracts for services that state employees can perform, Public Health should establish that it has adequate justification to contract under Section 19130 (b), prior to submitting contracts to General Services for approval. To comply with state contracting laws and policies that protect the State’s interest, Public Health should do the following: • Ensure that its staff do not allow contractors to work before General Services has approved the contracts. • Ensure that its staff do not use service orders to circumvent the State’s contracting policies. • Recoup the overpayment made to the research foundation, if applicable. 30 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 To determine whether the appropriation to administer the Kids’ Plates Program is sufficient, Public Health should continue its plans to evaluate the costs of the regional grants RFA process and its monitoring of the awards for fiscal year 2012–13. If Public Health determines that the appropriation is insufficient, it should seek an amendment to state law. To comply with the State Contracting Manual, if Public Health chooses to use contractors for the Kids’ Plates Program, it should direct its staff to substantiate the expenditures contractors claim. For example, Public Health could ask the contractors to submit for review detailed records substantiating all or a sample of their invoices. To ensure that it is able to measure its progress toward fulfilling the requirements of the health and safety fund, Public Health should do the following: • Establish performance measurements for the Kids’ Plates Program. • Periodically assess its progress toward meeting its measureable outcomes. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 31 November 2012 Chapter 2 THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES HAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY MANAGED, SPENT, OR REPORTED ON THE STATE CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND Chapter Summary The Department of Social Services (Social Services) has not ensured that it consistently spends the State Children’s Trust Fund (trust fund) as required by state law. Specifically, our review of 30 expenditures found that Social Services’ Office of Child Abuse Prevention (office) did not fulfill certain contract monitoring requirements for 10 payments it made to six grantees. When we asked the grantees to provide detailed records to support these payments, we found that one had overcharged the office by $10,189. We also noted instances where the office may have used money from the trust fund to pay for expenditures that did not meet the trust fund’s requirements. Further, we found that the office can improve its process for monitoring grantees, although our review of five grants found that grantees appear in most instances to have met the objectives in their agreement requirements. Finally, the office did not fully comply with state law, which requires it to publish certain information about the trust fund. For example, state law requires the office to publish descriptions of the programs and services it paid for using the trust fund, as well as the target populations that benefited from these programs. However, the office failed to fully disclose various conferences and education and outreach activities it paid for using the trust fund. Social Services Did Not Substantiate Some of the Expenditures It Paid From the Trust Fund We reviewed 30 expenditures Social Services paid from the trust fund—10 payments made to grantees and 20 payments made primarily to vendors for purchases such as office supplies, pamphlets, brochures, and training materials. We found that Social Services did not fulfill certain monitoring requirements for the 10 payments it made to grantees that operate local child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs. Because Social Services did not properly monitor its grantees, it inappropriately paid one of them $10,189. We also found three instances in which Social Services may have used money from the trust fund to pay for expenditures that did not meet the trust fund’s requirements. 32 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 State law requires Social Services to spend trust fund moneys on innovative local child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs operated by private nonprofit organizations or public institutions of higher education with recognized expertise in fields related to child welfare. As shown in Appendix B, Social Services entered into grant agreements with these types of entities primarily from fiscal years 2006–07 through 2011–12. Typically, Social Services’ agreements require grantees to submit invoices monthly, quarterly, or semiannually and to promptly provide details for expenditures upon the State’s request. The agreements require Social Services to review the invoices for allowable costs and approve them for payment as appropriate. Social Services’ Office of Child Abuse Prevention’s (office) Guidelines for Grant Administration (guidelines) state that the office’s consultants are usually responsible for approving the grantees’ invoices. In addition, the guidelines state that the consultants may visit the grantees at their discretion to review more detailed records of grantees’ expenditures. The Office of Child Abuse Prevention However, the office was unable to provide us with any evidence was unable to provide evidence that it had requested detailed records from the grantees to support that it had requested detailed 10 payments it made to six grantees during fiscal years 2007–08 records from grantees to support through 2011–12. Further, when we asked the office whether it 10 payments it made to six grantees conducted site visits for these grantees during this period, its during five fiscal years. manager stated that although the grant agreements allow for site visits, the office has not conducted site visits because Governor’s Executive Order 06-11 restricts in-state travel to trips that are mission critical or do not have any associated costs. However, the executive order did not become effective until April 2011. Thus, the manager has not sufficiently explained why the office did not conduct site visits during fiscal year 2007–08 through the first nine months of fiscal year 2010–11. The State Contracting Manual states that one of the contract manager’s responsibilities is to review and approve invoices for payment to substantiate expenditures for work performed. Social Services stated that the office has sufficient processes that satisfy the State Contracting Manual concerning its monitoring of grants. However, we do not believe that Social Services’ grant-monitoring process is sufficient to substantiate, which means to establish by proof or competent evidence, the expenditures claimed by the grantees. To substantiate the expenditures, we would expect Social Services to exercise its right to review, at least on a sample basis, detailed records supporting grantees’ invoices. Even if the office chooses not to conduct site visits, it could exercise this right by asking grantees to submit detailed records for all or a sample of their invoices. Further, because the governor’s definition of mission critical includes travel related to auditing and functions required by contract, the office could potentially California State Auditor Report 2012-105 33 November 2012 conduct site visits. If Social Services does not establish a means If Social Services does not establish a of reviewing detailed records, it cannot ensure that the grantees’ means of reviewing detailed records, expenditures are consistent with the trust fund’s requirements and it cannot ensure that the grantees’ its grant agreements. expenditures are consistent with the trust fund’s requirements and its Because Social Services did not have the documentation to grant agreements. support the grantees’ expenditures, we contacted the grantees and asked them to provide us with detailed records for 10 selected invoices. We found that one of the six grantees who submitted these 10 invoices overcharged Social Services. Specifically, in October 2010 the Children’s Bureau of Southern California (Children’s Bureau) submitted an invoice in the amount of $72,910 to the office for expenses that were incurred in September 2010. The invoice was paid in November 2010 and included $49,495 in personnel costs. We contacted the Children’s Bureau and asked it to provide documentation to support the personnel costs. However, the Children’s Bureau was only able to provide payroll information to support personnel costs totaling $39,306. According to its chief financial officer, the Children’s Bureau has experienced staff turnover and a mistake was made by a new employee when preparing the invoice submitted in October 2010. The chief financial officer also stated that the Children’s Bureau identified the error as part of its quality control process before the close of the contract year and corrected the error as part of the invoice it submitted in July 2011, which included expenses incurred in June 2011 as well as a line item labeled “YTD billing adjustment.” However, until Social Services reviews the supporting documentation for the correction made by the Children’s Bureau on the invoice it submitted in July 2011, Social Services has no way of knowing if the overpayment of $10,189 related to the Children’s Bureau’s invoice submitted in October 2010 has been corrected. One of the other six grantees was able to substantiate its expenditures, but the expenditures may not have been for permissible trust fund purposes. Specifically, although Parents Anonymous, Inc. was able to substantiate a $10,000 trust fund payment that it received in July 2009, our review of its 2007 agreement with Social Services found that most of the services it provides do not appear to meet the trust fund’s requirements stated in the Introduction. The scope of work in the initial agreement is listed in Table 4 on page 41. Social Services stated that the federal Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program funded the majority of the agreement and that the only services paid from the trust fund were for the California Parent Engagement Center (engagement center). According to Social Services, the engagement center’s goal is to increase the awareness and implementation of evidenced-based parent engagement programs and strategies throughout California. Because the $10,000 trust fund payment was part of an invoice totaling $75,070 and 34 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 the invoice did not specifically identify the services paid for by the trust fund, we cannot determine the portion of the trust fund moneys, if any, that was actually spent on the engagement center. Parents Anonymous, Inc.’s 2007 agreement with Social Services includes budgets for fiscal years 2007–08 and 2008–09 that provide line items for personnel services and operating and equipment expenses only. In addition, the invoice submitted by Parents Anonymous, Inc. that included the $10,000 payment contains only budget line item categories. We asked Social Services to provide supporting documentation demonstrating that the $10,000 was related to the engagement center, and Social Services stated that it was unable to do so because it does not have a breakdown of the objectives in the scope of work section of Parents Anonymous, Inc.’s agreement by fund source. Social Services also stated that it will work toward enhancing its current invoicing process to clearly identify the objectives in the scope of work to the corresponding funding sources. Until Social Services establishes this process, it has no way of ensuring that the trust fund moneys are being spent only on permissible uses. For example, the agreement requires Parents Anonymous, Inc. to provide the office with support to strengthen the role of parents in the statewide Wraparound Program. State law authorizes all counties to provide children with service alternatives to group-home care through the development of expanded family-based service programs. These programs must include individualized or “wraparound” services; state law defines these services as community-based intervention services that emphasize the strengths of the child and family and include the delivery of coordinated, highly individualized unconditional services to address needs and achieve positive outcomes in their lives. It was the Legislature’s intent that the wraparound programs would encourage collaboration among persons and entities including, but not limited to, parents, county welfare departments, county mental health departments, county probation departments, county health departments, special education local planning agencies, school districts, and private service providers for the purposes of planning and providing individualized services for children and their birth or substitute families. However, these purposes do not fall within the permissible uses of the trust fund moneys. In addition, state law establishes the funding and expenditure requirements for the wraparound programs; these provisions do not authorize the trust fund as a funding source for these programs. We also found that two of the 20 payments made primarily to vendors did not appear to be consistent with the trust fund’s requirements. Specifically, in May 2009, Social Services reimbursed the National Indian Child Welfare Association $449 for travel expenses its director of government affairs and advocacy incurred to attend an informational meeting regarding the opportunities and California State Auditor Report 2012-105 35 November 2012 challenges of federal Public Law 110-351. According to the agenda, the director made a presentation on the historical perspective of this law. The office’s assistant chief stated that the office paid the expenditure from the trust fund because the law has content related to child abuse prevention. However, our review of this federal law found that it does not specifically address child abuse prevention. Instead, it focuses on connecting and supporting relative caregivers, improving outcomes for children in foster care, accessing tribal foster care and adoption services, and improving incentives for adoption. We asked the office to provide the specific section of the law that relates to child abuse prevention, but it did not provide this information. Social Services subsequently provided us with a handout of the director’s presentation. The chief of Social Services’ Child Protection and Family Support Branch provided us with the following explanation: “Social Services believes that the costs incurred to bring the presenter, David Simmons, are related to the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Neither a tribe or the State can operate the Title IV-E program in a vacuum. It must be accompanied by a Title IV-B program. As you are aware the Title IV-B program provides grants to the state and tribes for programs aimed at keeping families together. This includes preventive intervention so that, if possible, children will not have to be removed from their homes. You will be able to see this clearly identified in the presentation on slides 17 and 21.”4 Nevertheless, our review of slides 17 and 21 found no direct link to the federal law that demonstrates the director’s presentation met the trust fund’s requirements. Both slides focus on what tribes need to have in place to receive funding under Title IV-E, such as an approved Title IV-B Child and Family Services Five-Year Plan. For the second payment, Social Services paid Eye Sportswear and Event Planning $1,997 in July 2008 for T-shirts, flyers, and programs that the office distributed at the National Foster Care Month kickoff rally held at the State Capitol. When we asked Social Services why it paid this expenditure from the trust fund, the office’s manager stated that “this was an event where materials with public education information were given out. Child abuse prevention plays a role in reducing foster care cases. In addition, through educating the children in foster care about child abuse prevention, the office can reduce the likelihood that they repeat the tragedy of abuse when they become parents in the future.” State law governing the trust 4 Title IV, Part E, of the federal Social Security Act provides funding that enables each state with a plan approved by the federal Department of Health and Human Services to provide foster care and transitional independent living programs for certain children and adoption assistance for children with special needs. 36 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 fund allows for the large-scale dissemination of information that will promote public awareness regarding the nature and incidence of child abuse and the availability of services for intervention. However, our review of the T-shirt logo and the flyers found that they promoted the event rather than promoting the awareness of child abuse and the availability of services for intervention. In response to this issue, the office’s assistant chief stated that she did not disagree For two payments we reviewed, it with our conclusion. appears Social Services may have violated state law by not adhering Both of these expenditures appear to relate to the Title IV-E to the permissible uses of the trust program Social Services administers. Because federal funds would fund—federal funds would have have been the appropriate funding source for these expenditures, been the appropriate funding source it appears as though Social Services may have violated state law by for these payments. not adhering to the permissible uses of the trust fund. The Outcomes of the Research and Demonstration Projects Paid for by the Trust Fund Are Indeterminable State law governing the trust fund allows Social Services to fund research and demonstration projects that explore the nature and incidence of child abuse and the development of long-term solutions to the problem of child abuse.5 According to its spending plans, the office used trust fund moneys to support four research and demonstration projects between fiscal years 2006–07 and 2011–12. We were unable to determine whether three of the projects meet the trust fund’s requirements because their final reports either are not yet due or do not truly reflect the project’s final analyses. However, although it does not qualify as a research and demonstration project, the remaining project appears to meet the trust fund’s requirements. The first of these projects focused on conducting interventions aimed at improving the quality and level of positive father involvement in at-risk families. The office is responsible for administering the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). In fiscal year 2002–03, under the CAPTA program, the office worked with the University of California at Berkeley (Berkeley) to design, develop, and implement the Supporting Father Involvement Study to determine whether a particular intervention effectively increased positive father involvement and to measure whether the family resource centers implementing the interventions became more inclusive of fathers in other programs 5 Social Services expressed concern that a strict reading of the law implies that only projects resulting in the development of specific solutions are an effective measure of success, relative to investment decisions for research and demonstration projects. Social Services stated that research and development by definition will often lead to strategies that do not work. Social Services also stated that it believes the discovery of successful and unsuccessful strategies are critical to the exploration of the nature and incidence of child abuse and neglect, as well as the developing of long-term solutions. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 37 November 2012 and services. When Berkeley reported the results of the study in 2009, it stated that it had not accepted families into the study if the families had current open child or spousal protection cases with Child Protective Services or if they had experienced within the past year instances of spousal violence or child abuse. The purpose of the criteria was to exclude potential participants whose increased participation in daily family life might increase the risks for abuse or neglect of a child. Berkeley also reported that “because families with open cases of family violence were not included in the project, we did not expect to be able to measure the interventions’ direct impact on child abuse and neglect, at least in the short run.” However, in a subsequent phase of the study, Berkeley included the impact on child abuse and neglect. Specifically, in August 2009 the office entered into another interagency agreement with Berkeley to, among other things, evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention model previously developed for father involvement by expanding the original study to include families recently referred to child welfare services for child abuse and neglect or domestic violence. This is Phase IV of the study, which began on July 1, 2010, and the office used money from the trust fund to contract with the Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, the Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department, and the San Luis Obispo Department of Social Services. These entities’ responsibilities included establishing groups of families to participate in the study, providing the families with ongoing case management, and establishing activities and interventions beyond those required for Phase IV. Between fiscal years 2009–10 and 2011–12, the office paid these three entities nearly $265,000 from the trust fund. Berkeley’s interagency agreement required it to submit its final report on Phase IV no later than November 1, 2012. In its final report, Berkeley stated that it is not truly a “final” report because Berkeley had collected the last data three months earlier, and the final analysis of these data and the submission of papers for publication will occur over the next two years. Thus, we cannot determine whether this project meets the trust fund’s requirement for developing long-term solutions to the problem of child abuse. For the second project, the office contracted with the Chadwick Center for Children and Families at Rady Children’s Hospital (center) in San Diego to implement the Safe Kids California Project. This project uses the SafeCare model, which is a structured, evidence-based home visitation program that provides direct skills training to high-risk parents on how to manage child behavior, keep their homes free of safety hazards, and take care of children’s basic health care needs. In fiscal year 2009–10, the center received a federal grant to disseminate the SafeCare model to 38 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 multiple California counties for home visitation for young children at risk for child neglect or abuse. However, in its June 30, 2011, Title IV-B Child and Family Services Plan Annual Progress and Services Report, the office stated that “funding for the center’s third year of its grant was inadvertently deleted from the federal budget.” To continue the project until the federal government restored its funding, the office used roughly $340,000 from the trust fund for this project in fiscal years 2010–11 and 2011–12. Because the office’s contract does not require the center to submit its final report to the office until September 2013, we cannot determine whether it will meet the trust fund’s requirement of developing a long-term solution to the problem of child abuse. For the third project, the office contracted with the University Corporation, San Francisco State (university corporation), to implement the Family Acceptance Project. During fiscal years 2009–10 through 2011–12, the office spent almost $30,000 in trust fund moneys for this project: a community research, intervention, and education initiative developed in 2002 to study the impact of family acceptance and rejection on the physical and mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. The purpose of the project included the development of a new model of family-related prevention and care to decrease the risk of child abuse and neglect and to “prevent high levels of risk for LGBT young people that restrict life chances, positive youth development, and full participation in society.” The office required the university corporation to submit annual reports in September 2010 and 2011 and a final report by December 31, 2012. Because the university corporation’s final report is not yet due, we cannot determine whether this research and demonstration project will meet the trust fund’s requirement of developing a long-term solution to the problem of child abuse. Finally, since 2004 the office has contracted with the center to implement and maintain the California Evidenced-Based Clearinghouse (clearinghouse) as part of an attempt on the part of the State to transform how agencies and organizations practice welfare services. The clearinghouse is a Web site that serves as an online connection for child welfare professionals, public and private organizations, academic institutions, and others who are committed to serving children and their families. It provides up-to-date information on evidence-based child welfare practices and facilitates the use of evidence-based practices as a method for achieving improved outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being for children and families involved in the State’s public child welfare system. The center worked with its advisory committee and a scientific panel to use a standardized process to identify and review child welfare programs and practices for inclusion on the Web site. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 39 November 2012 Although the clearinghouse provides valuable information for child Although the California welfare professionals and other interested parties, the center’s work Evidenced-Based Clearinghouse on the clearinghouse does not involve preparing an evaluation or provides valuable information study on the nature and incidence of child abuse or developing for child welfare professionals long-term solutions to the problem of child abuse. Thus, it did and other interested parties, it not appear as though the clearinghouse met the trust fund’s does not meet the trust fund’s requirements for research and demonstration projects. Social requirements for research and Services stated that it inadvertently categorized the clearinghouse as demonstration projects. a research and demonstration project on its annual spending plans for the trust fund. Social Services stated that the clearinghouse does meet the trust fund’s requirement for the evaluation, research, or dissemination of information concerning existing program models for the purpose of replicating successful models. We agree that the clearinghouse appears to meet this trust fund requirement. Until fiscal year 2009–10, the center relied solely on federal funding for this project. However, during fiscal years 2009–10 through 2011–12, the office used $630,000 of trust fund moneys in addition to federal funds to support the clearinghouse. Although Social Services Has Not Adequately Monitored Its Grantees, They Generally Appear to Have Met the Objectives in Their Agreements The office has not established universal performance measurements for the programs and services funded by the trust fund. Establishing performance measurements is not a requirement in the state law governing the trust fund. However, performance measurements could assist the office in assessing whether its efforts are effectively preventing or reducing the incidences of child abuse and neglect. Instead of establishing universal performance measurements, the office incorporates goals, objectives, and measurement outcomes in the scope of work section of its grant agreements. The State Contracting Manual states that one of the contract manager’s responsibilities is to ensure compliance with all contract provisions by, for example, reviewing progress reports and interim products. Similarly, Social Services’ grant agreements contain standard provisions that require its consultants to monitor and evaluate the grantees’ performance. However, the office was unable to demonstrate to us that it effectively monitored grantees’ performance in meeting these goals as required by state policy. Although the office has some policies in place to ensure the monitoring of grantees, these policies are not as comprehensive as they ought to be. Specifically, the office’s guidelines for grant administration state that grantees should submit regular reports to the office as outlined in their grant agreements and that the office cannot approve or process invoices unless they receive 40 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 these reports. Yet the guidelines do not establish a process for ensuring that the office’s consultants review the reports and document their assessments of whether the grantees met the measurable outcomes contained in their grant agreements. According to the office’s manager, the office does not have a formal process for reviewing the grantees’ progress reports. The manager stated that staff compares the scope of work in the grant agreement to the grantees’ reports to ensure the grantees have met the scope of work during that reporting period. The manager also stated that if the grantees have not met the scope of work during that reporting period, their invoices will not be paid. However, the office did not provide us with documentary evidence demonstrating that it reviewed the grantees’ progress reports and determined that they fulfilled the measurement outcomes in their agreements. Until the office establishes a formal process for reviewing the grantees’ progress reports and interim products that includes documenting their reviews and assessing whether the grantees met the grant requirements, it will continue to be unable to demonstrate that it is fulfilling its responsibilities in accordance with state policy and the terms and conditions of the grant agreements. Our review of five of the 31 grants listed in Appendix B found that the grantees generally met the goals and objectives outlined in their agreements with the office. Table 4 presents the goals for the five grants. So that the office could evaluate grantees’ progress in meeting these goals, the five grant agreements generally required the grantees to provide quarterly or annual reports, as well as evidence of meetings, training sessions, and the development of educational materials. This sort of documentation appears adequate for monitoring the grantees’ performance according to their agreements, but it is not effective for measuring whether the program has made progress toward preventing or reducing the incidences of child abuse and neglect. Social Services Did Not Publish Certain Information for the Trust Fund in Accordance With State Law Social Services has not fully complied with state law requiring it to publish certain trust fund information. The state law governing the trust fund requires the office to publish descriptions of the types of programs and services it funds using the trust fund and to identify the target populations that benefit from these programs. In addition, state law requires the office to publish the amount in the trust fund as of June 30 each year and the amount it disbursed from the trust fund in the prior fiscal year. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 41 November 2012 Table 4 The Goals From Five State Children’s Trust Fund Grant Agreements SANTA CRUZ COMMUNITY GOAL PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. COUNSELING CENTER CHILDREN’S BUREAU INTERFACE CHILDREN FAMILY SERVICES YOUTH FOR CHANGE 1 Develop and maintain Establish groups of not Provide training to Provide training to California Provide assistance a database of parent less than 60 families in California family-support family-strengthening agencies to the office involvement programs the county of Santa Cruz agencies to improve to assist them with improving in developing and practices with the to participate in the their abilities to provide their abilities to implement best a plan for an goal of moving toward Supporting Father quality child abuse practices that prevent child integrated child evidence-based practices Involvement Study prevention services abuse and promote child safety, abuse prevention to support meaningful (SFI study) permanence, and well-being approach at the engagement and state, regional, and leadership of parents county level 2 Develop the capacity and Provide ongoing and Build capacity of Provide technical assistance to expertise of a statewide appropriate case family-strengthening family-strengthening agencies to parent leadership management for families networks and public improve their ability to provide team to provide in the SFI study and private partnerships quality child abuse prevention meaningful consumer to improve their ability to and intervention services and input to all statewide provide leadership for to implement best practices planning efforts child abuse prevention in that promote child safety, their counties permanence, and well-being 3 Coordinate statewide Establish a memorandum Disseminate information Disseminate information to parent leadership of understanding that to family-strengthening family-strengthening agencies training efforts to more defines policies and agencies to improve to improve their abilities to provide effectively develop partner roles with the their abilities to provide quality child abuse prevention the expertise of county of Santa Cruz quality child abuse and intervention services and to parent leaders prevention services implement best practices that promote child safety, permanence, and well-being 4 Develop a plan Establish individualized Collaborate with Provide assistance to the to implement activities and Strategies Regions 1 and 2 office to, among other things, recommendations from interventions that will to enhance Strategies develop integrated child abuse the Wraparound Summit enhance and strengthen capacity-building activities and neglect prevention and on Parent Partners current strategies beyond intervention approaches at the Surveys With State the requirements of state, regional, and county level Work Group Phase IV of the SFI study 5 Provide technical Coordinate the wide assistance, coaching, and dissemination of lessons learned training to family-support from the SFI study agencies to improve their abilities to provide quality child abuse prevention services 6 Provide outreach to Provide a seamless statewide engage isolated and system of Strategies services and underserved populations capacity building activities so that they can improve their ability to provide quality child abuse prevention services 7 Partner with the California State University, Monterey Bay Institute for Community Collaborative Studies, to infuse the family development matrix into counties that participated in the matrix pilot project Sources: Department of Social Services’ grant agreements. 42 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 As part of its effort to meet these requirements, the office maintains on its Web site two links that provide information about child abuse prevention programs. The link titled “Projects Funded by OCAP” directs users to fact sheets for various programs. The link titled “Funding Information” directs users to reports the office prepares related to programs funded by federal and state funds, including the trust fund. The acronym OCAP refers to the Office of Child Abuse Prevention. The information Social Services However, we found that the information the office published published on its Web site was through both these links was incomplete and did not meet state incomplete and did not meet state requirements for identifying all programs and services it funds using requirements for identifying all the trust fund. Table 5 shows our review of the projects funded by programs and services it funds using OCAP fact sheets for the 13 programs listed on the office’s Web site the trust fund. as of October 4, 2012. We noted several problems. For example, although the office used the trust fund to pay Interface Children Family Services to provide services for the Citizen Review Panels and the Family Development Matrix Project, the fact sheets do not list the trust fund as a funding source. In addition, the fact sheet does not indicate that the office used the trust fund to pay for the Safe Kids California Project; rather, it states that the project was funded by a reimbursement from the Department of Public Health. Furthermore, this link does not include various conferences and education and outreach activities paid for using the trust fund. Finally, although state law does not require the office to separately publish the trust fund information, we noted that the link includes programs funded by the trust fund and those that are funded by other sources, which can create confusion for users interested only in the trust fund. According to the office’s assistant chief, the office regularly updates its Web site to provide the most current information for the trust fund. However, the assistant chief could not provide the fact sheets for the programs and services for prior fiscal years because the office overrides the prior information to avoid confusion. Deleting these fact sheets violates Social Services’ record retention policy, which requires that employees maintain records such as leases, contracts, agreements, projects, and their related documents for a minimum of the current fiscal year plus an additional five years. The office’s link titled “Funding Information” directs users to a March 2009 report on the trust fund’s legal requirements and an attachment with the trust fund’s fiscal year 2010–11 expenditures. However, this attachment does not contain the trust fund balance as of June 30, 2012, as state law requires. The office complied with the state law requirement for publishing the amount it disbursed from the trust fund in the prior fiscal year. The attachment states that the total amount the office expended in fiscal year 2010–11 was approximately $3,012,021. The attachment also identifies the California State Auditor Report 2012-105 43 November 2012 programs and services and states the funding percentages for research and demonstration projects; dissemination, training, and technical assistance; education and outreach; and conferences and summits. We noted that the office can improve the information it publishes by presenting the amount spent in the prior fiscal year for each program or service, similar to the information we present in Appendix B, which summarizes trust fund programs or services and expenditures in one central location. Table 5 List of Child Abuse and Prevention Programs, Including Those Funded by the State Children’s Trust Fund DESCRIPTION OF THE TARGET POPULATION BENEFITTING PROGRAM OR SERVICE PROGRAM OR SERVICE FROM THE PROGRAM OR SERVICE California Evidenced-Based Online resource Child welfare professionals, Clearinghouse for Child Welfare researchers, policymakers, staff of public and private organizations and academic institutions Citizen Review Panels * * Early Start and Child Welfare * * Services Integrated Training Family Acceptance Project Research, intervention, Ethnically diverse families with and education lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children and young people who are questioning their sexual orientation Family Development Matrix Project * * Linkages Project † † Mandated Reporter Online Training Online training Social workers, law enforcement, medical personnel, childcare providers, educators, clergy, and volunteers Safe Kids California Project Direct skill training to Young children at risk for child high-risk parents neglect and abuse Safe Surrender Baby Hotline * * Special Start Training Program ‡ ‡ Strategies Training, coaching, Family resource centers, facilitation, and family-support organizations, technical assistance and community organizations Strengthening Families Training and Counties, family resource technical assistance centers, and other interested family-strengthening agencies Supporting Father Case management At-risk families Involvement Study Sources: Department of Social Services’ Office of Child Abuse Prevention’s fact sheets. * The fact sheet indicates that the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) funded this program. † The fact sheet indicates that federal grant funding for this program ends on September 30, 2012. ‡ The fact sheet indicates that CAPTA funded this program until June 30, 2011. 44 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Social Services stated that it will take the necessary steps to publish information that complies with the law and will consider other changes that improve its method of publishing information. Until the office fully complies with the state law governing the trust fund, it will continue to deprive interested parties of valuable information on how it is spending trust fund money to prevent child abuse and neglect. Recommendations To ensure that the office complies with the State Contracting Manual, Social Services should do the following: • Direct the office to substantiate the expenditures that grantees claim. For example, the office could ask the grantees to submit for review detailed records for all or a sample of their invoices. • Direct the office to recover the overpayment from the Children’s Bureau of Southern California, if applicable. To ensure that it uses trust fund moneys only for permissible uses, Social Services should do the following: • Direct its internal audits staff to periodically perform reviews of the trust fund expenditures. • Revise its invoicing process to clearly identify the objectives in the scope of work section of its grant agreements and their corresponding funding sources. To ensure compliance with the state law governing the trust fund that allows it to fund research and demonstration projects that explore the nature and incidence of child abuse and the development of long-term solutions to the problem of child abuse, Social Services should establish procedures to ensure that all grants it awards for research and demonstration projects clearly demonstrate a linkage to the trust fund’s requirements. To ensure that the office complies with the State Contracting Manual, Social Services should do the following: • Direct the office to update its guidelines for grant administration to establish a formal process for reviewing the grantees’ progress reports and interim products. This process should include documenting the office’s review and assessment of whether the grantees meet the goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes in their grant requirements. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 45 November 2012 • Direct the office to retain the documentary evidence of its review and assessment in the grantee files. To ensure that its efforts funded by the trust fund are preventing or reducing incidences of child abuse and neglect, Social Services should do the following: • Develop universal performance measurements for the trust fund. • Ensure that the performance measurements are reflected in the grants it awards. • Evaluate the performance measurements annually to assess whether the trust fund’s programs and services are effective in reducing incidences of child abuse and neglect. To ensure compliance with the state law that requires the office to publish certain trust fund information, Social Services should do the following: • Require the office to establish procedures to ensure inclusion on its Web site of all programs and services it funded using the trust fund. • Require the office to publish on its Web site the amount in the trust fund as of June 30 each year. To improve the presentation of the information it publishes for the trust fund, Social Services should do the following: • Establish a link that separately provides descriptions of the types of programs and services it funds using the trust fund and the target populations that benefit from the programs. • Present the amount it disbursed from the trust fund in the prior fiscal year by the amount spent for each program or service. 46 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 We conducted this audit under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives specified in the scope section of the report. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA State Auditor Date: November 27, 2012 Staff: Joanne Quarles, CPA, Audit Principal Katie Tully Jun Jiang, MS Michelle Schmidt Eva Yang, MSA Legal Counsel: Christopher Dawson, JD IT Audit Support: Benjamin Ward, CISA, ACDA Lindsay M. Harris, MBA Ryan P. Coe, MBA For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 47 November 2012 Appendix A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH’S CHILD HEALTH AND SAFETY FUND GRANTS The Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed the California State Auditor to identify the entities and programs that received funding from the Child Health and Safety Fund (health and safety fund) over the past six fiscal years through the Kids’ Plates Program. Although the Department of Public Health (Public Health) is the manager of the Kids’ Plates Program, it contracted with the San Diego State University Research Foundation (research foundation) to administer the program from fiscal years 2006–07 to 2009–10. We therefore obtained information from both Public Health and the research foundation about the grants they awarded and the amounts they paid related to these grants. Table A.1 on the following page summarizes the grants that the research foundation issued from the health and safety fund. Table A.2 on page 61 summarizes the grants Public Health issued from the health and safety fund. As Table A.1 shows, between fiscal years 2006–07 and 2009–10, the research foundation issued 286 grants for the Kids’ Plates Program.6 The grant amounts ranged from $95 to $72,000. The total amount the research foundation awarded in grants each fiscal year ranged from $566,000 in fiscal year 2006–07 to $743,000 in fiscal year 2008–09. The amount the research foundation paid to grantees ranged from more than $526,000 for fiscal year 2006–07 to more than $690,000 for fiscal year 2008–09. In total, the research foundation paid nearly $2.5 million to grantees from the health and safety fund for fiscal years 2006–07 through 2009–10. Table A.2 shows that Public Health awarded 115 grants between March 16, 2012, and October 19, 2012. All of the grants were less than $5,000, but the amounts Public Health paid ranged from $434 to $4,999.99. Although the research foundation awarded grants that served a variety of purposes, Public Health only awarded grants primarily related to bicycle, pedestrian, and child passenger safety. 6 In some cases, the research foundation issued grants that included safety equipment such as car seats in addition to moneys. We did not include the value of the safety equipment in the grant totals or amounts paid. 48 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Table A.1 Kids’ Plates Program Grants Issued by the San Diego State Research Foundation Fiscal Years 2006–07 Through 2009–10 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Alisa Ann Ruch Burn Foundation Minigrant 2006–07 06/07M4 $25,000 Alisa Ann Ruch Burn Foundation Professional 2006–07 ProfDev16-06/07 1,500 development Subtotals for Alisa Ann Ruch Burn Foundation $26,500 $21,731 American Red Cross Professional 2006–07 ProfDev25-06/07 701 591 development Building a Generation Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip20 2,550 2,550 California Coalition for Children’s Safety and Health Professional 2006–07 06/07M6 9,900 9,900 development California Parenting Institute Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip24 4,960 4,960 California Rural Indian Health Board, Inc Professional 2006–07 ProfDev2-06/07 1,500 1,500 development California Walks Professional 2006–07 ProfDev20-06/07 1,353 1,349 development Caring Choices Home safety supplies 2006–07 Equip11 3,000 3,000 Central California Burn Aware Fire alarms 2006–07 Equip26 2,900 2,175 Child Abuse Prevention Council of Butte County Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip25 3,000 3,000 Children’s Hospital of Orange County Professional 2006–07 ProfDev13-06/07 1,500 development Children’s Hospital of Orange County Community Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip19 5,000 Education Department Subtotals for Children’s Hospital of Orange County $6,500 $6,415 City of Blythe Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip10 3,000 2,998 City of Clovis Police Department Minigrant 2006–07 06/07CE1 10,000 City of Clovis Police Department Professional 2006–07 ProfDev14-06/07 1,475 development Subtotals for City of Clovis Police Department $11,475 $11,474 City of Fresno Professional 2006–07 ProfDev11-06/07 1,500 development City of Fresno Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip3 5,000 Subtotals for City of Fresno $6,500 $6,500 City of Ontario Fire Department Professional 2006–07 06/07CE3 10,000 10,000 development Colusa County Child Abuse Prevention Council Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip30 3,000 2,994 Colusa County Health and Human Services Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip17 3,000 2,995 Community Outreach, Queen of the Valley Hospital Professional 2006–07 ProfDev8-06/07 1,500 1,335 development Contra Costa County Minigrant 2006–07 MP1 25,000 Contra Costa Health Services Minigrant 2006–07 05/06 ProgDev1 40,000 Subtotals for Contra Costa County $65,000 $65,000 County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Minigrant 2006–07 05/06 ProgDev2 40,000 Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Professional 2006–07 ProfDev21-06/07 1,500 development Subtotals for County of Santa Cruz $41,500 $40,965 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 49 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID County of Sonoma, Department of Health Services, Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip16 $3,000 Prevention and Planning Division, Childhood Injury Prevention Program County of Sonoma, Department of Health Services, Home safety supplies 2006–07 Equip28 2,992 Public Health Division, Maternal Child Health Field Nursing Program County of Sonoma, Department of Health Services, Professional 2006–07 ProfDev9-06/07 1,500 Prevention and Planning Division, Childhood development Injury Prevention Program Subtotals for County of Sonoma, Department of Health Services $7,492 $7,465 Darin M. Camerena Health Centers, Inc. Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip15 3,000 3,000 Elk Grove Community Services District Professional 2006–07 ProfDev4-06/07 1,500 1,484 Fire Department development Fresno Fire Chief’s Foundation Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip27 3,000 3,000 Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip7 3,000 3,000 Irvine Police Department Professional 2006–07 ProfDev18-06/07 1,330 927 development Kaiser Foundation Hospital Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip22 3,000 2,998 Kaweah Delta Healthcare District Professional 2006–07 ProfDev15-06/07 1,385 1,375 development Keeping Kids Safe-A Project of Health and Social Professional 2006–07 ProfDev24-06/07 1,495 1,348 Policy Institute development Latino Health Access Professional 2006–07 ProfDev23-06/07 1,500 1,500 development Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital/Safe Kids Professional 2006–07 ProfDev6-06/07 1,500 1,500 development Madera County Public Health Department Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip1 5,000 5,000 Marin County Department of Health and Car/booster seats 2006-07 Equip5 3,000 3,000 Human Services Mercy San Juan Medical Center Professional 2006–07 ProfDev1-06/07 1,500 1,373 development Mono County Health Department Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip14 3,000 3,000 Monterey County Safe Kids Chapter/Action Council Professional 2006–07 ProfDev22-06/07 1,500 1,499 development National Health Services, Inc. Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip21 3,000 3,000 Northern Valley Catholic Social Service Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip9 5,000 5,000 Placer County Health and Human Services Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip13 2,997 2,997 Plumas County Public Health Agency Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip6 5,000 4,996 Presidio community YMCA Minigrant 2006–07 06/07CE4 6,650 4,797 Rancho Adobe Fire District Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip4 2,875 2,846 River Child Care Services Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip29 3,000 2,895 Sacramento County Childhood Illness and Minigrant 2006–07 ProgDev3 40,000 Injury Prevention Sacramento County Department of Health and Professional 2006–07 ProfDev5-06/07 1,499 Human Services Childhood Illness and Injury development Prevention Program Subtotals for Sacramento County $41,499 $41,498 continued on next page . . . 50 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Safe Kids California Minigrant 2006–07 05/06 ProgDev4 $40,000 $17,268 Safetybeltsafe USA Minigrant 2006–07 06/07M1 25,000 Safetybeltsafe USA Minigrant 2006–07 MP3 25,000 Safetybeltsafe USA Professional 2006–07 ProfDev10-06/07 1,500 development Subtotals for Safetybeltsafe USA $51,500 $51,383 San Francisco Department of Public Health Minigrant 2006–07 05/06 ProgDev6 40,000 San Francisco Public Health Foundation (City of San Professional 2006–07 ProfDev17-06/07 940 Francisco/Department of Public Health) development Subtotals for San Francisco Department of Public Health $40,940 $35,423 Santa Cruz County Counseling Center/Head Start Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip2 2,990 2,986 Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Minigrant 2006–07 MP2 25,000 24,989 St. Jude Medical Center Professional 2006–07 ProfDev19-06/07 1,500 1,487 development Stanford Hospital and Clinics Minigrant 2006–07 06/07M2 15,000 Stanford Hospital and Clinics- Trauma Service Professional 2006–07 ProfDev12-06/07 1,350 development Subtotals for Stanford Hospital and Clinics $16,350 $14,168 Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety Bike helmets 2006–07 Equip18 2,995 2,995 The Regents of the University of California, Minigrant 2006–07 05/06 ProgDev5 40,000 39,993 San Francisco University Medical Center/Safe Kids Central Valley Professional 2006–07 ProfDev3-06/07 1,500 1,500 development Valley Oak Children’s Services Professional 2006–07 06/07M3 15,000 15,000 development Vista Community Clinic Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip8 5,000 5,000 Williams Police Department Car/booster seats 2006–07 Equip31 3,000 3,000 Subtotals for Fiscal Year 2006–07 $565,837 $526,122 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 51 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Alameda County Office of Education Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-DUIPP-5 $54,000 Alameda County Office of Education Professional 2007–08 DTC-9 362 development Subtotals for Alameda County Office of Education $54,362 $51,092 Alisa Ann Ruch Burn Foundation Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev28 1,600 1,600 development Blythe Police Department Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev11 1,288 development Blythe Police Department Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-1 3,000 Subtotals for Blythe Police Department $4,288 $4,183 Building a Generation Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev5 1,600 development Building a Generation Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-10 3,000 Subtotals for Building a Generation $4,600 $4,303 Butte County Public Health Department Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-32 3,000 2,736 California Chapter 4 Professional 2007–08 DTC-3 1,500 development California Chapter 4, American Academy Minigrant 2007–08 Drowning 38,490 of Pediatrics Surveillance Project Subtotals for California Chapter 4 $39,990 $34,471 California Coalition for Children’s Safety and Health Minigrant 2007–08 Statewide 10,000 10,000 Educational and Technical Assistance California Parenting Institute Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-8 3,000 3,000 Caring Choices Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-19 3,000 3,000 Child Abuse Prevention Council of Butte County Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-33 3,000 3,000 Child Abuse Prevention Council of Sacramento, Inc. Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-DUIPP-4 54,000 15,440 Child Abuse Prevention Council Placer Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev35 1,600 1,420 development Children’s Hospital Central California Professional 2007–08 DTC-18 647 579 development Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Professional 2007–08 DTC-14 1,129 1,125 development Children’s Hospital of Orange County Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev15 1,600 Community Education development Children’s Hospital of Orange County Community Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-14 3,000 Education Department Subtotals for Children’s Hospital of Orange County $4,600 $4,508 City of Duarte Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev9 1,424 1,424 development City of Folsom Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev26 1,600 1,490 development City of Redding Recreation Division Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-BCCUIP-2 27,000 continued on next page . . . 52 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Redding Recreation Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev25 $1,123 development Redding Recreation Professional 2007–08 DTC-5 500 development Subtotals for Redding Recreation $28,623 $20,368 City of Watsonville Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-22 3,000 2,966 Colusa County Department of Health and Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-4 3,000 2,997 Human Services Community Bridges/ Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev23 1,147 946 La Manzana Community Resource development Community Regional Medical Center Professional 2007–08 DTC-19 835 development Safe Kids Central Valley/Community Regional Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev27 1,600 Medical Center development Subtotals for Community Regional Medical Center $2,435 $2,435 Contra Costa Health Services Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-DUIPP-2 54,000 54,000 Cosumnes Community Services District Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev14 1,394 936 Fire Department development County of Sonoma, Department of Health Services Professional 2007–08 DTC-13 956 development County of Sonoma, Department of Health Services, Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-3 3,000 Prevention and Planning Subtotals for County of Sonoma, Department of Health Services $3,956 $3,734 County of Yolo Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-28 3,000 3,000 Darin M. Camarena Health Centers, Inc. Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-5 3,000 3,000 Drowning Prevention Foundation Professional 2007–08 DTC-32 442 442 development Esperanza Community Housing Corporation Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-BCCUIP-4 27,000 26,999 For Pits’ Sake Inc. Professional 2007–08 DTC-31 529 505 development Fresno Fire Chief’s Foundation Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-2 3,000 3,000 Future Vision for Teens Professional 2007–08 DTC-21 500 500 development Health and Social Policy Institute Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev30 1,484 development Health and Social Policy Institute Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-DUIPP-6 54,000 Health and Social Policy Institute Professional 2007–08 DTC-22 134 development Subtotals for Health and Social Policy Institute $55,618 $55,617 Health Services Agency (County of Santa Cruz) Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev20 980 970 development Humboldt County Department of Health and Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-34 3,000 Human Services Humboldt County Health Education Division Professional 2007–08 DTC-15 482 development Subtotals for Humbolt County $3,482 $3,175 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 53 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-13 $3,000 $1,604 Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospital Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev6 1,543 (Women’s Health) development Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospital- Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-15 3,000 Women’s Health Subtotals for Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospital $4,543 $4,529 Kern County Department of Public Health Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev16 1,600 development Kern County Department of Public Health Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-27 3,000 Subtotals for Kern County Department of Public Health $4,600 $4,496 K’ima:w Medical Center Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev12 1,164 development K’ima:w Medical Center Professional 2007–08 DTC-2 1,500 development K’ima:w Medical Center Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-17 3,000 Subtotals for K’ima:w Medical Center $5,664 $5,664 Lake County Fire Protection District Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-30 3,000 2,992 Lake Family Resource Center Professional 2007–08 DTC-20 656 640 development Latino Health Access Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-BCCUIP-3 27,000 26,126 Little Company of Mary Community Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-12 3,000 2,993 Health Foundation Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Santa Clara/ Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev3 1,600 1,600 San Mateo Safe Kids Coalition development Madera County Public Health Department Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-11 3,000 3,000 Mariposa Safe Families Inc. Professional 2007–08 DTC-7 374 357 development Mendocino County Health and Human Services Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-31 3,000 2,969 Agency, Public Health Branch Merced County Department of Public Health Professional 2007–08 DTC-12 874 720 development Mission Neighborhood Health Center Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-24 3,000 2,960 Modoc County Public Health Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-25 3,000 2,925 Mono County Health Department Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-7 3,000 3,000 Moorpark/Simi Valley Neighborhood for Learning Professional 2007–08 DTC-1 1,000 718 development Northcoast Children’s Services Professional 2007–08 DTC-8 760 760 development Pacific Safety Council Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev17 1,600 1,470 development Palermo Church of God Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-16 3,000 2,200 Placer County Health and Human Services Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-29 3,000 3,000 continued on next page . . . 54 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Plumas County Public Health Agency Professional 2007–08 DTC-11 $938 $565 development Riverside Police Department Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev19 1,560 development Riverside Police Department Equipment 2007–08 Regional Capacity 15,000 Subtotals for Riverside Police Department $16,560 $14,942 Roseville Fire Department Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev34 1,202 1,177 development Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-20 3,000 3,000 Safe Kids—Greater Sacramento/Mercy San Juan Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev22 1,600 1,404 development Safe Kids Tuolumne County Minigrant 2007–08 07/08SKC 4,000 Safe KIDS Tuolumne County/Manteca Minigrant 2007–08 07/08SKC 4,000 District Ambulance Subtotals for Safe Kids Tuolumne County $8,000 $2,779 Safe Kids Ventura County Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev4 1,600 development Safe Kids Ventura County Professional 2007–08 DTC-23 1,486 development Subtotals for Safe Kids Ventura County $3,086 $3,086 SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-DUIPP-3 54,000 SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev21 1,472 development SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Professional 2007–08 DTC-6 500 development Subtotals for SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. $55,972 $55,573 San Francisco Department of Public Health Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-DUIPP-1 54,000 47,449 San Francisco General Hospital Women’s Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-26 3,000 3,000 Health Center San Joaquin Valley Health Consortium Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev1 1,600 1,600 development Santa Clara Valley Neighborhood for Learning Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev2 1,600 1,338 development Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-9 3,000 Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital-Trauma Services Professional 2007-08 DTC-17 352 development St. Joseph Health System-Santa Rosa Memorial Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev18 1,395 Hospital/ Trauma Services development Subtotals for Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital $4,747 $4,590 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 55 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency Minigrant 2007–08 07/08-BCCUIP-1 $27,000 Public Health Branch Shasta County Public Health Professional 2007–08 DTC-10 421 development Subtotals for Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency $27,421 $27,413 Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev10 1,545 1,511 development St. Jude Hospital Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev24 1,561 1,512 development The Redwood Empire Food Bank Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-35 3,000 2,375 The Regents of the University of California, Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev7 1,600 1,600 San Francisco development Tule River Indian Health Center, Inc. Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-21 3,000 3,000 University of California Irvine Center for Trauma Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev29 1,089 and Injury development University of California Irvine, Department of Professional 2007–08 DTC-24 796 Emergency Medicine, Center for Trauma and Injury development Prevention Research Subtotals for University of California Irvine Center for Trauma and Injury $1,885 $1,474 Valley Care Olive View Safety supplies 2007–08 07/08-SftySup-23 3,000 2,928 Valley Medical Center Foundation Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev13 210 160 development WalkSanDiego Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev33 790 790 development YES, Inc. Professional 2007–08 07/08ProfDev31 567 567 development Subtotals for Fiscal Year 2007–08 $665,501 $587,517 continued on next page . . . 56 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Alameda County Office of Education Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-DUIPP-5 $72,000 $71,988 Blythe Police Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-20 1,581 1,414 development Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection Distrct Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-26 1,520 1,426 development Building a Generation Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-27 1,600 1,600 development California Chapter 4, American Academy Minigrant 2008–09 Drowning 70,230 61,214 of Pediatrics Surveillance Project 08/09 California Coalition for Children’s Safety and Health Minigrant 2008–09 Statewide 19,950 19,950 Educational and Technical Assistance 08/09 California Rural Indian Health Board, Inc Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-7 1,600 1,340 development Child Abuse Prevention Council of Sacramento, Inc. Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-DUIPP-4 72,000 49,000 CHOC Children’s Community Education Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-11 1,600 development CHOC Community Education Department Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-MG-1 10,000 Subtotals for CHOC Children’s Community Education Department $11,600 $11,582 City of Folsom Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-4 1,600 1,600 development City of Redding-Recreation Division Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-BCCUIPP-2 36,000 25,498 City of Ventura Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-18 1,497 1,396 development Contra Costa Health Services Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-DUIPP-2 72,000 Contra Costa Health Services Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-14 1,394 development Subtotals for Contra Costa Health Services $73,394 $73,327 Cosumnes Community Services District Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-8 1,598 1,493 Fire Department development Drowning Prevention Foundation Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-24 1,460 1,291 development Dublin Police Service Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-12 1,600 1,490 development El Dorado County Child Abuse Prevention Council Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-MG-3 10,000 9,398 Esperanza Community Housing Corporation Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-BCCUIPP-4 36,000 36,000 First 5 Lake Commission Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-23 1,600 1,470 development Health and Social Policy Institute Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-DUIPP-6 72,000 Health and Social Policy Institute Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-16 1,600 development Subtotals for Health and Social Policy Institute $73,600 $73,550 Hupa Health Association, Inc. Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-28 1,591 1,591 development Irvine Police Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-13 1,550 1,092 development Lake County Fire Protection District Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-6 1,500 1,201 development California State Auditor Report 2012-105 57 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Latino Health Access Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-BCCUIPP-3 $36,000 $36,000 Maywood-Cudahy Police Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-29 1,600 1,600 development New Economics for Women Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-5 1,600 1,600 development Pacific Safety Council Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-9 1,600 1,600 development Rialto Fire Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-19 1,558 1,547 development Riverside Police Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-2 1,600 1,567 development Sacramento Fire Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-22 1,600 1,600 development Safe Kids Inland Empire/Loma Linda Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-1 1,600 1,600 Children’s Hospital development Safe Kids Monterey County/Action Council Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-21 1,600 1,600 development SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-15 1,372 development SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-DUIPP-3 72,000 Subtotals for SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. $73,372 $72,855 San Francisco Department of Public Health Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-DUIPP-1 72,000 65,521 Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-MG-2 12,000 Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center/ Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-10 1,600 Head Start development Subtotals for Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center $13,600 $13,538 Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center and Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-30 1,010 1,010 Orthopaedic Hospital development Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency Minigrant 2008–09 08/09-BCCUIP-1 36,000 36,000 Public Health Branch Solano County Public Health Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-3 1,600 1,371 development Yuba City Police Department Professional 2008–09 08/09ProfDev-25 1,600 1,551 development Subtotals for Fiscal Year 2008–09 $743,011 $690,471 continued on next page . . . 58 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Alameda County Office of Education Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-DUIPP-5 $66,000 $60,896 Bay Area Community Resources, Shoreline Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-9 1,497 1,431 School Readiness development Calaveras County Public Health Department Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-2 233 130 development California Chapter 4, American Academy Minigrant 2009–10 Drowning 41,278 of Pediatrics Surveillance Project 09/10 California Chapter 4, American Academy Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-33 372 of Pediatrics development Subtotals for California Chapter 4, American Academy of Pediatrics $41,650 $41,640 California Coalition for Children’s Safety and Health Minigrant 2009–10 09/10 Statewide 9,975 9,975 Educational and Technical Assistance California Parenting Institute Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-28 137 119 development California WALKS Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-35 260 260 development Child Abuse Prevention Council of Sacramento, Inc. Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-DUIPP-4 66,000 60,349 Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-12 1,500 development Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-13 290 development Subtotals for Children’s Hospital Los Angeles $1,790 $1,648 Children’s Hospital of Orange County, Children’s Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-8 1,257 Community Education development Children’s Hospital of Orange County, Children’s Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-GAP-2 12,000 Community Education Department Subtotals for Children’s Hospital of Orange County $13,257 $13,204 City of Adelanto Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-6 190 190 development City of Redding-Recreation Division Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-BCCUIP-2 33,000 26,754 Community Bridges, La Manzana Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-GAP-3 12,000 12,000 Community Resources Contra Costa Health Services Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-11 1,116 development Contra Costa Health Services Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-DUIPP-2 66,000 Subtotals for Contra Costa Health Services $67,116 $67,050 Cosumnes Community Services District Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-5 1,485 1,337 Fire Department development County of Santa Cruz, Health Services Agency Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-25 238 174 development Esperanza Community Housing Corporation Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-BCCUIP-4 33,000 33,000 Health and Social Policy Institute Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-DUIPP-6 66,000 Health and Social Policy Institute Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-38 350 development Subtotals for Health and Social Policy Institute $66,350 $66,269 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 59 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Imperial County Public Health Department Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-20 $654 $379 development Irvine Police Department Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-4 828 592 development Kern County Public Health Department Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-36 405 405 development Kids Are 1st Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-22 452 452 development Lake Forest Police Services Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-27 500 398 development Latino Health Access Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-44 570 development Latino Health Access Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-GAP-6 12,000 Latino Health Access Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-BCCUIP-3 33,000 Subtotals for Latino Health Access $45,570 $45,317 Madera County Children and Families Commission Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-23 259 243 development Mendocino County Health and Human Services Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-11 272 219 Agency, Community Health Branch, Prevention development and Planning Unit Mercy San Juan Medical Center Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-42 288 development Mercy San Juan Medical Center Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-GAP-1 12,000 Subtotals for Mercy San Juan Medical Center $12,288 $12,233 Modoc County Public Health Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-15 190 190 development Monterey County Safe Kids/Action Council Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-32 192 192 development Natomas Unified School District Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-8 166 150 development New Economics for Women Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-10 360 360 development Nhan Hoa Comprehensive Health Care Clinic Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-4 1,489 1,444 development Pacific Safety Council Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-3 1,383 development Pacific Safety Council Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-18 660 development Subtotals for Pacific Safety Council $2,043 $2,043 Palm Desert Police Department Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-21 272 272 development Queen of the Valley Medical Center Foundation Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-24 360 292 development Rady Children’s Hospital Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-1 444 444 development Rebuilding Mountain Hearts and Lives Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-14 592 592 development River to Coast Children’s Services Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-40 145 122 development continued on next page . . . 60 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE * FISCAL YEAR GRANT NO. GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Riverside County Department of Public Health Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-10 $1,500 $1,500 Injury Prevention Services development Riverside Police Department Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-6 1,500 1,500 development Sacramento County Childhood Illness and Injury Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-2 1,029 674 Prevention Program development Safe Kids Ventura County Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-47 636 515 development SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-DUIPP-3 66,000 SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-15 1,500 development SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Conference 2009–10 none 700 Subtotals for SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. $68,200 $67,912 San Francisco Department of Public Health Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-DUIPP-1 66,000 59,179 San Luis Obispo ALPHA, Inc. Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-29 286 286 development Santa Clara Valley Neighborhood for Learning Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-46 407 305 development County of Shasta Health and Human Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-14 1,471 Services Agency development Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-BCCUIP-1 33,000 Public Health Branch Subtotals for Shasta County Heallth and Human Services Agency $34,471 $34,471 Solano County Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-GAP-4 12,000 County of Solano Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-1 1,500 development Subtotals for Solano County $13,500 $13,410 Town of Danville Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-43 95 78 development Ventura County Adolescent Family Life Program- Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-50 225 225 Future Vision for Teens development WALKSacramento Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-45 189 78 development WalkSanDiego Professional 2009–10 09/10ProfDev-7 1,500 1,361 development YMCA of San Francisco, Presidio Minigrant 2009–10 09/10-GAP-5 12,000 11,978 Yuba City Police Department Professional 2009–10 09/10 MCS-39 140 140 development Subtotals for Fiscal Year 2009–10 $683,337 $656,377 Total Grants Issued: 286 Total Amount Granted and Paid: $2,657,686 $2,460,487 Sources: The Department of Public Health’s and the San Diego State University Research Foundation’s (research foundation) grant files and data obtained from the research foundation’s Ellucian Banner system including expenses through February 2011. * Table A.1 does not include grants for safety equipment such as bicycle helmets and car seats or conference registration costs paid on behalf of individuals by the research foundation. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 61 November 2012 Table A.2 Kids’ Plates Program Grants Awarded and Paid by the Department of Public Health From March 16, 2012, Through October 19, 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID ABC Unified School District “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign $4,999.00 $4,999.00 Advocates for Peace and Urban Unity “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,000.00 4,000.00 Alameda County Public Health 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,990.00 Applied Principles for Service, Inc. “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,300.00 4,106.52 Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 Butte Bicycle Coalition 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,990.00 2,852.44 Calaveras County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 2,222.00 Public Health Department California Chapter 4, American Toddler Drowning Surveillance Project 4,999.99 4,999.00 Academy of Pediatrics California Walks “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 Camarena Health 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,879.76 CARA Education Fund “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 Child Abuse Prevention Council of 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,993.53 Sacramento, Inc. Children and Families Commission 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 of Orange County Children and Families Commission 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 3,125.00 of San Luis Obispo County Children’s Hospital Los Angeles 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,750.00 4,750.00 Children’s Hospital of Orange County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 City of Escondido “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 3,859.01 City of Manteca “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,090.00 3,850.10 City of Moreno Valley “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 3,000.00 2,963.13 City of Pasadena “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,300.00 4,300.00 Public Health Department City of Rohnert Park “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 3,350.00 1,534.42 City of San Carlos Parks and “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,000.00 2,645.76 Recreation Department City of Rosemead “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,255.00 4,255.00 Coalition for 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,990.00 4,990.00 Sustainable Transportation Community Action Partnership “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,916.11 4,251.02 of Orange County County of Kern 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 434.00 Public Health Department County of Sacramento* 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 0.00 County of San Luis Obispo 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,999.00 4,999.00 County of Santa Cruz Health 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 Services Agency Crocker/Riverside Elementary 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,670.00 4,507.09 School PTA Davis Bicycles! 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,970.00 3,220.86 Del Norte Child Care Council 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 continued on next page . . . 62 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID East Bay Bicycle Coalition 2012 California Bike to School Day $4,881.00 $4,881.00 Ebony Counseling Center “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 Ecology Action 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,911.77 4,774.98 El Dorado Hills Community “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,994.05 Vision, Inc. El Marino Language School PTA 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,766.25 2,746.60 FAME Assistance Corporation “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,500.00 4,500.00 First 5 Amador 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,997.41 First 5 Contra Costa 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 First 5 Del Norte 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 First 5 El Dorado Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,451.16 Families Commission First 5 Fresno county 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,631.50 First 5 Kings County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,835.96 First 5 Madera County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,983.24 First 5 Marin Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,998.99 Families Commission First 5 Merced County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 520.90 First 5 Modoc 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,996.03 First 5 Mono County Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,488.66 Families Commission First 5 Nevada County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 3,937.99 First 5 Placer Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,914.10 Families Commission First 5 Plumas County Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 Families Commission First 5 San Benito 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 First 5 Santa Barbara County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,969.59 First 5 Santa Clara County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 First 5 Santa Cruz County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 First 5 Siskiyou Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 Families Commission First 5 Solano Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,990.68 Families Commission First 5 Tuolumne Commission 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 First 5 Ventura County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,022.13 First 5 Yolo Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,778.19 Families Commission Genesis Interfaith Community “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,000.00 4,000.00 Organizing, Inc . Health and Social Policy Institute 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 Humboldt County Department 2012 California Bike to School Day 3,572.89 2,894.83 of Health and Human Services, Public Health Branch Imperial County Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 Families First Commission Legacy LA “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 3,525.00 1,975.20 Lift the Children 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 63 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition 2012 California Bike to School Day $4,999.99 $4,999.92 Mariposa Safe Families “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,000.00 4,000.00 Mercy San Juan Medical Center 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,987.00 Modoc County Public Health 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,991.31 Monterey County Association of 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,709.54 Families Caring for Children Monterey County Health Department 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 Monument Community Partnership 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,984.51 3,057.87 Native American Health Center, Inc. 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 New Directions for Youth, Inc. “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,125.00 4,125.00 North American Traffic Seminars, Inc. 2012 Central Valley California Bike to School Day 4,150.00 3,815.07 Ocean Beach PTA “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 3,000.00 2,992.00 Off the Front 2012 Central Valley California Bike to School Day 4,999.99 4,999.99 Pacoima Beautiful “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.99 4,999.99 Pacoima Charter School “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 3,000.00 1,587.75 Pasadena Child Development Boosters Are For Big Kids Program 4,999.99 4,999.99 Associates, Inc. Pasadena Educational Foundation Boosters Are For Big Kids Program 4,999.99 4,999.99 People Reaching Out “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,600.00 4,600.00 Proyecto Pastoral at Dolores Mission “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,700.00 4,700.00 Queen of the Valley Medical Center 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 3,546.25 Rancho Cucamonga “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 Police Department Riverside County Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,969.99 Families Commission Roosevelt Elementary “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,546.00 4,544.38 Safe Passage Family Resource Center 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,957.50 San Diego County Bicycle Coalition 2012 California Bike to School Day 3,933.00 2,767.44 San Joaquin County 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 1,524.00 Santa Monica—Malibu Council of 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,999.00 4,991.45 Parent-Teacher Association Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital 2012 California Bike to School Day 2,461.53 2,315.00 Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.00 2,209.20 SF Bay WALKS “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 Shasta Children and Families 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.99 First Commission Silver Gate Elementary School “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 3,472.00 2,534.24 Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,976.29 4,970.63 Sonoma County Department of 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 0.00 Health Services* South Bay Union Elementary “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,379.00 4,379.00 School District Stanislaus County Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,728.86 Families Commission Sutter County Children and 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,999.00 Families Commission Sutter County Public Health “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 continued on next page . . . 64 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE GRANT AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID Sutter-Yuba Friday Night Live “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign $4,999.00 $4,999.99 The Center for Defensive Driving “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 3,400.00 3,400.00 United Seniors of Oakland and “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,000.00 4,000.00 Alameda County Vermont Village Community “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 Development Corporation Vogel Foundation for the 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,999.00 4,999.00 Improvement of Human Relations/ Walk and Bike Mendocino Volunteer Center of Greater Safe Sleep Project 4,999.99 4,999.00 Orange County Walk San Diego “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.99 4,999.99 Westend Community Oriented “It’s Up to Us”: A Pedestrian Safety Public Education Campaign 4,999.00 4,999.00 Policing Association Wu Yee Children’s Services 2012 California Child Passenger Safety Car Seat and Booster Seat Promotion 4,999.99 4,496.48 YMCA of San Francisco* 2012 California Bike to School Day 4,999.00 0.00 Youth Educational Sports, Inc. 2012 Central Valley California Bike to School Day 4,999.00 4,999.00 Total grants awarded: 115 Total amount awarded and paid: $544,446.75 $491,028.27 Sources: The Department of Public Health’s (Public Health) service orders and accounting records. Note: Public Health used service orders to award funds to the grantees instead of grant agreements. We use the terms “grant” and “grantee” because Public Health used a request for applications (RFA) to award the funds. In some instances, the RFA specifically stated “Request for Mini-Grant Application.” * This grantee was awarded a grant amount, but had not been paid as of October 19, 2012. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 65 November 2012 Appendix B DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES’ STATE CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND GRANTS The Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed the California State Auditor to identify the entities and programs that received funding from the State Children’s Trust Fund (trust fund) over the past six fiscal years. The Department of Social Services’ (Social Services) Office of Child Abuse Prevention used the trust fund to award grants to private nonprofit organizations and public institutions of higher education that operate local child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs. We therefore obtained from Social Services information about the grants it awarded from the trust fund and the actual amounts it paid grantees. Table B summarizes the grants Social Services issued. As Table B shows, primarily between fiscal years 2006–07 and 2011–12, Social Services issued 31 trust fund grants. The amounts it granted ranged from zero dollars to $1.4 million. Between July 2006 and March 2012, the amounts Social Services paid for grants ranged from more than $6,500 to nearly $1.1 million—totaling more than $7.3 million. Table B State Children’s Trust Fund Grants Issued by the Department of Social Services Primarily Between Fiscal Years 2006–07 and 2011–12 TOTAL PAID GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE GRANT PERIOD TOTAL GRANTED AS OF MARCH 2012 Department of Health Develop a Multidisciplinary Conference 7/1/2007—4/15/2008 $105,000 2008–09 $67,528 Care Services Sonoma State University Provide Mandated Reporter Training and 7/1/2006—6/30/2007 350,000 2006–07 141,754 Parent Outreach 2007–08 161,998 California State University, Parent Leadership Conference and 7/1/2006—6/30/2007 96,569 2006–07 58,398 Sacramento Engagement Training of Parents California State University, Parent Leadership Conference and 11/1/2007—6/30/2008 99,129 2008–09 6,572 Sacramento Engagement Training The Regents of the University Wraparound Child Abuse Mandated 7/1/2008—6/30/2011 800,000 2010–11 422,559 of California, Davis Reporter Training Prevent Child Abuse Provide Child Abuse Prevention, Training, 7/1/2006—6/30/2007 92,100 2007–08 58,844 California (PCA-CA) and Public Education to Professionals and County Workers Child and Family Policy To Conduct, Produce, and Disseminate 8/1/2005—12/31/2006 125,000 2006–07 124,000 Institute of California a Comprehensive Assessment of the Implementation of the Child Welfare System Improvement Accountability Act The Regents of the University Provide a Resource Center for 7/1/2006—6/30/2008 400,000 2008–09 250,770 of California, Davis Family-Focused Practice continued on next page . . . 66 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 TOTAL PAID GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE GRANT PERIOD TOTAL GRANTED AS OF MARCH 2012 Parents Anonymous, Inc. Develop a Database for Parent 7/1/2007—6/30/2009 $10,000 2009–10 $10,000 Involvement Programs Parents Anonymous, Inc. Parent Involvement Programs 8/1/2009—6/30/2012 433,790 2009–10 95,000 2010–11 94,335 2011–12 244,455 Children’s Bureau* Assistance with the Integration of County Child 9/1/2010—10/30/2011 91,070 2010–11 23,504 Welfare Prevention Plans, Implementation 2011–12 119,685 of Strengthening Families, and Support to Counties’ System Improvement Plans Rady Children’s Hospital- Maintain the California 7/1/2007—6/30/2010 0† 2009–10 188,989 San Diego Evidence-Based Clearinghouse 2010–11 61,209 Rady Children’s Hospital- Maintain the California 7/1/2010—6/3/2013 710,877 2010–11 350,958 San Diego Evidence-Based Clearinghouse 2011–12 29,292 University Corporation, Develop Services for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 7/1/2009—6/30/2012 45,000 2009–10 11,241 San Francisco State and Transgender Youth as Part of the Family 2010–11 3,779 Acceptance Project 2011–12 14,967 Interface Children Support of Child Abuse Prevention, Early 8/1/2010—8/31/2011 49,019 2010–11 41,032 Family Services Intervention, and Treatment of State, Regional, 2011–12 7,987 and Local Levels San Joaquin County Child Raise Awareness of Child Abuse to the 2/1/2011—5/15/2011 43,700 2010–11 43,700 Abuse Prevention Council Sacramento Community through the Lisa Project Exhibit The Inter-Agency Council on Co-Host the “Nexus XIV Conference” to Explore 8/1/2009—1/31/2010 10,000 2009–10 10,000 Child Abuse and Neglect Violence Within the Home and Its Effects on Children The Inter-Agency Council on Co-Host the “Nexus XIV Conference” to Explore 7/1/2010—6/30/2011 10,000 2010–11 10,000 Child Abuse and Neglect Violence Within the Home and Its Effects on Children Rady Children’s Hospital- Provide On-Line Mandated Reporter Training, 10/1/2009—6/30/2012 600,000 2009–10 7,989 San Diego Training of Trainers, and Educational Materials 2010–11 196,158 2011–12 138,882 San Luis Obispo Department Research Study—Supporting Father 7/1/2009—6/30/2012 100,726 2009–10 30,242 of Social Services Involvement Study 2010–11 35,242 Contra Costa County Research Study—Supporting Father 7/1/2009—6/30/2012 280,387 2009–10 5,342 Employment and Human Involvement Study 2011–12 42,034 Services Department Santa Cruz Community Research Study—Supporting Father 7/1/2009—6/30/2012 196,000 2009–10 62,000 Counseling Center Involvement Study 2010–11 62,000 2011–12 26,708 Chadwick Center for Children Implement an Evidence-Based Home Visitation 10/1/2010—9/30/2013 450,000 2010–11 237,463 and Families-Rady Children’s Model Across Multiple California Counties 2011–12 100,813 Hospital San Diego Youth for Change Provide Statewide Training and Technical 7/1/2009—6/30/2011 0† 2009–10 223,719 Assistance to Family-Support Programs 2010–11 466,600 in California Youth for Change: Strategies Provide Training and Technical Assistance to 7/1/2011—6/30/2014 1,399,800 2011–12 360,240 Region 1 Family-Strengthening Agencies California State Auditor Report 2012-105 67 November 2012 TOTAL PAID GRANTEE NAME GRANT TYPE GRANT PERIOD TOTAL GRANTED AS OF MARCH 2012 Interface Children Provide Statewide Training and Technical 7/1/2008—6/30/2011 $0† 2009–10 $235,413 Family Services Assistance to Family Resource Centers 2010–11 311,700 2011–12 145,427 Interface Children Build Capacity for Family Resource Centers and 7/1/2011—6/30/2014 1,400,100 2011–12 422,778 Family Services Family-Strengthening Programs, Disseminate Research Results, Assist Agencies to Become Father Inclusive, Develop Standards for Family Agencies, and Support Network Development Children’s Bureau Provide Training and Technical Assistance 6/1/2009—6/30/2011 933,400 2009–10 616,277 to Family Resource Centers and Other child 2010–11 466,700 Abuse Prevention /Family Support Centers in California Children’s Bureau: Strategies Provide Training and Technical Assistance to 7/1/2011—6/30/2014 1,400,100 2011–12 298,666 Region 3 Family Agencies, Assist with County Welfare Prevention Plans into the Outcomes and Accountability System, Disseminate Father Involvement Intervention, and Implement Strengthening Families Framework Youth for Change Support of Plan for More Integrated Child 7/1/2010—12/31/2011 132,137 2010–11 87,531 Abuse Prevention, Early Intervention, and 2011–12 44,606 Treatment of State, Regional, and County Levels California State University, Parent Leadership Conference and 7/1/2008—6/30/2009 87,441 2008–09 58,314 Sacramento Engagement Training Total Grants: 31 Total Granted: $10,451,345 Total Paid: $7,335,400 Sources: The Department of Social Services’ (Social Services) grant agreements and data obtained from the California State Accounting and Reporting System for the period July 2006 and March 2012. * Social Services overpaid the grantee due to an accounting error. On May 30, 2012, Social Services corrected the error by transferring $52,119 from the State’s Federal Trust Fund to the trust fund. † Our review of the grant awards and Social Services’ e-mails found that it shifted payments for certain grant agreements to the trust fund because the original funding source identified in the grant award was reduced by the federal government. 68 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 69 November 2012 (Agency comments provided as text only.) November 1, 2012 California Health and Human Services Agency 1600 Ninth Street, Room 460 Sacramento, CA 95814 Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Tanya Elkins To Whom It May Concern; Enclosed you will find a document and compact disk from California Department of Public Health in response to Bureau of State Audits draft audit report – Department of Public Health and Social Services: Weaknesses in the Administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State’s Children’s Trust Fund Limit Their Effectiveness. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, (Signed by: Amber Ostrander) Amber Ostrander CHHS Audit Coordinator 916-651-8059 aostrand@chhs.ca.gov 70 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 California Department of Public Health Response to Draft Report: “Departments of Public Health and Social Services: Weaknesses in the Administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State Children’s Trust Fund Limit Their Effectiveness,” November 2012, Report 2012-105. Recommendation 1: To ensure that it does not violate provisions of state law that prohibit contracts for services that state employees can perform, Public Health should establish that it has adequate justification for hiring a private contractor under Government Code 19130 prior to submitting contracts to General Services for approval. CDPH Response 1: CDPH agrees it should have adequate justification for hiring a private contractor under Government Code 19130 prior to submitting contracts to General Services for approval. Effective November 3, 2009, CDPH’s Contracts and Purchasing Services Section Bulletin 09-13, entitled, “Contracts/Procurements involving Personal Services,” requires the completion of a form “Justification for Contracting Out Services” for all personal services contracts. CDPH’s Office of Legal Services must review and approve this form before a contract or amendment can be fully executed. By December 1, 2012, CDPH will distribute an email reminder of Contracts and Purchasing Services Section Bulletin 09-13 to its Section Chiefs and Above. In addition, the Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (CCDPHP, which oversees the Kids’ Plate program) will take the following actions to remind staff of the established policy: (1) distribute an email reminder of Contracts and Purchasing Services Section Bulletin 09-13 to all CCDPHP staff, (2) direct Division management to ensure compliance with policy, and (3) remind administrative staff from all Branches, via administration update meetings, of the need to follow the established policy. Recommendation 2a: To comply with state contracting laws and policies that protect the State’s interest, Public Health should do the following: • Ensure that its staff do not allow contractors to work before General Services has approved the contracts. CDPH Response 2a: CDPH agrees that its staff should not allow contractors to work before General Services has approved the contracts. CDPH provides annual reminders to its management that the Public Contract Code sections 10295 and 10335, the State Contracting Manual section 4.09, and the Public Health Administrative Manual section 3-1140 prohibit contractors from commencing work prior to the final execution of contracts. Correspondence transmitting contract documents to the contractor for signature specifically warn contractors not to start work before CDPH returns the fully executed contract to them. By December 1, 2012, CCDPHP will take the following actions to ensure that its staff comply with this mandate and with the internal contracting policies that speak to this mandate: (1) distribute an email reminder of the relevant Public Contract Code, State Contracting Manual, and Public Health Administrative Manual sections regarding non-commencement of work without a fully executed contract; (2) direct 1 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 71 November 2012 California Department of Public Health Response to Draft Report: “Departments of Public Health and Social Services: Weaknesses in the Administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State Children’s Trust Fund Limit Their Effectiveness,” November 2012, Report 2012-105. Division management to ensure compliance with this mandate; and (3) remind administrative staff from all Branches, via administration update meetings, of the need to follow established policy. Recommendation 2b: • Ensure that its staff do not use service orders to circumvent the State’s contracting process. CDPH Response 2b: CDPH agrees its staff should not use service orders to circumvent the State’s contracting process. CDPH’s Service Order Manual sets policy and procedures for the use of service orders. By December 1, 2012, CCDPHP will instruct program staff to review the CDPH Service Order Manual and ensure that all staff is aware of the appropriate use of service orders. In addition, CCDPHP will provide verbal reminders to Division and Branch managers and administrative assistants. Furthermore, CCDPHP will require staff involved in the procurement process to attend the CDPH Procurement Training series held by the CDPH Program Support Branch. The Administrative Support Unit Chief within the Safe and Active Communities Branch will complete the series on October 31, 2012. Recommendation 2c: • Recoup the overpayment made to the research foundation. CDPH Response 2c: CDPH agrees to recoup any overpayment made to the research foundation. By December 31, 2012, the Administrative Support Unit Chief within the Safe and Active Communities Branch will work with the CDPH Accounting Section to review the audit findings on the payments made to the research foundation. The Accounting Section will bill the foundation to recoup any amount that CDPH overpaid. Recommendation 3: To determine if the appropriation to administer the Kids’ Plates Program is sufficient, Public Health should continue its plans to evaluate the costs of the regional grants RFA process and its monitoring of the awards for fiscal year 2012-13. If Public Health determines that the appropriation is insufficient, it should seek an amendment to state law. CDPH Response 3: CDPH agrees to continue its plans to evaluate the costs of the regional grants RFA process and its monitoring of the awards for fiscal year 2012-13. The Safe and Active Communities Branch will continue to document the staff hours expended to conduct the regional grants RFA process and monitor the awards. If the $25,000 set aside to cover administrative support for the Program is not sufficient, CDPH will seek alternative resources, including exploring an amendment to the Kids’ Plates statute (Chapter 1316, Statutes of 1992). 2 72 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 California Department of Public Health Response to Draft Report: “Departments of Public Health and Social Services: Weaknesses in the Administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State Children’s Trust Fund Limit Their Effectiveness,” November 2012, Report 2012-105. Recommendation 4: To comply with the State Contracting Manual, if Public Health chooses to use contractors for the Kids’ Plates Program, it should direct its staff to substantiate the expenditures contractors claim. For example, Public Health could ask the contractors to submit for review detailed records substantiating all or a sample of their invoices. CDPH Response 4: CDPH agrees it should substantiate the expenditures contractors claim. Effective January 23, 2012 CDPH Contracts and Purchasing Services Section Bulletin #12-01, entitled “Contract Manager Roles and Responsibilities,” reminds contract managers of their responsibility in administering contracts and monitoring the contractor’s performance. This bulletin reminds contract managers that they are responsible for the review of invoices to ensure the item(s) billed on the invoice are consistent with the contract terms and conditions prior to approving them for payment. By December 1, 2012, CCDPHP will institute a policy requiring random or periodic review of detailed expenditures. Recommendation 5a: To ensure that it is able to measure its progress toward fulfilling the requirements of the health and safety fund, Public Health should do the following: • Establish performance measurements for the Kids’ Plates Program. CDPH Response 5a: CDPH agrees it should establish performance measurements for the Kids’ Plates Program. The Kids’ Plates RFA used the new scope of work template issued by the CDPH Program Support Branch as part of its Procurement Training series. This template requires a specific “Performance Measure and/or Deliverable” for each major project activity. The Kid’s Plate RFA requires completing the template. CDPH will build these performance measures into the contracts for deliverables of each of the three awardees (we anticipate the contracts will begin January 1, 2013). CDPH will require the contractors to submit progress reports on June 30, 2013, December 31, 2013, and June 30, 2014. Recommendation 5b: • Periodically assess its progress toward meeting its measureable outcomes. CDPH Response 5b: CDPH agrees to periodically assess its progress toward meeting its measureable outcomes. The small number and limited scope of Kids’ Plates projects funded at this time preclude a large-scale evaluation. However, CDPH’s injury data surveillance system (http://epicenter.cdph.ca.gov) has county-level data on serious injuries and deaths. Beginning in January 2013, CDPH will assess trend data annually to monitor reductions in injuries in those counties that have instituted projects. 3 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 73 November 2012 (Agency comments provided as text only.) November 1, 2012 California Department of Social Services 744 P Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Tanya Elkins To Whom It May Concern; Enclosed you will find a document and compact disk from California Department of Social Services in response to Bureau of State Audits draft audit report – Department of Public Health and Social Services: Weaknesses in the Administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State’s Children’s Trust Fund Limit Their Effectiveness. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, (Signed by: Amber Ostrander) Amber Ostrander CHHS Audit Coordinator 916-651-8059 aostrand@chhs.ca.gov 74 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 California Department of Social Services (CDSS) RESPONSES TO AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Bureau of State Audits Audit #: 2012-105 Audit Title: Department of Public Health and Social Services: Weaknesses in the Administration of the Child Health and Safety Fund and the State Children’s Trust Fund Limit Their Effectiveness Recommendation for Social Services: Recommendation: 1.1 - To ensure compliance with the State Contracting Manual, Social Services should direct the office to substantiate the expenditures grantees claim. For example, the office should ask the grantees to submit detailed records for all or a sample of their invoices for review. CDSS Response: Partially Corrected/Anticipated Correction Date: December 31, 2012: The California Department of Social Services (CDSS), has begun reviewing and updating its internal grant/contract manuals to strengthen its process for substantiating expenditures. The Department’s contracts and grant agreements currently allow CDSS to request additional documentation to support invoices submitted by its grantees/contractors. The CDSS will update its internal manual to include procedures for requesting random samples of backup documentation on at least a quarterly basis from the grantee/contractor in order to substantiate claimed expenditures. Recommendation: 1.2 - To ensure the office complies with the State Contracting Manual, Social Services should: • Direct the office to update its guidelines for grant administration to establish a formal process for reviewing the grantees’ progress reports and interim products that includes documenting its review and its assessment of whether the grantees meet the measurable outcomes in their grant requirements. • Direct the office to retain the documentary evidence of its review and assessment in the grantee files. CDSS Response: Partially Corrected/Anticipated Correction Date: December 31, 2012: The CDSS OCAP has begun reviewing its grant manual and will update it to include a section on reviewing grantees’ reports. While the OCAP consultants monitor and review grantees’ reports on an ongoing basis, updating the manual will ensure its current process is documented. In addition to updating the grant manual, a new form has been created that will document the receipt, review and approval of grantees’ reports. California State Auditor Report 2012-105 75 November 2012 Partially Corrected/Anticipated Correction Date: December 31, 2012: The CDSS OCAP has created a new form that will document the receipt, review and approval of grantees’ progress reports; it will be retained in the grantees’ files. In addition, this form instructs consultants to keep any backup documentation (e-mails, document phone calls, etc.) in the grantees’ files, in accordance with CDSS document retention policies. Recommendation: 1.3 - To ensure compliance with the state law that requires the office to publish certain trust fund information, Social Services should do the following: • Require the office to establish procedures to ensure the inclusion of all programs and services it funded using the trust fund on its Web site. • Require the office to publish the amount on the trust fund as of June 30 each year on its Web site. CDSS Response: Remains Uncorrected/Agree with finding/recommendation/Anticipated Correction Date February 1, 2013: The CDSS OCAP will ensure that the Web site provide information on all of the programs and services financed with all the fund sources it administers, including those financed wholly or in part with SCTF. Fully Corrected. The CDSS office updated its Web site to include publication of the amount of, and expenditure data associated with, the trust fund as of June 30 each year and will ensure the Web site is updated annually with the information required by statute. Recommendation: 2.1 - To ensure that the Department of Social Services’ (Social Services) Office of Child Abuse Prevention (office) complies with the State Contracting Manual, Social Services should: • Direct the office to recover the overpayment from the Children’s Bureau of Southern California. CDSS Response: Partially Corrected/Anticipated Correction Date: November 30, 2012: The CDSS has initiated contact with the Children’s Bureau of Southern California and has begun recovery of this overpayment. Recommendation: 2.2 - To ensure that it uses trust fund monies only for permissible uses, Social Services should do the following: • Direct its internal audits staff to periodically perform reviews of the trust fund expenditures. • Revise its invoice process to clearly identify the objectives in the scope of work section of its grant agreements to the corresponding funding sources. 2 76 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 CDSS Response: Remains Uncorrected/Agree with finding/recommendation: The CDSS agrees with this recommendation, and will periodically audit or review all special fund expenditures. CDSS will include a special fund review in its 2013 audit plan. Partially Corrected/Anticipated Correction Date: January 31, 2013: The CDSS OCAP has begun the process of updating its invoice form to identify the objectives in the scope of work section of its grant agreements to the corresponding funding sources. Recommendation: 2.3 - To ensure compliance with the state law governing the trust fund that allows it to fund research and demonstration projects that explore the nature and incidence of child abuse and the development of long-term solutions to the problem of child abuse, Social Services should establish procedures to ensure that all grants it awards for research and demonstration projects clearly demonstrate a linkage to the trust fund’s requirements. CDSS Response: Remains Uncorrected/Agree with Finding. The CDSS will add a section to its grant manual that specifically identifies the allowable uses of the State Children Trust Funds (SCTF) as set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) and the process to be used to document linkages to these requirements when funding all new projects utilizing the SCTF. Recommendation: 2.4 - To ensure that its efforts funded by the trust fund are preventing or reducing incidences of child abuse and neglect, Social Services should do the following: • Develop universal performances measures for the trust fund. • Ensure the performance measures are reflected in the grants it awards. • Evaluate the performance measures annually to assess whether the trust fund’s programs and services are effective in reducing incidences of child abuse and neglect. CDSS Response: Remains Uncorrected/Agree with finding/recommendation The CDSS agrees that performance measures are appropriate for the programs funded through the SCTF, ensure that those performance measures are reflected in the grants that it awards and evaluated to determine whether they are effective in meeting the funds requirements. As each program is unique with its specific goals, objectives, and deliverables incorporated into its individual grant agreement with the OCAP, these performance measures will vary by program and the specific aspect of allowable uses each grant addresses. 3 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 77 November 2012 Recommendation: 2.5 - To improve the presentation of the information it publishes for the trust fund, Social Services should: • Establish a link that separately provides descriptions of the types of programs it funds using the trust fund and the target populations that benefit from the programs. • Present the amount it disbursed from the trust fund in the prior fiscal year by the amount spent for each program or service. CDSS Response: Partially Corrected/Anticipated Correction Date: January 31, 2013 The CDSS OCAP already provides partial information on the CDSS Web page. The OCAP will provide information on all the types of programs and services financed with all the fund sources it administers, including those financed wholly or in part with SCTF, and include target populations served. In addition, the CDSS will update the Website with information on the amount disbursed from the trust fund at the closeout of each fiscal year. 4 78 California State Auditor Report 2012-105 November 2012 cc: Members of the Legislature Office of the Lieutenant Governor Little Hoover Commission Department of Finance Attorney General State Controller State Treasurer Legislative Analyst Senate Office of Research California Research Bureau Capitol Press