Sonoma County

SONOMA COUNTY Audit Report CRIME STATISTICS REPORTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROGRAM Chapter 1172, Statutes of 1989; Chapter 1338, Statutes of 1992; Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1993; Chapter 933, Statutes of 1998; Chapter 571, Statutes of 1999; Chapter 626, Statutes of 2000; Chapter 700, Statutes of 2004 July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2012 BETTY T. YEE California State Controller July 2020 BETTY T. YEE California State Controller July 29, 2020 CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Erick Roeser, Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector County of Sonoma 585 Fiscal Drive, Suite 100 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Dear Mr. Roeser: The State Controller’s Office audited the costs claimed by Sonoma County for the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program for the period of July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2012. The county claimed $1,112,360 for costs of the mandated program. Our audit found that $423,448 is allowable ($459,951 less a $36,503 penalty for filing late claims); and $688,912 is unallowable because the county overstated salary and benefit costs and related indirect costs. The State made no payments to the county. The State will pay $423,448, contingent upon available appropriations. Following issuance of this audit report, the Local Government Programs and Services Division of the State Controller’s Office will notify the county of the adjustment to its claims via a system-generated letter for fiscal year 2004-05 through fiscal year 2011-12. 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/as Erick Roeser, -2- July 29, 2020 Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector cc: The Honorable Susan Gorin, Chairperson Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Melissa Estrella-Lee, Accountant III Sonoma County 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 Reimbursement Section State Controller’s Office Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Contents Audit Report Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 4 Follow-up on Prior Audit Findings .................................................................................. 4 Views of Responsible Officials .......................................................................................... 4 Restricted Use .................................................................................................................... 4 Schedule—Summary of Program Costs .............................................................................. 5 Finding and Recommendation .............................................................................................. 9 Attachment—County’s Response to Draft Audit Report Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Audit Report Summary The State Controller’s Office (SCO) audited the costs claimed by Sonoma County for the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program for the period of July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2012. The county claimed $1,112,360 for costs of the mandated program. Our audit found that $423,448 is allowable ($459,951 less a $36,503 penalty for filing late claims); and $688,912 is unallowable because the county overstated salary and benefit costs and related indirect costs. The State made no payments to the county. The State will pay $423,448, contingent upon available appropriations. Background Penal Code (PC) sections 12025 (h)(1) and (h)(3), 12031 (m)(1) and (m)(3), 13014, 13023, and 13730 (a) require local agencies to report information related to certain specified criminal acts to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). These sections were added and/or amended by Chapter 1172, Statutes of 1989; Chapter 1338, Statutes of 1992; Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1993; Chapter 933, Statutes of 1998; Chapter 571, Statutes of 1999; Chapter 626, Statutes of 2000; and Chapter 700, Statutes of 2004. On June 26, 2008, the Commission on State Mandates (Commission) adopted a statement of decision for the Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program. The Commission found that the test claim legislation constitutes a new program or higher level of service and imposes a reimbursable state-mandated program on city and county claimants beginning on July 1, 2001, within the meaning of Article XII B, section 6 of the California Constitution and Government Code (GC) section 17514. On July 31, 2009, the Commission heard an amended test claim on PC section 13023 (added by Chapter 700, Statutes of 2004), which imposed additional crime reporting requirements. The Commission also found that this test claim legislation constitutes a new program or higher level of service and imposes a reimbursable state-mandated program for city and county claimants beginning on January 1, 2004. On April 10, 2010, the Commission issued a corrected statement of decision to correctly identify the operative and effective date of the reimbursable state-mandated program as January 1, 2005. The Commission found that the following activities are reimbursable:  A local government entity responsible for the investigation and prosecution of a homicide case to provide the DOJ with demographic information about the victim and the person or persons charged with the crime, including the victim’s and person’s age, gender, race, and ethnic background (PC section 13014);  Local law enforcement agencies to report, in a manner to be prescribed by the Attorney General, any information that may be required relative to any criminal acts or attempted criminal acts to -1- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program cause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage where there is a reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability, or gender or national origin (PC section 13023);  For district attorneys to report annually on or before June 30, to the Attorney General, on profiles by race, age, gender, and ethnicity any person charged with a felony or misdemeanor under PC section 12025 (carrying a concealed firearm) or section 12031 (carrying a loaded firearm in a public place), and any other offense charged in the same complaint, indictment, or information. The Commission found that this activity is a reimbursable mandate from July 1, 2001, through January 1, 2005. (PC sections 12025 (h)(1) and (h)(3), and 12031 (m)(1) and (m)(3));  For local law enforcement agencies to support all domestic-violence related calls for assistance with a written incident report (PC section 13730 (a), Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1993);  For local law enforcement agency to report the following in a manner to be prescribed by the Attorney General: o Any information that may be required relative to hate crimes, as defined in PC section 422.55 as criminal acts committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) disability, (2) gender, (3) nationality, (4) race or ethnicity, (5) religion, (6) sexual orientation; and o Any information that may be required relative to hate crimes, defined in PC section 422.55 as criminal acts committed, in whole or in part, because of association with a person or group with one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics: (1) disability, (2) gender, (3) nationality, (4) race or ethnicity, (5) religion, (6) sexual orientation. The program’s parameters and guidelines establish the state mandate and define reimbursement criteria. The Commission adopted the parameters and guidelines on September 30, 2010, and amended them on January 24, 2014, to clarify reimbursable costs related to domestic-violence related calls for assistance. In compliance with GC section 17558, the SCO issues claiming instructions to assist local agencies and school districts in claiming mandated program reimbursable costs. Objective, Scope, The objective of our audit was to determine whether costs claimed represent increased costs resulting from the legislatively mandated Crime and Methodology Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice 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.1 The audit period was July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2012. 1Unreasonable and/or excessive costs include ineligible costs that are not identified in the program’s parameters and guidelines as reimbursable costs. -2- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program To achieve our objective, we:  Reviewed the annual mandated cost claims filed by the county for the audit period and identified the significant 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 activities claimed 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 county staff. Discussed the claim preparation process with county staff to determine what information was obtained, who obtained it, and how it was used;  Interviewed county staff to determine what employee classifications were involved in performing the reimbursable activities (see Finding);  Traced productive hourly rate (PHR) calculations for all employee classifications performing the mandated activities to master payroll and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) documentation provided by the county;  Traced benefit rate calculations for all employee classifications performing the mandated activities to supporting documentation provided by the county;  Assessed whether the average time increments (ATIs) claimed for each fiscal year in the audit period to perform the reimbursable activities were reasonable per the requirements of the program and supported by source documentation;  Reviewed and analyzed the claimed domestic violence incident report counts for consistency and possible exclusions, and verified that counts were supported by the reports that the county submitted to the DOJ;  Traced a judgmentally selected non-statistical sample of 330 of 4,392 domestic violence calls for assistance written incident reports (125 reports for fiscal year [FY] 2009-10, 125 reports for FY 2010-11, and 80 reports for FY 2011-12) to confirm that the reports were related to domestic violence calls for assistance;  Determined whether the indirect cost rates were properly supported and applied. Recomputed the indirect cost rates for FY 2005-06 through FY 2010-11; and  Verified that costs claimed were not funded by another source, based on discussions with the county’s representative. 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 county’s internal controls to gaining an -3- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program 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 county’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 county did not claim costs funded by another source; however, the costs claimed are ineligible and unsupported, as quantified in the Schedule and described in the Finding and Recommendation section of this audit report. For the audit period, Sonoma County claimed $1,112,360 for costs of the legislatively mandated Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program. Our audit found that $423,448 is allowable ($459,951 less a $36,503 penalty for filing late claims) and $688,912 is unallowable. The State made no payments to the county. The State will pay $423,448, contingent upon available appropriations. Following issuance of this audit report, the SCO’s Local Government Programs and Services Division will notify the county of the adjustment to its claims via a system-generated letter for FY 2004-05 through FY 2011-12. Follow-up on We have not previously conducted an audit of the county’s legislatively mandated Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program. Prior Audit Findings Views of We issued a draft audit report on June 30, 2020. Erick Roeser, Auditor- Responsible Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector, responded by letter dated July 10, 2020 (Attachment) stating that the county “does not agree or disagree with Officials the findings.” This audit report includes the county’s complete response. Restricted Use This audit report is solely for the information and use of Sonoma County, the California Department of Finance, and 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 July 29, 2020 -4- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Schedule— Summary of Program Costs July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2012 Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment1 July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 50 $ 50 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 27,228 35,307 8 ,079 Total direct costs 27,278 35,357 8 ,079 Indirect costs 10,580 13,712 3 ,132 Total direct and indirect costs 37,858 49,069 11,211 Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed2 - ( 11,211) ( 11,211) Subtotal 37,858 37,858 - Less late filing penalty3 - (3,552) (3,552) Total program costs $ 37,858 34,306 $ ( 3,552) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 34,306 July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 56 $ 56 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 64,252 39,220 ( 25,032) Hate crime Reports 14 14 - Total direct costs 64,322 39,290 ( 25,032) Indirect costs 22,377 13,669 (8,708) Subtotal 86,699 52,959 ( 33,740) Less late filing penalty3 - (4,762) (4,762) Total program costs $ 86,699 48,197 $ (38,502) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 48,197 -5- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Schedule (continued) Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment1 July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 59 $ 59 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 70,014 41,948 ( 28,066) Hate crime Reports 30 30 - Total direct costs 70,103 42,037 ( 28,066) Indirect costs 23,366 14,011 (9,355) Subtotal 93,469 56,048 ( 37,421) Less late filing penalty3 - (5,035) (5,035) Total program costs $ 93,469 51,013 $ (42,456) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 51,013 July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 61 $ 61 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 65,307 38,270 ( 27,037) Hate crime Reports 30 30 - Total direct costs 65,398 38,361 ( 27,037) Indirect costs 22,252 13,053 (9,199) Subtotal 87,650 51,414 ( 36,236) Less late filing penalty3 - (4,629) (4,629) Total program costs $ 87,650 46,785 $ (40,865) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 46,785 July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 63 $ 63 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 74,596 37,698 ( 36,898) Hate crime Reports 32 32 - Total direct costs 74,691 37,793 ( 36,898) Indirect costs 23,852 12,070 ( 11,782) Subtotal 98,543 49,863 ( 48,680) Less late filing penalty3 - (4,380) (4,380) Total program costs $ 98,543 45,483 $ (53,060) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 45,483 -6- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Schedule (continued) Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment1 July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 39 $ 39 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 65,993 39,159 ( 26,834) Hate crime Reports 19 19 - Total direct costs 66,051 39,217 ( 26,834) Indirect costs 22,181 13,170 (9,011) Subtotal 88,232 52,387 ( 35,845) Less late filing penalty3 - (4,811) (4,811) Total program costs $ 88,232 47,576 $ (40,656) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 47,576 July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 58 $ 58 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 217,647 42,579 (175,068) Hate crime Reports 30 30 - Total direct costs 217,735 42,667 (175,068) Indirect costs 72,876 14,281 ( 58,595) Subtotal 290,611 56,948 (233,663) Less late filing penalty3 - (4,263) (4,263) Total program costs $ 290,611 52,685 $ (237,926) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 52,685 July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 64 $ 64 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 164,108 38,519 (125,589) Hate crime Reports 32 32 - Total direct costs 164,204 38,615 (125,589) Indirect costs 51,412 12,090 ( 39,322) Subtotal 215,616 50,705 (164,911) Less late filing penalty5 - (5,071) (5,071) Total program costs $ 215,616 45,634 $ (169,982) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 45,634 -7- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Schedule (continued) Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment1 July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 87 $ 87 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 89,509 40,709 ( 48,800) Hate crime Reports 9 9 - Total direct costs 89,605 40,805 ( 48,800) Indirect costs 24,077 10,964 ( 13,113) Total program costs $ 113,682 51,769 $ (61,913) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 51,769 Summary: July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2012 Direct costs: Homicide reports $ 537 $ 537 $ - Domestic violence related calls for assistance 838,654 353,409 (485,245) Hate crime Reports 196 196 - Total direct costs 839,387 354,142 (485,245) Indirect costs 272,973 117,020 (155,953) Total direct and indirect costs 1 ,112,360 471,162 (641,198) Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed2 - ( 11,211) ( 11,211) Subtotal 1 ,112,360 459,951 (652,409) Less late filing penalty3,5 - ( 36,503) ( 36,503) Total program costs $ 1,112,360 423,448 $ (688,912) Less amount paid by the State4 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 423,448 _________________________ 1 See the Finding and Recommendation section. 2 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 2003-04. 3 The county’s claims for FY 2003-04 through FY 2009-10 are initial reimbursement claims that were amended and filed on April 6, 2012. As the initial reimbursement claims were amended and filed after the filing deadline specified in the SCO’s claiming instructions, they are subject to a late filing penalty as specified in GC section 17561, subdivision (d)(3), equal to 10% of allowable costs that exceed the timely filed claim, with no maximum penalty amount (for claims filed on or after September 30, 2002). 4 Payment amount current as of July 13, 2020. 5 The county’s claim for FY 2010-11 is an annual reimbursement claim that was filed late on April 6, 2012. As the annual reimbursement claim was filed after the filing deadline specified in the SCO’s claiming instructions, it is subject to a late filing penalty as specified in GC section 17568, equal to 10% of the allowable costs, not to exceed $10,000. -8- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Finding and Recommendation FINDING— The county claimed $838,654 in salaries and benefits for the Domestic Violence Related Calls for Assistance cost component. We found that Overstated salary and $353,409 is allowable and $485,245 is unallowable. Unallowable related benefit costs indirect costs total $155,953, for a total finding of $641,198. Reimbursable activities for this cost component consist of writing, reviewing, and editing incident reports. The parameters and guidelines require that a written incident report support each domestic violence related call for assistance. To calculate the claimed salaries and benefits, the county multiplied the number of written incident reports by the ATIs necessary to process a report, then multiplied the resulting hours by a PHR and related benefit rate. During testing, we found that the county misstated the number of domestic violence related calls for assistance in FY 2003-04, FY 2004-05, FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08, and FY 2009-10 through FY 2011-12; misstated the ATIs used to perform the mandated activities of writing, reviewing, and editing incident reports; claimed ineligible costs for a classification that did not perform the mandated activity of reviewing incident reports for the audit period; and overstated the related indirect costs. The county overstated these costs because it did not claim costs in accordance with the program’s parameters and guidelines or the State Controller’s Office Mandated Cost Manual for Local Agencies. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and overstated costs for the Domestic Violence Related Calls for Assistance cost component by fiscal year: Salaries and Benefits Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Unallowable Total Audit Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment Indirect Costs Adjustment 2003-04 $ 27,228 $ 35,307 $ 8,079 $ 3,132 $ 11,211 2004-05 64,252 39,220 (25,032) (8,708) (33,740) 2005-06 70,014 41,948 (28,066) (9,355) (37,421) 2006-07 65,307 38,270 (27,037) (9,199) (36,236) 2007-08 74,596 37,698 (36,898) (11,782) (48,680) 2008-09 65,993 39,159 (26,834) (9,011) (35,845) 2009-10 217,647 42,579 (175,068) (58,595) (233,663) 2010-11 164,108 38,519 (125,589) (39,322) (164,911) 2011-12 89,509 40,709 (48,800) (13,113) (61,913) Total $ 8 38,654 $ 3 53,409 $ (485,245) $ (155,953) $ (641,198) Incident Reports The county provided the monthly reports to the DOJ and summary reports generated from the county’s records management system (RMS). During our review of the monthly reports to the DOJ and the summary reports generated from the county’s RMS, we found that the county misstated the -9- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program number of domestic violence related calls for assistance in FY 2003-04, FY 2004-05, FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08, and FY 2009-10 through FY 2011-12. The county overstated domestic violence related calls for assistance because it claimed unsupported calls that did not result in a written incident report, and included costs for providing services to contracted departments. The parameters and guidelines state that any county, city, or city and county is eligible to submit a mandate reimbursement claim. Therefore, as all cities and counties are eligible to submit reimbursement claims, and as the county received fees for law enforcement services from its contracts, we determined that the county should only claim costs associated with the county. We determined that the costs incurred by the contract departments are unallowable because the county had already been compensated by contract fees. We recalculated the allowable costs using the supported incident report counts. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted number of domestic violence related calls for assistance written incident reports: Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Year1 Claimed Allowable Adjustment 2003-04 253 547 294 2004-05 558 568 10 2006-07 486 480 (6) 2007-08 563 474 (89) 2009-10 1,440 474 (966) 2010-11 1,112 438 (674) 2011-12 483 389 (94) Total 4 ,895 3 ,370 ( 1,525) 1The table identifies the fiscal years that resulted in audit adjustments. Average Time Increments For the audit period, the county estimated that it took 103 minutes (1.72 hours) to write and 12.5 minutes (0.21 hours) to review and edit incident reports. From FY 2003-04 through FY 2010-11, the county claimed that the Deputy Sheriff II classification performed these activities. In FY 2011-12, the county claimed that the Sheriff Officer classification performed these activities. The county provided time study documentation to support the ATIs claimed for the Sheriff’s Office staff members performing the mandated activities; however, this time study documentation was based on estimates. During testing, we conducted interviews with Sheriff’s Office staff members who participated in the county’s time study and who were also responsible for performing the mandated activities. Based on our interviews, we found that the Deputy Sheriff II writes and edits incident reports, but does not review the incident reports. All incident reports are reviewed by the Sergeant classification. Therefore, the ATI of -10- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program 12.5 minutes (0.21 hours) claimed for the Deputy Sheriff II and Sheriff Officer classifications to review and edit incident reports is ineligible for reimbursement. As a result of our discussions with Sheriff’s Office staff members responsible for performing the mandated activities, we determined that it took a Deputy Sheriff II an average of 52.5 minutes (0.88 hours) to write and two minutes (0.03 hours) to edit incident reports, and Sergeants an average of 11.5 minutes (0.19 hours) to review incident reports. We applied these ATIs and classifications for the audit period. The county claimed overstated salary and benefit costs as a result of overstating ATIs and claiming an ineligible classification. We recalculated the allowable costs based on the allowable ATIs and classification. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted hours by fiscal year: Hours Claimed Hours Allowable Deputy Sheriff II & Sheriff Officer Deputy Sheriff II Sergeant Edit & Fiscal Write Review Write Edit Review Audit Year Reports Reports Total Reports Reports Reports Total Adjustment 2003-04 4 34.32 52.71 4 87.03 481.36 16.41 1 03.93 601.70 114.67 2004-05 9 57.90 116.25 1 ,074.15 499.84 17.04 1 07.92 624.80 ( 449.35) 2005-06 9 69.92 117.71 1 ,087.63 497.20 16.95 1 07.35 621.50 ( 466.13) 2006-07 8 34.30 101.25 9 35.55 422.40 14.40 9 1.20 528.00 ( 407.55) 2007-08 9 66.48 117.29 1 ,083.77 417.12 14.22 9 0.06 521.40 ( 562.37) 2008-09 7 84.52 95.21 8 79.73 402.16 13.71 8 6.83 502.70 ( 377.03) 2009-10 2 ,472.00 300.00 2 ,772.00 417.12 14.22 9 0.06 521.40 ( 2,250.60) 2010-11 1 ,908.93 231.67 2 ,140.60 385.44 13.14 8 3.22 481.80 ( 1,658.80) 2011-12 8 38.81 90.97 9 29.78 342.32 11.67 7 3.91 427.90 ( 501.88) Total 1 0,167.18 1,223.06 1 1,390.24 3,864.96 131.76 8 34.48 4,831.20 ( 6,559.04) Productive hourly rates For the audit period, the county calculated the average PHRs for the Sheriff’s Office staff members responsible for performing the mandated activities using the average annual salary for each classification. During testing, we interviewed Sheriff’s Office staff members responsible for performing the mandated activities. Based on our interviews, we found that Sergeants review the incident reports, not the Deputy Sheriff II or Sheriff Officer. Therefore, the claimed PHRs for the Deputy Sheriff II for FY 2003-04 through FY 2010-11, and for the Sheriff Officer for FY 2011-12 to review the incident reports are ineligible for reimbursement. We calculated the average PHRs for the Sergeant classification to determine the allowable salary and benefit costs that were eligible for reimbursement for this classification. We used the county’s MOUs to calculate the PHRs for the Sergeant classification for the audit period. The county overstated the claimed salary and benefit costs as a result of -11- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program misstating the PHRs and claiming an ineligible classification. We recalculated the allowable costs based on allowable PHRs. Deputy Sheriff II/Sheriff Officer The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted PHR for the audit period: Fiscal Claimed Allowable Rate Year PHR PHR Difference 2003-04 36.22 - (36.22) 2004-05 37.31 - (37.31) 2005-06 38.62 - (38.62) 2006-07 41.39 - (41.39) 2007-08 41.39 - (41.39) 2008-09 45.14 - (45.14) 2009-10 47.78 - (47.78) 2010-11 47.78 - (47.78) 2011-12 63.95 - (63.95) Sergeant The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and adjusted PHR for the audit period: Fiscal Claimed Allowable Rate Year PHR PHR Difference 2003-04 - 46.61 46.61 2004-05 - 48.00 48.00 2005-06 - 49.47 49.47 2006-07 - 50.58 50.58 2007-08 - 53.48 53.48 2008-09 - 55.18 55.18 2009-10 - 58.85 58.85 2010-11 - 59.60 59.60 2011-12 - 59.60 59.60 Criteria Section IV of the parameters and guidelines states, in part: To be eligible for mandated cost reimbursement for any given fiscal year, only actual costs may be claimed. Actual costs are those costs actually incurred to implement the mandated activities. Actual costs must be traceable and supported by source documents that show the validity of such costs, when they were incurred, and their relationship to the reimbursable activities….The claimant is only allowed to claim and be reimbursed for increased costs for reimbursable activities...Increased cost is limited to the cost of an activity that the claimant is required to incur as a result of the mandate. Section IV – Ongoing Activities, subsection D, allows ongoing activities related to costs supporting domestic violence related calls for assistance with a written incident report, and reviewing and editing the report. -12- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Section V of the parameters and guidelines states that cost elements must be identified for the reimbursable activities identified in section IV of the parameters and guidelines. Each reimbursable cost must be supported by source documentation. For salary and benefit costs, claimants are to report each employee implementing the reimbursable activities by name, job classification, and PHR. Recommendation The Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program was suspended in the FY 2012-13 through FY 2019-20 Budget Acts. If the program becomes active again, we recommend that the county:  Follow the mandated program claiming instructions and the parameters and guidelines when claiming reimbursement for mandated costs;  Claim costs based on actual time increments required to perform the mandated cost activities;  Claim costs based on the number of domestic violence related calls for assistance that are supported with a written report; and  Calculate PHRs based on the employee classifications that perform the mandated activities using the master payroll and MOU documentation for the corresponding fiscal year. County’s Response The County understands the Audit Report findings and recommendations; however, the County does not have enough information to agree or disagree with the findings. The State Controller’s Office performed fieldwork based on parameters and guidelines established in 2010 and amended in 2014 after the claim period. Unfortunately, due to the time lapse between the claim period and audit fieldwork, some original source data is no longer available. Additionally, Sheriff Office employees that were familiar with the original claim data and rationale for historical reporting procedures have moved on or retired [in the time] between filing and audit. The County currently has a SB90 Claim review process to support mandated program eligibility and record requirements. The County will review the Audit recommendations should this Program become active in the future. -13- Sonoma County Crime Statistics Reports for the Department of Justice Program Attachment— County’s Response to Draft Audit Report State Controller’s Office Division of Audits Post Office Box 942850 Sacramento, CA 94250 http://www.sco.ca.gov S19-MCC-0008