San Diego County

SAN DIEGO COUNTY Audit Report SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS PROGRAM Chapter 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995; and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996 July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2022 M M. C ALIA OHEN California State Controller April 2024 MALIA M. COHEN CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER April 2, 2024 CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Tracy Drager, Auditor and Controller San Diego County 5530 Overland Avenue, Suite 410 San Diego, CA 92123 Dear Ms. Drager: The State Controller’s Office audited the costs claimed by San Diego County for the legislatively mandated Sexually Violent Predators Program for the period of July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2022. The county claimed $2,927,812 for costs of the mandated program. Our audit found that $2,556,856 is allowable ($2,557,768 less a $912 penalty for filing a late claim); and $370,956 is unallowable because the county overstated salary and benefit costs, claimed ineligible and unsupported contract services costs, and overstated related indirect costs. The State paid the county $927,228. The State will pay allowable costs claimed that exceed the amount paid, totaling $1,629,628, 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 each fiscal year in the audit period. If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Kurokawa, Chief, Compliance Audits Bureau, by telephone at (916) 327-3138. Sincerely, Original signed by KIMBERLY TARVIN, CPA Chief, Division of Audits KT/rs MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 942850, Sacramento, CA 94250 SACRAMENTO 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816 | 916.324.8907 LOS ANGELES 901 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 200, Monterey Park, CA 91754 | 323.981.6802 Ms. Tracy Drager April 2, 2024 Page 2 cc: Sarah E. Aghassi, Interim Chief Administrative Officer San Diego County Nora Vargas, Chair San Diego County Board of Supervisors Michelle Bush, Chief of Administrative Services San Diego County District Attorney’s Office Rosemarie Fernando-de Gracia, Finance Director San Diego County Public Safety Group Paul Rodriguez, Public Defender San Diego County Public Safety Group Kelly Martinez, Sheriff San Diego County Public Safety Group Chris Hill, Principal Program Budget Analyst Local Government Unit California Department of Finance Kaily Yap, Finance Budget Analyst Local Government Unit California Department of Finance Darryl Mar, Manager Local Reimbursements Section State Controller’s Office Everett Luc, Supervisor Local Reimbursements Section State Controller’s Office MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 942850, Sacramento, CA 94250 SACRAMENTO 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816 | 916.324.8907 LOS ANGELES 901 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 200, Monterey Park, CA 91754 | 323.981.6802 San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Contents Audit Report Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 Audit Authority.................................................................................................................. 1 Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 3 Follow-up on Prior Audit Findings .................................................................................. 3 Views of Responsible Officials .......................................................................................... 3 Restricted Use .................................................................................................................... 4 Schedule—Summary of Program Costs .............................................................................. 5 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 10 Attachment—County’s Response to Draft Audit Report San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Audit Report Summary The State Controller’s Office (SCO) audited the costs claimed by San Diego County for the legislatively mandated Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) Program for the period of July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2022. The county claimed $2,927,812 for costs of the mandated program. Our audit found that $2,556,856 is allowable ($2,557,768 less a $912 penalty for filing a late claim); and $370,956 is unallowable because the county overstated salary and benefit costs, claimed ineligible and unsupported contract services costs, and overstated related indirect costs. The State paid the county $927,228. The State will pay allowable costs claimed that exceed the amount paid, totaling $1,629,628, contingent upon available appropriations. Background Welfare and Institutions Code sections 6250, and 6600 through 6608 (added by Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995, and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996), established new civil commitment procedures for the continued detention and treatment of sexually violent offenders following completion of prison terms for certain sex-related offenses. Before detention and treatment are imposed, the county attorney is required to file a petition for civil commitment. A trial is then conducted to determine whether the inmate is a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt. If the inmate accused of being a sexually violent predator is indigent, the test claim legislation requires counties to provide the inmate with the assistance of counsel and experts necessary to prepare a defense. On June 25, 1998, the Commission on State Mandates (Commission) determined that Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995, and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996, imposed a reimbursable state mandate under Government Code (GC) section 17561. The program’s parameters and guidelines establish the state mandate and define the reimbursement criteria. The Commission adopted the parameters and guidelines on September 24, 1998, and amended them on October 30, 2009. In compliance with GC section 17558, the SCO issues the Mandated Cost Manual for Local Agencies (Mandated Cost Manual) to assist local agencies in claiming mandated program reimbursable costs. Audit Authority We conducted this performance audit in accordance with GC sections 17558.5 and 17561, which authorize the SCO to audit the county’s records to verify the actual amount of the mandated costs. In addition, GC section 12410 provides the SCO with general authority to audit the disbursement of state money for correctness, legality, and sufficient provisions of law for payment. Objective, Scope, The objective of our audit was to determine whether claimed costs represent increased costs resulting from the legislatively mandated SVP and Methodology Program. Specifically, we conducted this audit to determine whether -1- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program claimed costs were supported by appropriate source documents, were not funded by another source, and were not unreasonable and/or excessive. Unreasonable and/or excessive costs include ineligible costs that are not identified in the program’s parameters and guidelines as reimbursable costs. The audit period was July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2022. To achieve our objective, we performed the following procedures: • We analyzed 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, materials and supplies, contract services, travel and training, and indirect costs. • We determined whether there were any errors or unusual or unexpected variances from year to year. We then reviewed the claimed activities to determine whether they adhered to the SCO’s Mandated Cost Manual and the program’s parameters and guidelines. • We completed an internal control questionnaire by interviewing key county staff members. We discussed the claim preparation process with county staff to determine what information was obtained, who obtained it, and how it was used. • We assessed the reliability of data (time management, payroll, and expenditure records) generated by the county’s information management system and enterprise software applications by interviewing various county staff members and examining supporting documentation that the county provided. We determined that the data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. • We selected a sample of employees that performed the mandated activities and traced their claimed productive hourly rate (PHR) and benefit rate to supporting information in the county’s payroll system (see Finding 1). • We traced a sample of the employees’ claimed hours to Case Activity Logs for the Public Defender’s (PD’s) Office and to the Activity Code Tracking Report for the District Attorney’s (DA’s) Office. We found several instances in which salaried employees claimed more than an eight-hour work day, but the corresponding PHR calculation did not include the additional hours worked (see Finding 1). • We traced a sample of claimed contract services costs to supporting invoices to confirm the costs were claimed during the fiscal year in which the services were actually provided (see Finding 2). • We reviewed and analyzed the PD’s Office travel reimbursement claims and verified that the miles traveled were unduplicated and mandate-related. • We reviewed and analyzed claimed housing costs for the Sheriff’s Office to confirm the daily jail rates that the county used for the various detention facilities were based on actual costs (see Finding 3). • We verified that the county had properly applied indirect cost rates, using the 10% of direct salaries less fringe benefits option. We then -2- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program calculated the unallowable related indirect costs based on the audit adjustments made to direct salaries (see Finding 1). • We inquired with county staff members, and reviewed single audit reports (with accompanying financial statements) and revenue reports to identify potential sources of offsetting revenues and reimbursements for the audit period. We determined that the claimed costs were not funded by another source. We did not audit the county’s financial statements. 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. Conclusion As a result of performing the audit procedures, we found instances of noncompliance with the requirements described in our audit objective. We did not find that the county claimed costs that were funded by other sources; however, we did find that it claimed unsupported and ineligible costs, as quantified in the Schedule and described in the Findings and Recommendations section. For the audit period, San Diego County claimed $2,927,812 for costs of the legislatively mandated SVP Program. Our audit found that $2,556,856 is allowable ($2,557,768 less a $912 penalty for filing a late claim) and $370,956 is unallowable. The State paid the county $927,228. The State will pay allowable costs claimed that exceed the amount paid, totaling $1,629,628, 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 each fiscal year in the audit period. Follow-up on The county has not resolved the findings noted in our prior audit report for the period of July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2009—excluding July 1, Prior Audit 2004, through June 30, 2005—issued on April 3, 2012, as described in Findings Findings 1 through 3. Views of We issued a draft audit report on December 21, 2023. San Deigo County’s Responsible representative responded by letter dated January 11, 2024, agreeing with the audit results. The county’s response is included as an attachment to Officials this audit report. -3- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Restricted Use This audit report is solely for the information and use of San Diego County, 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 KIMBERLY TARVIN, CPA Chief, Division of Audits April 2, 2024 -4- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule— Summary of Program Costs July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2022 Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment Reference1 July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012 Program Number 3762 Direct costs: Salaries $ 202,074 $ 1 88,301 $ (13,773) Finding 1 Benefits 1 07,176 99,114 ( 8,062) Finding 1 Contract services 2 27,014 206,048 (20,966) Finding 2 Travel and training 1,075 409 (666) Finding 3 Total direct costs 5 37,339 493,872 (43,467) Indirect costs 20,207 18,830 ( 1,377) Finding 1 Total direct and indirect costs 5 57,546 512,702 (44,844) Less late filing penalty4 - (912) (912) Total program costs $ 557,546 511,790 $ (45,756) Less amount paid by the State5 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 5 11,790 July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013 Program Number 3762 Direct costs: Salaries $ 113,240 $ 1 04,674 $ (8,566) Finding 1 Benefits 63,930 57,935 ( 5,995) Finding 1 Contract services 1 17,720 81,025 (36,695) Finding 2 Travel and training 1,585 1,346 (239) Finding 3 Total direct costs 2 96,475 244,980 (51,495) Indirect costs 11,324 10,467 (857) Finding 1 Total program costs $ 307,799 255,447 $ (52,352) Less amount paid by the State5 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 2 55,447 -5- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule (continued) -6- J PD TI T L T L A J PD TI T L A J PD TI T L A C o s t E le m e n ts u ly 1 , 2 0 1 3 , th r o u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 4 2 r o g r a m N u m b e r 3 7 6 ir e c t c o s ts : S a la r ie s B e n e f its C o n tr a c t s e r v ic e s o ta l d ir e c t c o s ts n d ir e c t c o s ts o ta l d ir e c t a n d in d ir e c t c o s ts e s s a llo w a b le c o s ts th a t e x c e e d c o o ta l p r o g r a m c o s ts 5 e s s a m o u n t p a id b y th e S ta te llo w a b le c o s ts c la im e d in e x c e s s o u ly 1 , 2 0 1 4 , th r o u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 5 2 r o g r a m N u m b e r 3 7 6 ir e c t c o s ts : S a la r ie s B e n e f its C o n tr a c t s e r v ic e s o ta l d ir e c t c o s ts n d ir e c t c o s ts o ta l p r o g r a m c o s ts 5 e s s a m o u n t p a id b y th e S ta te llo w a b le c o s ts c la im e d in e x c e s s o u ly 1 , 2 0 1 5 , th r o u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 2 r o g r a m N u m b e r 3 7 6 ir e c t c o s ts : S a la r ie s B e n e f its C o n tr a c t s e r v ic e s T r a v e l a n d tr a in in g o ta l d ir e c t c o s ts n d ir e c t c o s ts o ta l p r o g r a m c o s ts 5 e s s a m o u n t p a id b y th e S ta te llo w a b le c o s ts c la im e d in e x c e s s o s f f f ts a a a c m m m la im o u n o u n o u n e d t p t p t p 3 a id a id a id A c tu a l C o s ts C la im e d $ 3 8 ,6 4 6 2 1 ,8 9 1 4 2 ,4 3 1 1 0 2 ,9 6 8 3 ,8 6 5 1 0 6 ,8 3 3 - $ 1 0 6 ,8 3 3 $ 4 6 ,3 0 1 2 7 ,4 6 8 1 5 ,8 1 3 8 9 ,5 8 2 4 ,6 3 0 $ 9 4 ,2 1 2 $ 1 2 2 ,5 6 0 7 4 ,0 0 8 3 3 ,8 6 0 1 4 2 3 0 ,4 4 2 1 2 ,2 5 6 $ 2 4 2 ,6 9 8 A llo w a b le p e r A u d it $ 3 4 ,3 9 9 1 9 ,4 0 1 5 1 ,8 0 5 1 0 5 ,6 0 5 3 ,4 4 0 1 0 9 ,0 4 5 ( 2 ,2 1 2 1 0 6 ,8 3 3 - $ 1 0 6 ,8 3 3 $ 3 5 ,5 1 2 2 0 ,9 0 2 9 ,0 4 4 6 5 ,4 5 8 3 ,5 5 1 6 9 ,0 0 9 - $ 6 9 ,0 0 9 $ 6 0 ,1 4 4 3 5 ,9 0 3 3 6 ,2 8 7 1 4 1 3 2 ,3 4 8 6 ,0 1 4 1 3 8 ,3 6 2 - $ 1 3 8 ,3 6 2 ) A u d it A d ju s tm e n t $ ( 4 ,2 4 7 ( 2 ,4 9 0 9 ,3 7 4 2 ,6 3 7 ( 4 2 5 2 ,2 1 2 ( 2 ,2 1 2 $ - $ ( 1 0 ,7 8 9 ( 6 ,5 6 6 ( 6 ,7 6 9 ( 2 4 ,1 2 4 ( 1 ,0 7 9 $ ( 2 5 ,2 0 3 $ ( 6 2 ,4 1 6 ( 3 8 ,1 0 5 2 ,4 2 7 - ( 9 8 ,0 9 4 ( 6 ,2 4 2 $ ( 1 0 4 ,3 3 6 )) ) ) ))) )) ) )) )) ) FFF F FFF F FFFF F R ininin in ininin in inininin in e f d in d in d in d in d in d in d in d in d in d in d in d in d in e ggg g ggg g gggg g r e 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 n c e 1 San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule (continued) Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment1 Reference1 July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017 Program Number 3762 Direct costs: Salaries $ 9 9,616 $ 51,915 $ (47,701) Finding 1 Benefits 61,640 31,724 (29,916) Finding 1 Contract services 50,021 45,377 ( 4,644) Finding 2 Total direct costs 2 11,277 129,016 (82,261) Indirect costs 9,962 5,192 ( 4,770) Finding 1 Total program costs $ 221,239 134,208 $ (87,031) Less amount paid by the State5 - Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 1 34,208 July 1, 2017, through June 30, 20182 Program Number 376 and Program Number 1752 Direct costs: Salaries $ 158,655 $ 87,552 $ (71,103) Finding 1 Benefits 98,124 53,971 (44,153) Finding 1 Materials and supplies 23 23 - Contract services 53,523 48,957 ( 4,566) Finding 2 Travel and training 51,218 131,579 80,361 Finding 3 Total direct costs 3 61,543 322,082 (39,461) Indirect costs 15,866 8,755 ( 7,111) Finding 1 Total program costs $ 377,409 330,837 $ (46,572) Less amount paid by the State5 (124,854) Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 2 05,983 July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019 Program Number 1752 Direct costs: Salaries $ 1 6,258 $ 12,628 $ (3,630) Finding 1 Benefits 9,734 7,624 ( 2,110) Finding 1 Contract services 2,747 12,502 9,755 Finding 2 Travel and training 58,752 165,029 106,277 Finding 3 Total direct costs 87,491 197,783 110,292 Indirect costs 1,626 1,263 (363) Finding 1 Total direct and indirect costs 89,117 199,046 109,929 Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed3 - (109,929) (109,929) Total program costs $ 8 9,117 89,117 $ - Less amount paid by the State5 (89,117) Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ - -7- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule (continued) Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment Reference1 July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020 Program Number 1752 Direct costs: Salaries $ 116,799 $ 95,228 $ (21,571) Finding 1 Benefits 73,826 59,181 (14,645) Finding 1 Contract services 36,706 43,369 6,663 Finding 2 Travel and training 10,211 32,215 22,004 Finding 3 Total direct costs 2 37,542 229,993 ( 7,549) Indirect costs 11,680 9,523 ( 2,157) Finding 1 Total program costs $ 249,222 239,516 $ (9,706) Less amount paid by the State5 (249,222) Amount paid in excess of allowable costs claimed $ (9,706) July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021 Program Number 1752 Direct costs: Salaries $ 136,400 $ 1 18,157 $ (18,243) Finding 1 Benefits 90,821 77,282 (13,539) Finding 1 Contract services 28,688 10,270 (18,418) Finding 2 Travel and training 28,483 128,960 100,477 Finding 3 Total direct costs 2 84,392 334,669 50,277 Indirect costs 13,640 11,816 ( 1,824) Finding 1 Total direct and indirect costs 2 98,032 346,485 48,453 Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed3 - (48,453) (48,453) Total program costs $ 298,032 298,032 $ - Less amount paid by the State5 (80,330) Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 2 17,702 July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022 Program Number 1752 Direct costs: Salaries $ 169,770 $ 1 66,500 $ (3,270) Finding 1 Benefits 1 06,800 99,990 ( 6,810) Finding 1 Contract services 9,459 8,959 (500) Finding 2 Travel and training 80,699 321,249 240,550 Finding 3 Total direct costs 3 66,728 596,698 229,970 Indirect costs 16,977 16,650 (327) Finding 1 Total direct and indirect costs 3 83,705 613,348 229,643 Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed - (229,643) (229,643) Total program costs $ 383,705 383,705 $ - Less amount paid by the State5 (383,705) Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ - -8- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule (continued) -9- S PD TI T L L T L A C o s t E le m e n ts u m m a r y : J u ly 1 , 2 0 1 1 , th r o u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 r o g r a m N u m b e r 3 7 6 a n d P r o g r a m N u m b e r 1 7 ir e c t c o s ts : S a la r ie s B e n e f its M a te r ia ls a n d s u p p lie s C o n tr a c t s e r v ic e s T r a v e l a n d tr a in in g o ta l d ir e c t c o s ts n d ir e c t c o s ts o ta l d ir e c t a n d in d ir e c t c o s ts 3 e s s a llo w a b le c o s ts th a t e x c e e d c o s ts c la im e d 4 e s s la te f ilin g p e n a lty o ta l p r o g r a m c o s ts 5 e s s a m o u n t p a id b y th e S ta te llo w a b le c o s ts c la im e d in e x c e s s o f a m o u n t p a id 5 2 A c tu a l C o s ts C la im e d $ 1 ,2 2 0 ,3 1 9 7 3 5 ,4 1 8 2 3 6 1 7 ,9 8 2 2 3 2 ,0 3 7 2 ,8 0 5 ,7 7 9 1 2 2 ,0 3 3 2 ,9 2 7 ,8 1 2 - - $ 2 ,9 2 7 ,8 1 2 A llo w a b le p e r A u d it $ 9 5 5 ,0 1 5 6 3 ,0 2 2 5 5 3 ,6 4 7 8 0 ,8 0 2 ,8 5 2 ,5 0 9 5 ,5 0 2 ,9 4 8 ,0 0 ( 3 9 0 ,2 3 ( 9 1 2 ,5 5 6 ,8 5 ( 9 2 7 ,2 2 $ 1 ,6 2 9 ,6 2 07331 41 5 7 2 6 8 8 ) ) ) A u d it A d ju s tm e n t $ ( 2 6 5 ,3 0 9 ( 1 7 2 ,3 9 1 - ( 6 4 ,3 3 9 5 4 8 ,7 6 4 4 6 ,7 2 5 ( 2 6 ,5 3 2 2 0 ,1 9 3 ( 3 9 0 ,2 3 7 ( 9 1 2 $ ( 3 7 0 ,9 5 6 )) ) ) ) ) ) FF FF F R inin inin in e f d in d in d in d in d in e gg gg g r e 1 1 2 3 1 n c e 1 _________________________ 1 See the Findings and Recommendations section. 2 On July 26, 2019, the Commission adopted an Order to Set Aside the Statement of Decision that was adopted on December 6, 2013, and the Statement of Decision and parameter and guidelines that were adopted on May 30, 2014. The order also reinstated the SVP Program as originally adopted on June 25, 1998. The SCO issued revised Claiming Instructions on December 11, 2020, notifying eligible claimants to submit claims for costs previously deemed ineligible for reimbursement. The Commission’s Order applied only to costs incurred for fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 through FY 2017-18. In order to differentiate these claims from the claims filed for those years under the then- existing SVP Program (Program Number 175), the SCO identified the reinstated activities as SVP Program Number 376. We audited Program Number 376 claims that the county filed for FY 2011-12 through FY 2017-18 and Program Number 175 claims for FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22. Claimed costs identified in this Schedule for FY 2017-18 include costs claimed for both programs. 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 Mandated Cost Manual. That deadline has expired for FY 2013-14, FY 2018-19, and FY 2020-21. 4 The county filed its FY 2011-12 annual reimbursement claim for $503,587 by the due date specified in GC section 17560, and amended it to $557,546 after the due date. Pursuant to GC section 17568, the State assessed a late filing penalty equal to 10% of allowable costs that exceed the timely filed claim amount, not to exceed $10,000 (for claims amended on or after August 24, 2007). 5 Payment amount current as of January 16, 2024. All payments were made to Program Number 175 claims. San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Findings and Recommendations FINDING 1— The county claimed $1,955,737 in salaries and benefits for the audit period ($1,220,319 for salaries and $735,418 for benefits). We found that Overstated salaries $1,518,037 is allowable and $437,700 is unallowable. Unallowable and benefits - District related indirect costs total $26,532, for a total finding of $464,232. Attorney’s Office and Public Defender’s To calculate claimed salaries and benefits, the county multiplied each Office (repeat finding) employee’s total number of hours spent performing the mandated activities by his or her individual PHR and benefit rate. During testing, we found that the county had overstated its claimed hours, overstated the PHRs and benefit rates for some of its employees, 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 SCO’s Mandated Cost Manual. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment for salaries and benefits by fiscal year: Salaries Benefits Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Amount Amount Audit Related Total Audit Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment Claimed Allowable Adjustment Indirect Costs Adjustment 2011-12 $ 2 02,074 $ 188,301 $ (13,773) $ 107,176 $ 9 9,114 $ (8,062) $ (1,377) $ (23,212) 2012-13 113,240 1 04,674 (8,566) 63,930 57,935 (5,995) (857) (15,418) 2013-14 38,646 34,399 (4,247) 21,891 19,401 (2,490) (425) (7,162) 2014-15 46,301 35,512 (10,789) 27,468 20,902 (6,566) (1,079) (18,434) 2015-16 122,560 60,144 (62,416) 74,008 35,903 (38,105) (6,242) (106,763) 2016-17 99,616 51,915 (47,701) 61,640 31,724 (29,916) (4,770) (82,387) 2017-18a 158,655 87,552 (71,103) 98,124 53,971 (44,153) (7,111) (122,367) 2018-19 16,258 12,628 (3,630) 9,734 7,624 (2,110) (363) (6,103) 2019-20 116,799 95,228 (21,571) 73,826 59,181 (14,645) (2,157) (38,373) 2020-21 136,400 1 18,157 (18,243) 90,821 77,282 (13,539) (1,824) (33,606) 2021-22 169,770 1 66,500 (3,270) 1 06,800 99,990 (6,810) (327) (10,407) Total $ 1,220,319 $ 955,010 $ (265,309) $ 735,418 $ 563,027 $ (172,391) $ ( 26,532) $ ( 464,232) a Amounts for Program Numbers 376 and 175 are combined. District Attorney’s Office The DA’s Office claimed $18,391 in salaries and benefits for fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 ($11,065 for salaries and $7,326 for benefits). We found that $20,478 is allowable; therefore, the county understated its costs by $2,087. Additional allowable related indirect costs total $145, for a total adjustment of $2,232. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment for salaries and benefits for FY 2021-22: Salaries Benefits Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Amount Amount Audit Related Total Audit Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment Claimed Allowable Adjustment Indirect Costs Adjustment 2021-22 $ 11,065 $ 1 2,518 $ 1 ,453 $ 7,326 $ 7 ,960 $ 634 $ 1 45 $ 2,232 -10- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Overstated Hours The DA’s Office overstated its salary and benefit costs totaling $914 because it overstated the number of hours spent performing the reimbursable activities. Unallowable related indirect costs total $57, for a total adjustment of $971. In FY 2021-22, the DA’s Office claimed that one of its employees spent 159.30 hours performing the mandated activities. However, during our review of the DA’s Office Activity Code Tracking Report, we found that nine of those hours were during a weekend. The employee’s regular work week does not include weekends, and the employee is exempt from overtime. Therefore, the nine hours are unallowable, as are the claimed salary and benefit costs totaling $914. Unallowable related indirect costs total $57, for a total adjustment of $971. Understated Productive Hourly Rates The DA’s Office understated its claimed PHRs for all employees selected for testing, resulting in understated salary and benefit costs totaling $3,379. Allowable related indirect costs total $202, for a total adjustment of $3,581. The costs were understated because the DA’s Office calculated each employee’s PHR using an incorrect annual productive hourly base of 2,080 hours. The county’s Auditor and Controller’s Office calculated 1,754 annual productive hours for FY 2021-22, which excluded vacation hours, sick leave, and holiday hours. Therefore, we recalculated the PHRs for the DA’s Office employees based on the county’s 1,754 annual productive hours. To determine the understated costs, we calculated an error rate for each employee and applied it to his or her allowable hours. The following table summarizes the understated costs (as a result of understated PHRs) for FY 2021-22: A B C=A+B D=A×10% E=C+D Total Related Total Salaries and Indirect Audit Salaries Benefits Benefits Costs Adjustment FY 2021-22 $ 2 ,022 $ 1 ,357 $ 3,379 $ 2 02 $ 3,581 Overstated Benefit Rate The DA’s Office overstated its claimed benefit rates for all employees selected for testing, resulting in overstated benefits totaling $378 for FY 2021-22. We calculated an error rate for each employee and applied it to his or her total allowable salary. -11- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Public Defender’s Office The PD’s Office claimed $1,937,346 in salaries and benefits ($1,209,254 for salaries and $728,092 for benefits) for the audit period. We found that $1,497,559 is allowable and $439,787 is unallowable. Unallowable related indirect costs total $26,677, for a total adjustment of $466,464. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment for salaries and benefits by fiscal year: -12- F is c a l Y e a r 2 0 1 1 -1 2 2 0 1 2 -1 3 2 0 1 3 -1 4 2 0 1 4 -1 5 2 0 1 5 -1 6 2 0 1 6 -1 71 2 0 1 7 -1 8 2 0 1 8 -1 9 2 0 1 9 -2 0 2 0 2 0 -2 1 2 0 2 1 -2 2 T o ta l 1 A m o u n ts fo r P A m o u n t C la im e d $ 2 0 2 ,0 1 1 3 ,2 3 8 ,6 4 6 ,3 1 2 2 ,5 9 9 ,6 1 5 8 ,6 1 6 ,2 1 1 6 ,7 1 3 6 ,4 1 5 8 ,7 $ 1 ,2 0 9 ,2 ro g ra m N u m 744061 55900 5 b 406106 58905 4 e rs 3 7 S a la rie s A m o u n A llo w a b $ 1 8 8 ,3 1 0 4 ,6 3 4 ,3 3 5 ,5 6 0 ,1 5 1 ,9 8 7 ,5 1 2 ,6 9 5 ,2 1 1 8 ,1 1 5 3 ,9 $ 9 4 2 ,4 6 a n d 1 7 5 tle 0 1 7 4 9 9 1 2 4 4 1 5 5 2 2 8 2 8 5 7 8 2 9 2 a re c o A u d it A d ju s tm e $ (1 3 ,7 (8 ,5 (4 ,2 (1 0 ,7 (6 2 ,4 (4 7 ,7 (7 1 ,1 (3 ,6 (2 1 ,5 (1 8 ,2 (4 ,7 $ (2 6 6 ,7 m b in e d . n 764810 03742 6 t 367961 30133 2 )))))) ))))) ) A m o u n t C la im e d $ 1 0 7 ,1 7 6 3 ,9 3 2 1 ,8 9 2 7 ,4 6 7 4 ,0 0 6 1 ,6 4 9 8 ,1 2 9 ,7 3 7 3 ,8 2 9 0 ,8 2 9 9 ,4 7 $ 7 2 8 ,0 9 601880 44614 2 B e n e fits A m o u n t A llo w a b le $ 9 9 ,1 1 4 5 7 ,9 3 5 1 9 ,4 0 1 2 0 ,9 0 2 3 5 ,9 0 3 3 1 ,7 2 4 5 3 ,9 7 1 7 ,6 2 4 5 9 ,1 8 1 7 7 ,2 8 2 9 2 ,0 3 0 $ 5 5 5 ,0 6 7 A u d it A d ju s tm e $ (8 ,0 (5 ,9 (2 ,4 (6 ,5 (3 8 ,1 (2 9 ,9 (4 4 ,1 (2 ,1 (1 4 ,6 (1 3 ,5 (7 ,4 $ (1 7 3 ,0 n 699601 51434 2 t 250656 30594 5 )))))) ))))) ) R e la te d In d ire c t C o $ (1 ,3 (8 (4 (1 ,0 (6 ,2 (4 ,7 (7 ,1 (3 (2 ,1 (1 ,8 (4 $ (2 6 ,6 s 752747 16527 7 ts 7 ) 7 ) 5 ) 9 ) 2 ) 0 ) 1 ) 3 ) 7 ) 4 ) 2 ) 7 ) T o ta l A A d ju s tm $ (2 3 (1 5 (7 (1 8 (1 0 6 (8 2 (1 2 2 (6 (3 8 (3 3 (1 2 $ (4 6 6 u d it e n t ,2 1 2 ,4 1 8 ,1 6 2 ,4 3 4 ,7 6 3 ,3 8 7 ,3 6 7 ,1 0 3 ,3 7 3 ,6 0 6 ,6 3 9 ,4 6 4 )))))) ))))) ) Overstated Hours The PD’s Office overstated its claimed hours, resulting in overstated salary and benefit costs totaling $443,026. Unallowable related indirect costs total $27,516, for a total adjustment of $470,542. During our review of the PD’s Office Case Activity Logs, we found several employees that claimed time in excess of eight hours per day. As county attorneys are salaried employees and their calculated PHRs do not include these additional hours worked, we limited the allowable time to eight hours. We also found that several attorneys reported a lump-sum amount of hours for a particular activity on a single day (i.e., 20 hours or more); we requested that the PD’s Office provide a breakdown of those hours. The PD’s Office provided a document that showed only the total number of hours claimed over various ranges, rather than identifying the number of hours charged per day for a particular reimbursable activity. Based on the presentation of this information, we concluded that the claimed hours were estimates of time spent performing mandated activities. San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and overstated hours by fiscal year: -13- 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A F is c a l Y e a r 0 1 1 - 1 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 0 1 3 - 1 4 0 1 4 - 1 5 0 1 5 - 1 6 0 1 6 - 1 7 1 0 1 7 - 1 8 0 1 8 - 1 9 0 1 9 - 2 0 0 2 0 - 2 1 0 2 1 - 2 2 T o ta l m o u n ts f o r P C la im H o u 2 ,4 4 1 ,1 7 3 5 4 8 1 ,3 5 1 ,0 9 1 ,6 6 1 8 1 ,1 7 1 ,2 9 1 ,2 6 1 2 ,4 7 r o g r a m e d r s 5 .7 0 4 .2 0 6 .9 1 0 .1 0 1 .8 0 2 .3 5 2 .5 8 4 .7 0 3 .2 6 2 .3 0 4 .9 5 8 .8 5 N u m b e r A llo w a b le H o u r s 2 ,2 5 8 .5 9 1 ,0 8 0 .6 0 3 0 2 .4 1 3 2 1 .3 5 5 5 4 .5 5 4 8 8 .2 5 7 4 8 .0 8 1 3 4 .4 0 9 3 0 .8 6 1 ,0 8 4 .8 0 1 ,1 6 3 .4 5 9 ,0 6 7 .3 4 s 3 7 6 a n d 1 7 5 O v e r s ta H o u r ( 1 8 7 ( 9 3 ( 5 4 ( 1 5 8 ( 7 9 7 ( 6 0 4 ( 9 1 4 ( 5 0 ( 2 4 2 ( 2 0 7 ( 1 0 1 ( 3 ,4 1 1 a r e c o m te s .1 .6 .5 .7 .2 .1 .5 .3 .4 .5 .5 .5 b d 1 ) 0 ) 0 ) 5 ) 5 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 1 ) in e d . The following table summarizes the overstated hours for FY 2017-18 by program: Program Claimed Allowable Overstated Number Hours Hours Hours 376 1,177.33 379.13 (798.20) 175 4 85.25 368.95 (116.30) Total hours 1,662.58 748.08 (914.50) The following table summarizes the overstated costs (as a result of overstated hours) by fiscal year: A B C=A+B D=A×10% Total Related Fiscal Salaries and Indirect Year Salaries Benefits Benefits Costs 2011-12 $ (13,445) $ ( 7,052) $ (20,497) $ (1,345) 2012-13 ( 7,474) (4,241) ( 11,715) (747) 2013-14 ( 4,434) (2,502) (6,936) (444) 2014-15 (11,000) (6,387) ( 17,387) (1,100) 2015-16 (62,917) ( 37,890) (100,807) (6,292) 2016-17 (48,111) ( 29,750) ( 77,861) (4,811) 2017-181 (72,065) ( 44,157) (116,222) (7,207) 2018-19 ( 3,746) (2,116) (5,862) (375) 2019-20 (22,822) ( 14,674) ( 37,496) (2,282) 2020-21 (19,646) ( 13,200) ( 32,846) (1,964) 2021-22 ( 9,469) (5,928) ( 15,397) (949) Total $ (275,129) $ (167,897) $ (443,026) $ (27,516) 1 Costs for Program Numbers 376 and 175 are combined. San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program The following table summarizes the overstated costs for FY 2017-18 by program: -14- T P N o r o u 3 1 ta g r a m m b e r 7 6 7 5 l c o s ts A S a la r ie $ ( 6 2 ,8 ( 9 ,2 $ ( 7 2 ,0 s 6 0 6 3 2 5 ) ) ) B B e n e $ ( 3 8 ( 5 $ ( 4 4 f its ,5 4 3 ,6 1 4 ,1 5 7 ) ) ) C = A + B T o ta l S a la r ie s a n d B e n e f its $ ( 1 0 1 ,4 0 6 ) ( 1 4 ,8 1 6 ) $ ( 1 1 6 ,2 2 2 ) D = A 1 0 % × R e la te d I n d ir e c t C o s ts $ ( 6 ,2 8 7 ( 9 2 0 $ ( 7 ,2 0 7 ) ) ) E = C + D T o ta l A u d it A d ju s tm e $ ( 1 0 7 ,6 ( 1 5 ,7 $ ( 1 2 3 ,4 n 9 3 2 t 3 6 9 ) ) ) Productive Hourly Rate The PD’s Office understated its claimed PHRs for all employees selected for testing, with the exception of three employees (one employee in FY 2011-12, one in FY 2012-13, and one in FY 2017-18) whose PHRs were overstated. The understated PHRs resulted in understated salary and benefit costs totaling $13,897. Allowable related indirect costs total $839, for a total adjustment of $14,736. The costs were understated because the PD’s Office did not include the employees’ annual stipend for professional development as part of their earned salaries. Therefore, we recalculated the PHRs for these employees based on their actual annual salary earned for each fiscal year. To determine the understated costs, we calculated an error rate for each employee and applied it to his or her allowable hours. The following table summarizes the understated costs (as a result of understated PHRs) by fiscal year: A B C=A+B D=A×10% Total Related Fiscal Salaries and Indirect Year Salaries Benefits Benefits Costs 2011-12 $ ( 328) $ ( 107) $ (435) $ (32) 2012-13 (1,092) ( 608) ( 1,700) (110) 2013-14 187 107 294 19 2014-15 211 129 340 21 2015-16 501 297 798 50 2016-17 410 252 662 41 2017-181 962 606 1,568 96 2018-19 116 7 7 193 12 2019-20 1,251 813 2,064 1 25 2020-21 1,403 986 2,389 1 40 2021-22 4,746 2,978 7,724 4 77 Total $ 8 ,367 $ 5 ,530 $ 13,897 $ 839 1 Costs for Program Numbers 376 and 175 are combined. San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program The following table summarizes the understated costs for FY 2017-18 by program: A B C=A+B D=A×10% E=C+D Total Related Total Program Salaries and Indirect Audit Number Salaries Benefits Benefits Costs Adjustment 376 $ 252 $ 168 $ 420 $ 2 5 $ 445 175 710 4 38 1 ,148 71 1 ,219 Total costs $ 962 $ 606 $ 1,568 $ 9 6 $ 1,664 Benefit Rate The PD’s Office overstated its claimed benefit rates for all employees selected for testing, with the exception of two employees (one in FY 2011-12 and one in FY 2019-20) whose benefit rates were understated. We calculated an error rate for each employee and applied it to his or her total allowable salary. The overstated benefit rates resulted in overstated benefits totaling $10,658. The following table summarizes the audit adjustment for the PD’s Office benefits by fiscal year: -15- 1 F is c a l Y e a r 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 2 0 1 6 - 1 7 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 2 0 1 9 - 2 0 2 0 2 0 - 2 1 2 0 2 1 - 2 2 T o ta l P ro g ra m P ro g ra m 1 N N u u m m B e n e f its A d ju s tm e n t $ ( 9 0 3 ) ( 1 ,1 4 6 ) ( 9 5 ) ( 3 0 8 ) ( 5 1 2 ) ( 4 1 8 ) ( 6 0 2 ) ( 7 1 ) ( 7 8 4 ) ( 1 ,3 2 5 ) ( 4 ,4 9 4 ) $ ( 1 0 ,6 5 8 ) b e r 3 7 6 c o s ts b e r 1 7 5 c o s ts w w e e re re o u v n e d rs ta te d e rs ta te b y d b $ 6 y $ 7 7 7 5 a n d Criteria Section IV, “Reimbursable Activities,” of the parameters and guidelines begins: To be eligible for mandated cost reimbursement for any 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. 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. San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Section V.A.1, “Salaries and Benefits,” of the parameters and guidelines states, in part: Identify the employee(s), and/or show the classification of the employee(s) involved. Describe the reimbursable activities performed and specify the actual time devoted to each reimbursable activity by each employee, productive hourly rate and related fringe benefits. . . . Section V.B, “Indirect Costs,” of the parameters and guidelines states, in part: . . .Claimants have the option of using 10% of direct labor, excluding fringe benefits, or preparing an Indirect Cost Rate Proposal (ICRP) for the department if the indirect cost rate claimed exceeds 10%. . . . Recommendation We recommend that the county ensure that claimed costs include only eligible costs, are based on actual costs, and are properly supported. County’s Response This finding consists of overstated salaries, benefits, and related indirect costs claimed during the audit period. These costs were found overstated because the county did not claim costs in accordance with the program’s parameters and guidelines or the SCO’s Mandated Cost Manual. The District Attorney’s Office and Department of the Public Defender will implement controls to ensure that annual productive hourly rates and reimbursable hours align with the SCO’s Mandated Cost Manual and are reviewed for accuracy. FINDING 2— The county claimed a total of $617,982 in contract services costs for the audit period. We found that $553,643 is allowable and $64,339 is Overstated contract unallowable. The costs are unallowable for the following reasons: services costs - Public Defender’s Office • For each fiscal year of the audit period, it appears that the county (repeat finding) claimed its costs during the fiscal year that it actually paid for contract services, rather than the fiscal year in which the services were actually performed. Therefore, we reallocated those costs to their respective fiscal years. • For FY 2011-12, the county claimed $51,095 for services that had been performed during FY 2010-11 (before the audit period). • For FY 2011-12, the county claimed $10,796 for services performed by a psychologist, that was unsupported. • For FY 2019-20, the county inadvertently claimed a duplicate invoice for a legal expert, totaling $2,500. This invoice had already been claimed in FY 2018-19, when the services were actually performed. -16- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment for contract services costs by fiscal year: -17- 1 F is c a l Y e a r 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 2 0 1 6 - 1 7 1 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 2 0 1 9 - 2 0 2 0 2 0 - 2 1 2 0 2 1 - 2 2 T o ta l A m o u n ts fo r P A m o C la im $ 2 2 7 1 1 7 4 2 1 5 3 3 5 0 5 3 2 3 6 2 8 9 $ 6 1 7 ro g ra m u n t e d ,0 1 4 ,7 2 0 ,4 3 1 ,8 1 3 ,8 6 0 ,0 2 1 ,5 2 3 ,7 4 7 ,7 0 6 ,6 8 8 ,4 5 9 ,9 8 2 N u m b e rs A m o u n A llo w a b $ 2 0 6 ,0 8 1 ,0 5 1 ,8 9 ,0 3 6 ,2 4 5 ,3 4 8 ,9 1 2 ,5 4 3 ,3 1 0 ,2 8 ,9 $ 5 5 3 ,6 3 7 6 a n d 1 t le 4 8 2 5 0 5 4 4 8 7 7 7 5 7 0 2 6 9 7 0 5 9 4 3 7 5 a re c A u d it A d ju s tm e $ ( 2 0 ,9 6 ( 3 6 ,6 9 9 ,3 7 ( 6 ,7 6 2 ,4 2 ( 4 ,6 4 ( 4 ,5 6 9 ,7 5 6 ,6 6 ( 1 8 ,4 1 ( 5 0 $ ( 6 4 ,3 3 o m b in e d . n 6 5 4 9 7 4 6 5 3 8 0 9 t ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Criteria Section IV, “Reimbursable Activities,” of the parameters and guidelines begins: To be eligible for mandated cost reimbursement for any 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. . . . Section V.A.3, “Contract Services,” of the parameters and guidelines states: Provide the name(s) of the contractor(s) who performed the services, including any fixed contracts for services. Describe the reimbursable activity(ies) performed by each named contractor and give the number of actual hours spent on the activities, if applicable. Show the inclusive dates when services were performed and itemize all costs for those services. Attach consultant invoices to the claim. Recommendation We recommend that the county ensure that claimed costs include only eligible costs, are based on actual costs, and are properly supported. County’s Response This finding consists of unallowable contracted services costs claimed during the audit period. These costs were found unallowable primarily due to the county claiming costs during the fiscal year that it actually paid for contract services rather than the fiscal year in which the services were performed. The Department of the Public Defender will implement controls to ensure that costs are eligible and properly supported. San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program FINDING 3— The county claimed total travel and training costs of $232,037 for the audit period ($7,370 by the PD’s Office and $224,667 by the Sheriff’s Understated travel Department). We found that $780,801 is allowable ($6,163 for the PD’s and training costs – Office and $774,638 for the Sheriff’s Department); therefore, the county Public Defender’s understated its travel and training costs by $548,764. The costs were Office and Sheriff’s understated by $549,971 because the Sheriff’s Department calculated its Department (repeat housing costs for sexually violent predators using a daily jail rate that was finding) not based on actual costs, and because the PD’s Office claimed unsupported staff travel costs totaling $1,207. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment for travel and training costs by fiscal year: Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment 2011-12 $ 1,075 $ 409 $ (666) 2012-13 1,585 1,346 ( 239) 2013-14 - - - 2014-15 - - - 2015-16 14 14 - 2016-17 - - - 2017-181 51,218 1 31,579 8 0,361 2018-19 58,752 1 65,029 106,277 2019-20 10,211 32,215 2 2,004 2020-21 28,483 1 28,960 100,477 2021-22 80,699 3 21,249 240,550 Total $ 232,037 $ 780,801 $ 548,764 1 Amounts for Program Numbers 376 and 175 are combined. Public Defender’s Office The PD’s Office claimed $7,370 in travel and training costs for the audit period. We found that $6,163 is allowable and $1,207 is unallowable. The costs are unallowable because the PD’s Office did not provide documentation to support the miles driven by its employees. The mileage reports were unavailable, as they were destroyed pursuant to the county’s record retention policy. The PD’s Office also claimed 430 miles that had already been included in one attorney’s travel reimbursement claim for FY 2012-13. The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment amounts for the PD’s Office by fiscal year: Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment 2011-12 $ 1,075 $ 409 $ ( 666) 2012-13 1,585 1,346 (239) 2015-16 14 14 - 2017-181 909 7 87 (122) 2018-19 34 - (34) 2019-20 77 25 (52) 2020-21 94 - (94) 2021-22 3,582 3,582 - Total $ 7,370 $ 6,163 $ (1,207) 1 Amounts for Program Numbers 376 and 175 are combined. -18- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment amounts for FY 2017-18 by program: Program Amount Amount Audit Number Claimed Allowable Adjustment 376 $ 2 9 $ 2 9 $ - 175 8 80 7 58 (122) Total $ 909 $ 787 $ ( 122) Sheriff’s Department The Sheriff’s Department claimed $224,667 in travel and training costs for the audit period. These costs were for housing sexually violent predators at a county facility while they awaited trial. We found that $774,638 is allowable therefore, the Sheriff’s Department understated its travel and training costs by $549,971. The costs were understated because the Sheriff’s Department did not use daily jail rates based on actual costs for the various detention facilities in the county. To calculate housing costs for the sexually violent predator defendants housed as inmates in the county jail, the county multiplied the number of jail days for each defendant by the daily jail rate of $71.87 that was last approved by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in FY 2011-12. However, the county should have used the actual daily jail rate (average daily cost per inmate) from its Courtesy Housing Rate worksheet instead. Therefore, we recalculated the county’s housing costs for FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22 by applying the average daily cost per inmate to each defendant who was housed at either the San Diego Central Jail or the Vista Detention Facility. The following table summarizes the average daily cost per inmate at the two detention facilities by fiscal year: Fiscal Year Detention Facility 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 San Diego Central Jail $ 227.34 $ 326.48 $ 312.09 Vista Detention $ 187.65 $ 196.34 $ 228.30 $ 280.86 The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit adjustment amounts for the Sheriff’s Department by fiscal year (all amounts are related to Program Number 175): Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment 2017-18 $ 50,309 $ 130,792 $ 80,483 2018-19 58,718 165,029 106,311 2019-20 10,134 3 2,190 22,056 2020-21 28,389 128,960 100,571 2021-22 77,117 317,667 240,550 Total $ 224,667 $ 774,638 $ 549,971 -19- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Criteria Section IV, “Reimbursable Activities,” of the parameters and guidelines begins: To be eligible for mandated cost reimbursement for any 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. . . . Item B.7 of section IV., “Reimbursable Activities,” of the parameters and guidelines states: Transportation and housing costs for each potential sexually violent predator at a secured facility while the individual awaits trial on the issue of whether he or she is a sexually violent predator. Counties shall be entitled to reimbursement for such transportation and housing costs, regardless of whether the secured facility is a state facility or county facility, except in those circumstances when the State has directly borne the costs of housing and transportation, in which case no reimbursement of such costs shall be permitted. Section V.A.4, “Travel,” of the parameters and guidelines states: Travel expenses for mileage, per diem, lodging, and other employee entitlements are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with the rules of the local jurisdiction. Provide the name(s) of the traveler(s), purpose of travel, inclusive dates and times of travel, destination points, and travel costs. Section VI, “Record Retention,” of the parameters and guidelines states, in part: . . . All documents used to support the reimbursable activities, as described in Section IV, must be retained during the period subject to audit. If the Controller has initiated an audit during the period subject to audit, the retention period is extended until the ultimate resolution of any audit findings. Recommendation We recommend that the county ensure that claimed costs include only eligible costs, are based on actual costs, and are properly supported. County’s Response This finding consists of understated travel and training costs claimed during the audit period. These costs were found understated because the county did not use daily jail rates (Courtesy Housing Rates) based on actual costs. Sheriff’s Department used the approved California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) rates from FY11/12 but moving forward will use the Courtesy Housing Rates based on actuals. The Department of Public Defender and Sheriff’s Department will ensure costs align with the program’s parameters and guidelines and are properly supported. -20- San Diego County Sexually Violent Predators Program Attachment— County’s Response to Draft Audit Report State Controller’s Office Division of Audits Post Office Box 942850 Sacramento, CA 94250 www.sco.ca.gov S23-MCC-0002