SCO
Los Angeles City
Domestic Violence Background Checks
Read the report at Los Angeles City ↗
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Reissued Audit Report
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BACKGROUND CHECKS
PROGRAM
Chapter 713, Statutes of 2001
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2013
BETTY T. YEE
California State Controller
December 2019
BETTY T. YEE
California State Controller
December 2, 2019
CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ron Galperin, City Controller
City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Dear Mr. Galperin:
The State Controller’s Office (SCO) audited the costs claimed by the City of Los Angeles for the
legislatively mandated Domestic Violence Background Checks Program for the period of
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2013.
This report is a reissue of the October 14, 2019 final audit report to correct Schedule 1 —
Summary of Program Costs. The original Schedule 1 incorrectly identified allowable costs in
excess of claimed costs for fiscal year (FY) 2001-02. Government Code section 17568 stipulates
that the State will not reimburse any claim more than one year after the filing deadline specified
in the SCO’s claiming instructions; and that deadline has expired for FY 2001-02. Therefore, for
FY 2001-02 the allowable costs in excess of claimed costs, totaling $19,673, is not eligible for
reimbursement. The summary totals on the Corrected Schedule 1 have been updated to reflect
the correct calculations. This correction does not impact the audit findings, which remain
unchanged.
The city claimed $4,506,036 for costs of the mandated program. Our audit found that $2,873,801
is allowable and $1,632,235 is unallowable. The costs are unallowable because the city misstated
the number of domestic violence cases worked, productive hourly rates, benefit rates, and
indirect cost rates; and overstated related indirect costs. The State made no payments to the city.
The State will pay $2,873,801, contingent upon available appropriations.
Following issuance of this reissued audit report, the SCO’s Local Government Programs and
Services Division will notify the city of the adjustment to its claims via a system-generated letter
for FY 2002-03 through FY 2012-13.
Ron Galperin, City Controller -2- December 2, 2019
If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Kurokawa, Chief, Compliance Audits Bureau, by
telephone at (916) 327-3138.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
JIM L. SPANO, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
JLS/hf
cc: The Honorable Eric Garcetti, Mayor
City of Los Angeles
Richard H. Llewellyn Jr., City Administrative Officer
City of Los Angeles
Alex Perez, Assistant City Attorney
Family Violence Operations
Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office
Annemarie Sauer, Commanding Officer
Fiscal Operations
Los Angeles Police Department
Chris Hill, Principal Program Budget Analyst
Local Government Unit
California Department of Finance
Steven Pavlov, Finance Budget Analyst
Local Government Unit
California Department of Finance
Debra Morton, Manager
Local Government Programs and Services Division
State Controller’s Office
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Contents
Reissued Audit Report
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 2
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 3
Follow-up on Prior Audit Findings .................................................................................. 4
Views of Responsible Officials .......................................................................................... 4
Reason for Reissuance ....................................................................................................... 4
Restricted Use .................................................................................................................... 4
Corrected Schedule 1—Summary of Program Costs.......................................................... 5
Schedule 2—Summary of Domestic Violence Cases ........................................................... 8
Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 11
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Reissued Audit Report
Summary The State Controller’s Office (SCO) audited the costs claimed by City of
Los Angeles for the legislatively mandated Domestic Violence
Background Checks Program for the period of July 1, 2001, through
June 30, 2013.
The city claimed $4,506,036 for costs of the mandated program. Our audit
found that $2,873,801 is allowable and $1,632,235 is unallowable. The
costs are unallowable because the city misstated the number of domestic
violence cases worked, productive hourly rates (PHRs), benefit rates, and
indirect cost rates; and overstated related indirect costs. The State made no
payments to the city. The State will pay $2,873,801, contingent upon
available appropriations.
Background Penal Code (PC) section 273.75 (added by Chapter 713, Statutes of 2001)
establishes new responsibilities for a district attorney or prosecuting city
attorney to perform specific activities related to persons charged with acts
involving domestic violence.
On July 26, 2007, the Commission on State Mandates (Commission)
found that PC section 273.75 imposes a reimbursable state-mandated
program. Based on PC section 273.75, the Commission found that a
district attorney or prosecuting city attorney is required to perform the
following reimbursable activities upon any charge involving acts of
domestic violence:
Perform or cause to be performed, in electronic databases specified in
PC section 273.75, subdivision (b), a thorough investigation of the
defendant’s history, including, but not limited to, prior convictions for
domestic violence, other forms of violence or weapons offenses and
any current protective or restraining order issued by any civil or
criminal court.
Present the information for consideration by the court (1) when setting
bond or when releasing a defendant on his or her own recognizance at
the arraignment, if the defendant is in custody, and (2) upon
consideration of any plea agreement.
If a protective or restraining order is issued in the current criminal
proceeding, and if the investigation reveals a current civil protective
or restraining order issued by another criminal court and involving the
same or related parties, send, or cause to be sent, the district attorney
or prosecuting city attorney relevant information regarding the
contents of the order issued in the current criminal proceeding, and
any other information regarding a conviction of the defendant, to the
other court immediately after the order has been issued.
On July 28, 2011, the Commission adopted the program’s parameters and
guidelines. These parameters and guidelines establish the state mandate
and define the reimbursement criteria. In compliance with Government
Code (GC) section 17558, the SCO issues claiming instructions to assist
local agencies in claiming mandated program reimbursable costs.
-1-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Objective, Scope, The objective of our audit was to determine whether costs claimed
represent increased costs resulting from the legislatively mandated
and Methodology
Domestic Violence Background Checks Program. Specifically, we
conducted this audit to determine whether costs claimed were supported
by appropriate source documents, were not funded by another source, and
were not unreasonable and/or excessive.
The audit period was July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2013.
To achieve our objective, we:
Reviewed the annual mandated cost claims filed by the city for the
audit period and identified the material cost components of each claim
as salaries, benefits, and indirect costs. Determined whether there were
any errors or unusual or unexpected variances from year to year.
Reviewed the claimed activities to determine whether they adhered to
the SCO’s claiming instructions and the program’s parameters and
guidelines;
Completed an internal control questionnaire by interviewing key city
staff. Discussed the claim preparation process with city staff to
determine what information was obtained, who obtained it, and how it
was used;
Interviewed and observed city staff performing reimbursable
mandated activities to determine allowable time increments;
Reviewed and analyzed reports supporting the number of domestic
violence cases worked for errors and to identify any unusual or
unexpected variances for fiscal year (FY) 2010-11 through
FY 2012-13;
Validated reports by judgmentally selecting a non-statistical sample
of 75 domestic violence cases (out of 46,512) for FY 2010-11 through
FY 2012-13. We reviewed the supporting documentation provided for
the selected sample to identify domestic violence-related violations,
and noted immaterial exceptions. As a result of our testing, we
determined that it was reasonable to allow the total number of cases
provided by the city for the audit period;
Reviewed the city’s salary schedules for the Deputy City
Attorney II/III classifications for the audit period. We recalculated the
PHRs claimed for these classifications for the audit period and noted
immaterial exceptions. As a result of our testing, we determined that
it was reasonable to allow the PHR claimed for the audit period;
Traced the PHRs and benefit rates claimed for the Police Officer II
classification to the previously audited rates in the final audit report of
the City of Los Angeles for the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics
Reports for the Department of Justice Program for the period of July 1,
2001, through June 30, 2012, issued March 30, 2016. Based on our
review, we found that the city understated the PHRs for FY 2003-04,
FY 2009-10, and FY 2011-12; and overstated the PHRs for the
remaining fiscal years excluding FY 2012-13. The city also
understated the benefit rates claimed for FY 2001-02, FY 2010-11,
and FY 2011-12. The PHR and benefit rate for FY 2012-13 were not
previously audited. However, the claimed PHR and benefit rate for
-2-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
FY 2012-13 are the same as for FY 2011-12. Therefore, we
determined that it is reasonable to allow the PHR and benefit rate
claimed for FY 2012-13;
Traced indirect cost rates claimed to supporting documentation for the
audit period. We determined that the indirect costs were properly
computed for the audit period. As a result, we determined that it was
reasonable to allow the claimed rates for the audit period;
Traced the indirect cost rates claimed for the Police Officer II
classification to the previously audited rates in the final audit report of
the City of Los Angeles for the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics
Reports for the Department of Justice Program for the period of July 1,
2001, through June 30, 2012, issued March 30, 2016. Based on our
review, we found that the city understated the rates for FY 2005-06
and FY 2011-12, and overstated the rates for FY 2007-08 and
FY 2010-11. The indirect cost rate for FY 2012-13 was not previously
audited. However, the claimed rate is lower than the rates claimed
during the audit period. Therefore, we determined that it is reasonable
to allow the indirect cost rate claimed for FY 2012-13; and
Verified with city representatives that the city did not realize any
offsetting savings or reimbursements from the statutes that created the
mandated program, and that costs claimed were not funded by another
source.
GC sections 12410, 17558.5, and 17561 provide the legal authority to
conduct this audit. We conducted this performance audit in accordance
with 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 objective. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objective.
We limited our review of the city’s internal controls to gaining an
understanding of the transaction flow and claim preparation process as
necessary to develop appropriate auditing procedures. Our audit scope did
not assess the efficiency or effectiveness of program operations. We did
not audit the city’s financial statements.
Conclusion As a result of performing the audit procedures, we found instances of
noncompliance with the requirements described in our audit objective. We
found that the city did not claim costs that were funded by another source;
however, it did claim unsupported and ineligible costs, as quantified in the
Schedules and described in the Findings and Recommendations section of
this report.
The city claimed $4,506,036 for the mandated program. Our audit found
that $2,873,801 is allowable and $1,632,235 is unallowable. The costs are
unallowable because the city misstated the number of domestic violence
cases worked, productive hourly rates, benefit rates, and indirect cost rates;
and overstated related indirect costs. The State made no payments to the
city. The State will pay $2,873,801, contingent upon available
appropriations.
-3-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Following issuance of this reissued audit report, the SCO’s Local
Government Programs and Services Division will notify the city of the
adjustment to its claims via a system-generated letter for FY 2002-03
through FY 2012-13.
Follow-up on We have not previously conducted an audit of the city’s legislatively
Prior Audit mandated Domestic Violence Background Checks Program.
Findings
Views of We discussed our audit results with Alex Perez, Assistant City Attorney,
Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office; and Jennifer Lopez, Finance
Responsible
Specialist IV, Office of the Los Angeles City Administrative Officer; and
Officials
other city representatives during an exit conducted on September 17, 2019.
The city representatives accepted the findings, declined a draft audit
report, and agreed that we could issue the audit report as final.
We communicated with Alex Perez, Assistant City Attorney, and Jennifer
Lopez, Finance Specialist IV, regarding this reissued report on
October 21, 2019.
Reason for This report is a reissue of the October 14, 2019 final audit report to correct
Schedule 1 — Summary of Program Costs. The original Schedule 1
Reissuance
incorrectly identified allowable costs in excess of claimed costs for fiscal
year (FY) 2001-02. GC section 17568 stipulates that the State will not
reimburse any claim more than one year after the filing deadline specified
in the SCO’s claiming instructions; and that deadline has expired for FY
2001-02. Therefore, for FY 2001-02 the allowable costs in excess of
claimed costs, totaling $19,673, is not eligible for reimbursement. The
summary totals on the Corrected Schedule 1 have been updated to reflect
the correct calculations. This correction does not impact the audit findings,
which remain unchanged.
Restricted Use This audit report is solely for the information and use of the City of Los
Angeles, the California Department of Finance, and the SCO; it is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties. This restriction is not intended to limit distribution of this audit
report, which is a matter of public record and is available on the SCO
website at www.sco.ca.gov.
Original signed by
JIM L. SPANO, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
December 2, 2019
-4-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Corrected Schedule 1—
Summary of Program Costs
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2013
Actual Costs Allowable Audit
Cost Elements Claimed Per Audit Adjustment Reference1
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 1 61,431 $ 169,505 $ 8,074 Finding 1
Indirect costs 62,438 7 4,037 11,599 Finding 2
Subtotal 223,869 243,542 19,673
Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed3 - (19,673) (19,673)
Total program costs $ 2 23,869 223,869 $ -
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 223,869
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 80,662 $ 158,316 $ (122,346) Finding 1
Indirect costs 119,342 8 1,094 (38,248) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 4 00,004 239,410 $ (160,594)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 239,410
July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 78,937 $ 174,767 $ (104,170) Finding 1
Indirect costs 106,835 101,990 ( 4,845) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 3 85,772 276,757 $ (109,015)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 276,757
July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 84,966 $ 174,755 $ (110,211) Finding 1
Indirect costs 103,956 103,566 (390) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 3 88,922 278,321 $ (110,601)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 278,321
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 94,884 $ 165,759 $ (129,125) Finding 1
Indirect costs 104,386 8 2,813 (21,573) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 3 99,270 248,572 $ (150,698)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 248,572
-5-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Corrected Schedule 1 (continued)
Actual Costs Allowable Audit
Cost Elements Claimed Per Audit Adjustments Reference1
July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 99,028 $ 178,492 $ (120,536) Finding 1
Indirect costs 95,828 7 8,142 (17,686) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 3 94,856 256,634 $ (138,222)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 256,634
July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 3 27,879 $ 194,381 $ (133,498) Finding 1
Indirect costs 113,385 6 1,466 (51,919) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 4 41,264 255,847 $ (185,417)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 255,847
July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 3 22,219 $ 153,191 $ (169,028) Finding 1
Indirect costs 121,611 7 9,413 (42,198) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 4 43,830 232,604 $ (211,226)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 232,604
July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 3 20,882 $ 137,176 $ (183,706) Finding 1
Indirect costs 118,082 7 4,657 (43,425) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 4 38,964 211,833 $ (227,131)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 211,833
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 92,680 $ 159,964 $ (132,716) Finding 1
Indirect costs 110,112 7 3,150 (36,962) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 4 02,792 233,114 $ (169,678)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 233,114
-6-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Corrected Schedule 1 (continued)
Actual Costs Allowable Audit
Cost Elements Claimed Per Audit Adjustments Reference1
July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 31,592 $ 152,870 $ (78,722) Finding 1
Indirect costs 59,842 5 1,435 ( 8,407) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 2 91,434 204,305 $ (87,129)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 204,305
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 2 56,232 $ 176,906 $ (79,326) Finding 1
Indirect costs 38,827 3 5,629 ( 3,198) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 2 95,059 212,535 $ (82,524)
Less amount paid by the State 2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 212,535
Summary: July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2013
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 3,351,392 $ 1 ,996,082 $ (1,355,310) Finding 1
Indirect costs 1,154,644 897,392 (257,252) Finding 2
Subtotal 4,506,036 2,893,474 ( 1,612,562)
Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed 3 - (19,673) (19,673)
Total program costs $ 4,506,036 2,873,801 $ (1,632,235)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 2 ,873,801
_________________________
1 See the Findings and Recommendations section.
2 Payment amount current as of September 11, 2019.
3 GC section 17568 stipulates that the State will not reimburse any claim more than one year after the
filing deadline specified in the SCO’s claiming instructions. That deadline has expired for FY 2001-02.
-7-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Schedule 2—
Summary of Domestic Violence Cases
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2013
Employee Cases Allowable Audit
Activity Classification Claimed Cases Adjustment1
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 192 16,977 1 6,785
A1 Police Officer II 3,860 16,977 1 3,117
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 3,830 3,499 ( 331)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,276 3,499 2,223
Total 9,158 40,952 3 1,794
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 325 15,404 1 5,079
A1 Police Officer II 6,498 15,404 8,906
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 6,498 2,659 (3,839)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 2,166 2,659 493
Total 15,487 36,126 2 0,639
July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 310 15,977 1 5,667
A1 Police Officer II 6,194 15,977 9,783
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 6,194 3,106 (3,088)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 2,065 3,106 1,041
Total 14,763 38,166 2 3,403
July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 289 14,884 1 4,595
A1 Police Officer II 5,783 14,884 9,101
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 5,783 3,098 (2,685)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,927 3,098 1,171
Total 13,782 35,964 2 2,182
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 277 13,310 1 3,033
A1 Police Officer II 5,544 13,310 7,766
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 5,544 2,990 (2,554)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,848 2,990 1,142
Total 13,213 32,600 1 9,387
-8-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Schedule 2 (continued)
Employee Cases Allowable Audit
Activity Classification Claimed Cases Adjustment1
July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 266 13,256 1 2,990
A1 Police Officer II 5,326 13,256 7,930
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 5,326 3,478 (1,848)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,775 3,478 1,703
Total 12,693 33,468 2 0,775
July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 264 13,759 1 3,495
A1 Police Officer II 5,287 13,759 8,472
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 5,287 3,779 (1,508)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,762 3,779 2,017
Total 12,600 35,076 2 2,476
July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 266 10,596 1 0,330
A1 Police Officer II 5,323 10,596 5,273
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 5,323 2,580 (2,743)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,774 2,580 806
Total 12,686 26,352 1 3,666
July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 262 8,994 8,732
A1 Police Officer II 5,237 8,994 3,757
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 5,237 2,157 (3,080)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,745 2,157 412
Total 12,481 22,302 9,821
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 231 10,439 1 0,208
A1 Police Officer II 4,629 10,439 5,810
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 4,629 2,782 (1,847)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,543 2,782 1,239
Total 11,032 26,442 1 5,410
-9-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Schedule 2 (continued)
Employee Cases Allowable Audit
Activity Classification Claimed Cases Adjustment1
July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 233 9,703 9,470
A1 Police Officer II 4,666 9,703 5,037
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 4,666 2,072 (2,594)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,555 2,072 517
Total 11,120 23,550 1 2,430
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 244 10,894 1 0,650
A1 Police Officer II 4,885 10,894 6,009
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 4,885 2,884 (2,001)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 1,612 2,884 1,272
Total 11,626 27,556 1 5,930
Summary: July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2013
A1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 3,159 154,193 151,034
A1 Police Officer II 63,232 154,193 9 0,961
B1 Deputy City Attorney II/III 63,202 35,084 (28,118)
B2 Deputy City Attorney II/III 21,048 35,084 1 4,036
Total 150,641 378,554 227,913
_________________________
1 See Finding 1.
-10-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Findings and Recommendations
FINDING 1— The city claimed $3,351,392 in salaries and benefits for the Domestic
Violence Background Checks Program during the audit period. We found
Overstated salary
that $1,996,082 is allowable and $1,355,310 is unallowable.
and benefit costs
The city claimed costs for performing background checks on defendants
in domestic violence cases and presenting the information in court. The
city calculated claimed costs by multiplying the number of domestic
violence cases worked by the time increment necessary to perform the
mandated activity, then multiplying the resulting hours by a PHR.
During testing, we found that the costs claimed are unallowable because
the city did not claim costs in accordance with the program’s parameters
and guidelines or the SCO’s mandated cost manual. As a result, the city
misstated the number of domestic violence cases worked, PHRs, and
benefit rates.
Summary of the Audit Adjustment
Deputy City Attorney II/III and Police Officer II
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
salary and benefit costs for the audit period:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2001-02 $ 161,431 $ 169,505 $ 8,074
2002-03 2 80,662 1 58,316 (122,346)
2003-04 2 78,937 1 74,767 (104,170)
2004-05 2 84,966 1 74,755 (110,211)
2005-06 2 94,884 1 65,759 (129,125)
2006-07 2 99,028 1 78,492 (120,536)
2007-08 3 27,879 1 94,381 (133,498)
2008-09 3 22,219 1 53,191 (169,028)
2009-10 3 20,882 1 37,176 (183,706)
2010-11 2 92,680 1 59,964 (132,716)
2011-12 2 31,592 1 52,870 (78,722)
2012-13 2 56,232 1 76,906 (79,326)
Total $ 3 ,351,392 $ 1 ,996,082 $ ( 1,355,310)
-11-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Deputy City Attorney II/III
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
salary and benefit costs for the audit period:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2001-02 $ 95,939 $ 34,383 $ (61,556)
2002-03 164,968 30,228 (134,740)
2003-04 164,481 33,719 (130,762)
2004-05 170,240 35,538 (134,702)
2005-06 178,001 35,236 (142,765)
2006-07 180,396 38,835 (141,561)
2007-08 188,315 43,081 (145,234)
2008-09 193,814 32,581 (161,233)
2009-10 198,728 28,740 (169,988)
2010-11 175,668 34,489 (141,179)
2011-12 136,120 31,014 (105,106)
2012-13 153,015 40,054 (112,961)
Total $ 1 ,999,685 $ 4 17,898 $ (1,581,787)
Police Officer II
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
salary and benefit costs for the audit period:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2001-02 $ 65,492 $ 135,122 $ 69,630
2002-03 115,694 128,088 12,394
2003-04 114,456 141,048 26,592
2004-05 114,726 139,217 24,491
2005-06 116,883 130,523 13,640
2006-07 118,632 139,657 21,025
2007-08 139,564 151,300 11,736
2008-09 128,405 120,610 (7,795)
2009-10 122,154 108,436 ( 13,718)
2010-11 117,012 125,475 8 ,463
2011-12 95,472 121,856 26,384
2012-13 103,217 136,852 33,635
Total $ 1 ,351,707 $1 ,578,184 $ 2 26,477
Cases Worked
For the audit period, the city claimed 150,641 domestic violence cases
worked by staff for performing activities described in sections IV.A.1,
IV.B.1, and IV.B.2 of the parameters and guidelines. Based on our review
of the supporting reports, we found that the city misstated the number of
-12-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
domestic violence cases worked totaling 227,913 for the audit period. The
city understated the number of domestic violence cases worked for
activity A1 by 241,995 cases, overstated the number of domestic violence
cases worked for activity B1 by 28,118, and understated the number of
domestic violence cases worked for activity B2 by 14,036. The city’s
misstatement of cases worked was the result of claiming cases that were
not supported by the City Attorney’s Report Tracking System.
The following table summarizes the claimed, provided, allowable, and
adjusted number of domestic violence cases worked for the audit period:
Fiscal Claimed Provided Allowable Audit
Year Cases Cases Cases Adjustment
2001-02 9,158 40,952 40,952 31,794
2002-03 15,487 36,126 36,126 20,639
2003-04 14,763 38,166 38,166 23,403
2004-05 13,782 35,964 35,964 22,182
2005-06 13,213 32,600 32,600 19,387
2006-07 12,693 33,468 33,468 20,775
2007-08 12,600 35,076 35,076 22,476
2008-09 12,686 26,352 26,352 13,666
2009-10 12,481 22,302 22,302 9,821
2010-11 11,032 26,442 26,442 15,410
2011-12 11,120 23,550 23,550 12,430
2012-13 11,626 27,556 27,556 15,930
Total 150,641 378,554 378,554 227,913
Schedule 2 summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted number of
domestic violence cases worked by activity and employee classification.
Summary of the Audit Adjustment – Activity A1
Deputy City Attorney II/III
The following table summarizes the claimed, provided, allowable, and
adjusted number of domestic violence cases worked for the audit period:
Fiscal Claimed Provided Allowable Audit
Year Cases Cases Cases Adjustment
2001-02 192 16,977 16,977 16,785
2002-03 325 15,404 15,404 15,079
2003-04 310 15,977 15,977 15,667
2004-05 289 14,884 14,884 14,595
2005-06 277 13,310 13,310 13,033
2006-07 266 13,256 13,256 12,990
2007-08 264 13,759 13,759 13,495
2008-09 266 10,596 10,596 10,330
2009-10 262 8,994 8,994 8,732
2010-11 231 10,439 10,439 10,208
2011-12 233 9,703 9,703 9,470
2012-13 244 10,894 10,894 10,650
Total 3,159 154,193 154,193 151,034
-13-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Police Officer II
The following table summarizes the claimed, provided, allowable, and
adjusted number of domestic violence cases worked for the audit period:
Fiscal Claimed Provided Allowable Audit
Year Cases Cases Cases Adjustment
2001-02 3,860 16,977 16,977 13,117
2002-03 6,498 15,404 15,404 8,906
2003-04 6,194 15,977 15,977 9,783
2004-05 5,783 14,884 14,884 9,101
2005-06 5,544 13,310 13,310 7,766
2006-07 5,326 13,256 13,256 7,930
2007-08 5,287 13,759 13,759 8,472
2008-09 5,323 10,596 10,596 5,273
2009-10 5,237 8,994 8,994 3,757
2010-11 4,629 10,439 10,439 5,810
2011-12 4,666 9,703 9,703 5,037
2012-13 4,885 10,894 10,894 6,009
Total 63,232 154,193 154,193 90,961
Summary of the Audit Adjustment – Activity B1
Deputy City Attorney II/III
The following table summarizes the claimed, provided, allowable, and
adjusted number of domestic violence cases worked for the audit period:
Fiscal Claimed Provided Allowable Audit
Year Cases Cases Cases Adjustment
2001-02 3,830 3,499 3,499 (331)
2002-03 6,498 2,659 2,659 (3,839)
2003-04 6,194 3,106 3,106 (3,088)
2004-05 5,783 3,098 3,098 (2,685)
2005-06 5,544 2,990 2,990 (2,554)
2006-07 5,326 3,478 3,478 (1,848)
2007-08 5,287 3,779 3,779 (1,508)
2008-09 5,323 2,580 2,580 (2,743)
2009-10 5,237 2,157 2,157 (3,080)
2010-11 4,629 2,782 2,782 (1,847)
2011-12 4,666 2,072 2,072 (2,594)
2012-13 4,885 2,884 2,884 (2,001)
Total 63,202 35,084 35,084 (28,118)
-14-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Summary of the Audit Adjustment – Activity B2
Deputy City Attorney II/III
The following table summarizes the claimed, provided, allowable, and
adjusted number of domestic violence cases worked for the audit period:
Fiscal Claimed Provided Allowable Audit
Year Cases Cases Cases Adjustment
2001-02 1,276 3,499 3,499 2,223
2002-03 2,166 2,659 2,659 493
2003-04 2,065 3,106 3,106 1,041
2004-05 1,927 3,098 3,098 1,171
2005-06 1,848 2,990 2,990 1,142
2006-07 1,775 3,478 3,478 1,703
2007-08 1,762 3,779 3,779 2,017
2008-09 1,774 2,580 2,580 806
2009-10 1,745 2,157 2,157 412
2010-11 1,543 2,782 2,782 1,239
2011-12 1,555 2,072 2,072 517
2012-13 1,612 2,884 2,884 1,272
Total 21,048 35,084 35,084 14,036
Time Increments
Deputy City Attorney II/III
The city provided a time study to support the time increments claimed for
the Deputy City Attorney II/III classifications performing activities
described in sections IV.A.1, IV.B.1, and IV.B.2 of the parameters and
guidelines. The time study was a summary of average minutes per case for
staff performing A1, B1, and B2 activities from 15 different counties.
Based on our review, we found that the City of Los Angeles was not
included in the time study. Therefore, we determined that the time study
provided to support the claimed time increments for the Deputy City
Attorney II/III classifications performing activities A1, B1, and B2 was
not acceptable supporting documentation. In addition, the city provided a
time study completed by city staff performing activities A1, B1, and B2
for our review. We determined that the time study did not provide support
for the time increments claimed. As a result, we worked with city staff
members to develop time increments for each mandated activity. We
interviewed and observed staff performing the reimbursable mandated
activities. Based on our observations, we calculated an average time
increment per case for each activity as follows:
For staff performing A1 activities, we calculated an allowable average
of 1.53 minutes per case. During the audit period, the city claimed
15 minutes per case.
For staff performing B1 activities, we calculated an allowable average
of 1.33 minutes per case. During the audit period, the city claimed
15 minutes per case.
For staff performing B2 activities, we calculated an allowable average
of 1.33 minutes per case. During the audit period, the city claimed
between 10 and 30 minutes per case.
-15-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
We recalculated allowable costs using the calculated time increments per
case.
Police Officer II
The city provided time study data sheets completed by Police Department
staff to support time increments between 16 and 20 minutes per case
claimed for the Police Officer II classification performing the activity
described in section IV.A.1 of the parameters and guidelines. During
testing, we interviewed a Police Department staff member to determine
whether the time increments of 16 to 20 minutes were supported. Based
on our interview, we determined that it takes a Police Officer II
classification an average time increment of 9.5 minutes per case to perform
the activity described in section IV.A.1 of the parameters and guidelines.
We recalculated allowable costs using the calculated time increment per
case.
Productive Hourly Rates
Police Officer II
The PHRs for the Police Office II classification were previously audited
for FY 2001-02 through FY 2011-12 in the final audit report of the City of
Los Angeles for the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics Reports for
the Department of Justice Program for the period of July 1, 2001, through
June 30, 2012, issued March 30, 2016. We traced the claimed PHRs to the
previously audited PHRs and found that the city understated the PHRs for
FY 2003-04, FY 2009-10, and FY 2011-12; and overstated the PHRs for
the remaining fiscal years excluding FY 2012-13. FY 2012-13 PHR was
not previously audited. However, the city claimed the same PHR as the
allowable audited rate in FY 2011-12. Based on our testing, we found it is
reasonable to allow the previously audited PHRs for FY 2001-02 through
FY 2011-12 and the claimed PHR for FY 2012-13 for the Police Officer II
classification.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
PHRs for the audit period:
Fiscal PHR Allowable Rate
Year Claimed PHR Difference
2001-02 39.47 38.68 ( 0.79)
2002-03 41.69 40.99 ( 0.70)
2003-04 42.23 42.47 0 .24
2004-05 43.63 43.30 ( 0.33)
2005-06 45.69 44.75 ( 0.94)
2006-07 46.54 46.34 ( 0.20)
2007-08 53.65 47.04 ( 6.61)
2008-09 48.69 48.36 ( 0.33)
2009-10 46.70 50.82 4 .12
2010-11 50.61 50.43 ( 0.18)
2011-12 51.04 51.18 0 .14
2012-13 51.18 51.18 -
-16-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Benefit Rates
Police Officer II
The benefit rates for the Police Office II classification were previously
audited for FY 2001-02 through FY 2011-12 in the final audit report of the
City of Los Angeles for the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics
Reports for the Department of Justice Program for the period of July 1,
2001, through June 30, 2012, issued March 30, 2016. We traced the
claimed benefit rates to the previously audited rates for the audit period
excluding FY 2012-13 and found that the city understated the benefit rate
for FY 2001-02, FY 2010-11, and FY 2011-12. The FY 2012-13 benefit
rate was not previously audited. However, the city claimed the same
benefit rate as the allowable audited rate for FY 2011-12. Based on our
testing, we found that it is reasonable to allow the previously audited
benefit rates for FY 2001-02 through FY 2011-12, and the claimed benefit
rate for FY 2012-13 for the Police Officer II classification.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
benefit rates for the audit period:
Benefit
Fiscal Rates Allowable Rate
Year Claimed Benefit Rates Difference
2001-02 28.96% 29.96% 1.00%
2002-03 28.12% 28.12% -
2003-04 31.27% 31.27% -
2004-05 36.41% 36.41% -
2005-06 38.43% 38.43% -
2006-07 43.58% 43.58% -
2007-08 47.61% 47.61% -
2008-09 48.63% 48.63% -
2009-10 49.84% 49.84% -
2010-11 49.84% 50.52% 0.68%
2011-12 50.52% 55.01% 4.49%
2012-13 55.01% 55.01% -
Criteria
The parameters and guidelines (section I – Summary of the Mandate)
states:
The test claim statute requires district attorneys and prosecuting city
attorneys to perform data base searches of persons who are charged with
domestic violence, or when considering domestic violence restraining
orders, and present the information for consideration by the courts under
certain circumstances.
The parameters and guidelines (section IV – Reimbursable Activities)
require claimed costs to be supported by source documents. The
parameters and guidelines state, in part, that:
Actual costs are those costs actually incurred to implement the mandated
activities. Actual costs must be traceable to and supported by source
documents that show the validity of such costs, when they were incurred,
-17-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
and their relationship to the reimbursable activities. A source document
is a document created at or near the same time the actual cost was
incurred for the event or activity in question. Source documents may
include, but are not limited to, employee time records or time logs, sign-
in sheets, invoices, and receipts.
The parameters and guidelines (section IV – Reimbursable Activities)
state that the following ongoing activities are eligible for reimbursement
if they result from any charge involving acts of domestic violence:
A. Perform or cause to be performed, in specified electronic data bases,
a thorough investigation of the defendant’s history, including, but
not limited to, prior convictions for domestic violence, other forms
of violence or weapons offenses and any current protective or
restraining order issued by any civil or criminal court (Pen. Code,
§ 273.75(a)).
1. Review by district attorney or prosecuting city attorney, or at
the direction of such attorneys by investigative staff, support
staff, legal assistant or others of any or all of the databases as
listed in Penal Code section 273.75 as based on defendant
information provided in or with the law enforcement report.
B. Present the information for consideration by the court (1) when
setting bond or when releasing a defendant on his or her own
recognizance at the arraignment, if the defendant is in custody, and
(2) upon consideration of any plea agreement (Pen. Code,
§ 273.75(a)).
1. Review of databases or printouts from databases by district
attorney or prosecuting city attorney in preparation for
presenting such database evidence in court.
2. Presentation of evidence in court by district attorney or
prosecuting city attorney.
The parameters and guidelines (section V – Claim Preparation and
Submission – Direct Cost Reporting – Salaries and Benefits) state that, for
salaries and benefits, claimants are required to:
Report each employee implementing the reimbursable activities by
name, job classification, and productive hourly rate (total wages and
related benefits divided by productive hours). Describe the specific
reimbursable activities performed and the hours devoted to each
reimbursable activity performed.
The SCO’s mandated cost manual for local agencies (section B – Filing a
Claim – Direct Costs – Employee Wages, Salaries, and Fringe Benefits)
states that claimants may compute the PHRs using one of the following
methods:
1. Actual Annual Productive Hourly Rate (per employee); or
2. Weighted-Average Annual Productive Hourly Rate (per
classification).
3. The claimant must maintain documentation of how the hours were
computed for either option.
-18-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
Recommendation
The Domestic Violence Background Checks Program was suspended in
the FY 2013-14 through FY 2018-19 Budget Acts. If the program becomes
active again, we recommend that the city:
Follow the mandated program claiming instructions and the
parameters and guidelines when preparing its reimbursement claims;
and
Ensure that claimed costs include only eligible costs, are based on
actual costs, and are properly supported.
FINDING 2— The city claimed $1,154,644 in indirect costs for the audit period. During
testing, we found that $897,392 is allowable and $257,252 is unallowable.
Overstated indirect
During testing, we found that the costs claimed are unallowable because
costs
the city did not claim the costs in accordance with the program’s
parameters and guidelines or the SCO’s mandated cost manual. As a result,
the indirect costs claimed are unallowable because the city applied the City
Attorney’s Office indirect cost rates to unallowable salaries of the Deputy
City Attorney II/III classifications, misstated the indirect cost rates for the
Police Department, and understated the related indirect costs for the Police
Officer II classification for the audit period.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
indirect costs for the audit period:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2001-02 $ 62,438 $ 74,037 $ 11,599
2002-03 119,342 81,094 ( 38,248)
2003-04 106,835 101,990 (4,845)
2004-05 103,956 103,566 (390)
2005-06 104,386 82,813 ( 21,573)
2006-07 95,828 78,142 ( 17,686)
2007-08 113,385 61,466 ( 51,919)
2008-09 121,611 79,413 ( 42,198)
2009-10 118,082 74,657 ( 43,425)
2010-11 110,112 73,150 ( 36,962)
2011-12 59,842 51,435 (8,407)
2012-13 38,827 35,629 (3,198)
Total $ 1,154,644 $ 8 97,392 $ (257,252)
Police Department Rates
For the audit period, the city calculated the indirect costs claimed by
multiplying the Police Department’s indirect cost rates by the salary costs
claimed for the Police Officer II classification. Based on our review, we
found that the city had been previously audited. Therefore, we applied the
previously audited rates from the final audit report of the City of Los
Angeles for the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics Reports for the
Department of Justice program for the period of July 1, 2001, through
-19-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
June 30, 2012, issued March 30, 2016, to the allowable salary costs. We
found that the city misstated the indirect cost rates and understated the
indirect costs totaling $65,662 related to overstated salaries and benefits
in Finding 1.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
indirect cost rates for the audit period:
Indirect
Fiscal Cost Rate Allowable Rate
Year Claimed Indirect Cost Difference
2001-02 60.23% 60.23% -
2002-03 70.99% 70.99% -
2003-04 89.41% 89.41% -
2004-05 96.88% 96.88% -
2005-06 80.08% 80.11% 0.03%
2006-07 72.36% 72.36% -
2007-08 83.16% 52.21% (30.95)%
2008-09 88.51% 88.51% -
2009-10 95.05% 95.05% -
2010-11 95.05% 79.30% (15.75)%
2011-12 53.67% 57.95% 4.28%
2012-13 35.94% 35.94% -
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
indirect costs for the audit period:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2001-02 $ 3 0,588 $ 6 2,622 $ 3 2,034
2002-03 6 4,104 7 0,972 6 ,868
2003-04 7 7,957 9 6,070 1 8,113
2004-05 8 1,480 9 8,874 1 7,394
2005-06 6 7,616 7 5,534 7 ,918
2006-07 5 9,786 7 0,383 1 0,597
2007-08 7 8,627 5 3,515 ( 25,112)
2008-09 7 6,466 7 1,824 ( 4,642)
2009-10 7 7,486 6 8,786 ( 8,700)
2010-11 7 4,226 6 6,105 ( 8,121)
2011-12 3 4,042 4 5,556 1 1,514
2012-13 2 3,931 3 1,730 7 ,799
Total $ 7 46,309 $ 8 11,971 $ 6 5,662
Deputy City Attorney II/III
For the audit period, we recalculated allowable indirect costs by applying
the audited indirect costs to the allowable salaries. We found that the city
overstated indirect costs totaling $322,914 related to overstated salaries
and benefits in Finding 1.
-20-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted
indirect costs for the audit period:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2001-02 $ 31,850 $ 11,415 $ ( 20,435)
2002-03 5 5,238 1 0,122 (45,116)
2003-04 2 8,878 5,920 (22,958)
2004-05 2 2,476 4,692 (17,784)
2005-06 3 6,770 7,279 (29,491)
2006-07 3 6,042 7,759 (28,283)
2007-08 3 4,758 7,951 (26,807)
2008-09 4 5,145 7,589 (37,556)
2009-10 4 0,596 5,871 (34,725)
2010-11 3 5,886 7,045 (28,841)
2011-12 2 5,800 5,879 (19,921)
2012-13 1 4,896 3,899 (10,997)
Total $ 4 08,335 $ 8 5,421 $ ( 322,914)
Criteria
The parameters and guidelines (section V.B. – Claim Preparation and
Submission – Indirect Cost Rates) state:
Indirect costs are cost that are incurred for a common or joint purpose…
Compensation for indirect costs is eligible for reimbursement utilizing
the procedure provided in 2 CFR Part 225 (Office of Management and
Budget [OMB] Circular A-87). Claimants have the option of using 10%
of direct labor, excluding fringe benefits, or preparing an Indirect Cost
Rate Proposal (ICRP) if the indirect cost rate exceeds 10%.
If the claimant chooses to prepare an ICRP, both the direct costs (as
defined and described in…[OMB Circular A-87, Attachments A and B])
and the indirect costs shall exclude capital expenditures and unallowable
costs (as defined and described in…[OMB Circular A-87, Attachments
A and B]). However, unallowable costs must be included in the direct
costs if they represent activities to which indirect costs are properly
allocable.
The distribution base may be: (1) total direct costs (excluding capital
expenditures and other distorting items, such as pass-through funds,
major subcontracts, etc.); (2) direct salaries and wages; or (3) another
base which results in an equitable distribution.
In calculating an ICRP, the claimant shall have the choice of one of the
following methodologies:
1. the allocation of allowable indirect costs (as defined and described
in…[OMB Circular A-87, Attachments A and B]) shall be
accomplished by: (1) classifying a department’s total costs for the
base period as either direct or indirect; and (2) dividing the total
allowable indirect costs (net of applicable credits) by an equitable
distribution base. The result of this process is an indirect cost rate
which is used to distribute indirect costs to mandates. The rate
should be expressed as a percentage which the total amount of
allowable indirect costs bears to the base selected; or
-21-
City of Los Angeles Domestic Violence Background Checks Program
2. the allocation of allowable indirect costs (as defined and described
in…[OMB Circular A-87, Attachments A and B] shall be
accomplished by: (1) separating a department into groups, such as
divisions or sections, and then classifying the division’s or section’s
total costs for the base period as either direct or indirect; and
(2) dividing the total allowable indirect costs (net of applicable
credits) by an equitable distribution base. The result of this process
is an indirect cost rate that is used to distribute indirect costs to
mandates. The rate should be expressed as a percentage which the
total amount of allowable indirect costs bears to the base selected.
Recommendation
The Domestic Violence Background Checks Program was suspended in
the FY 2013-14 through FY 2018-19 Budget Acts. If the program becomes
active again, we recommend that the city:
Follow the mandated program claiming instructions and the
parameters and guidelines when preparing its reimbursement claims;
and
Ensure that the indirect cost rates are prepared in accordance with the
program’s parameters and guidelines and applied to eligible costs that
are properly supported.
-22-
State Controller’s Office
Division of Audits
Post Office Box 942850
Sacramento, CA 94250
http://www.sco.ca.gov
S18-MCC-0018R