SCO
San Bernardino County
Sexually Violent Predators
Read the report at San Bernardino County ↗
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Audit Report
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS PROGRAM
Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995;
and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996
July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2022
M M. C
ALIA OHEN
C
ALIFORNIA
S
TATE
C
ONTROLLER
November 2024
MALIA M. COHEN
CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER
November 12, 2024
CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Ensen Mason, CPA, CFA, Auditor-Controller
San Bernardino County
268 West Hospitality Lane, 4th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Dear Auditor-Controller Mason:
The State Controller’s Office audited the costs claimed by San Bernardino County (the county)
for the legislatively mandated Sexually Violent Predators Program for the period of July 1, 2011,
through June 30, 2022.
The county claimed $9,764,814 for costs of the mandated program. Our audit found that
$8,900,160 is allowable ($8,910,160 less a $10,000 penalty for filing a late claim) and $864,654
is unallowable. The costs are unallowable because the county overstated salary and benefit costs,
overstated materials and supplies costs, claimed ineligible and unsupported contract services
costs, and overstated related indirect costs. The State paid the county $4,947,067.
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 regarding this report, please contact Lisa Kurokawa, Chief,
Compliance Audits Bureau, by telephone at 916-327-3138. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Kimberly A. Tarvin, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
KAT/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
Mr. Ensen Mason
November 12, 2024
Page 2 of 2
Copy: The Honorable Dawn Rowe, Chair
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Sakura Younger, Manager
Management Services Section
San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Office
Jai Prasad, CPA, Senior Supervising Accountant
Management Services Section
San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Office
Claudia Walker, Chief
Bureau of Administration
San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office
Diana Lovelace, Chief
Administration Division
San Bernardino County Public Defender’s Office
Carolina Mendoza, Sheriff’s Financial Manager
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Tiffany Escosio, Sheriff’s Administrative Manager
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
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 Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Contents
Audit Report
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
Audit Authority.................................................................................................................. 2
Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 2
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 3
Follow-up on Prior Audit Findings .................................................................................. 4
Views of Responsible Officials .......................................................................................... 4
Restricted Use .................................................................................................................... 4
Schedule—Summary of Program Costs .............................................................................. 5
Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 10
Attachment—County’s Response to Draft Audit Report
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Audit Report
Summary The State Controller’s Office (SCO) audited the costs claimed by
San Bernardino County (the county) for the legislatively mandated
Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) Program for the period of July 1, 2011,
through June 30, 2022.
The county claimed $9,764,814 for costs of the mandated program. Our
audit found that $8,900,160 is allowable ($8,910,160 less a $10,000
penalty for filing a late claim) and $864,654 is unallowable. The costs are
unallowable because the county overstated salary and benefit costs,
overstated materials and supplies costs, claimed ineligible and
unsupported contract services costs, and overstated related indirect costs.
The State paid the county $4,947,067.
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 (the 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.
On July 26, 2019, the Commission adopted an Order to Set Aside the
Statement of Decision that had been adopted on December 6, 2013, and
the Statement of Decision and parameters and guidelines that had been
adopted on May 30, 2014. The Commission’s Order reinstated the
SVP Program as originally adopted on June 25, 1998.
The Commission’s Order applied only to costs incurred for fiscal year
(FY) 2011-12 through FY 2017-18. For clarity, we designated claims
submitted from FY 2011-12 through FY 2017-18 as pertaining to Program
Number 376, and claims submitted from FY 2018-19 through FY 2021-22
as pertaining to Program Number 175.
-1-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
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
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 and 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. 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 traced productive hourly rate (PHR) calculations for all employee
classifications performing the mandated activities to supporting
information in the county’s payroll system. We determined that the
claimed PHRs were reasonable.
• We traced a sample of the employees’ claimed hours to the SVP Time
Report for the District Attorney’s (DA’s) Office and to the SVP
Billable Hours Report for the Public Defender’s (PD’s) Office. We
found several instances in which salaried employees claimed more
than an eight-hour workday, but the corresponding PHR calculation
did not include the additional hours worked. We also found instances
in which employees claimed time spent on activities that were not
reimbursable under this mandate and were not properly supported (see
Finding 1).
-2-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
• We reviewed and analyzed the claimed materials and supplies costs
for the DA’s Office to verify that the costs were properly supported
and were mandate-related (see Finding 2).
• We traced the claimed contract services costs to supporting invoices
to ensure that the costs were claimed during the fiscal year in which
the services were actually provided, and that they were mandate-
related (see Finding 3).
• We reviewed and analyzed a sample of the travel and training costs
claimed by the PD’s Office to verify that the costs were properly
supported and mandate-related (see Finding 4).
• We reviewed and analyzed housing costs claimed by the San
Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department) to
confirm the daily jail rates that the county used were based on actual
costs, and that the number of jail days for each defendant was
calculated correctly (see Finding 4).
• We verified that the indirect costs claimed for each fiscal year of the
audit period were for common or joint purposes and that indirect cost
rates were properly supported and applied. We calculated the
unallowable related indirect costs based on the audit adjustments made
to salaries and benefits (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 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, the county claimed $9,764,814 for costs of the
legislatively mandated SVP Program. Our audit found that $8,900,160 is
allowable ($8,910,160 less a $10,000 penalty for filing a late claim) and
$864,654 is unallowable. The payment information is as follows:
• For the FY 2011-12 through FY 2017-18 claims, we found that
$4,174,777 is allowable. The State made no payments to the county.
The State will pay $4,174,777, contingent upon available
appropriations.
-3-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
• For the FY 2018-19 through FY 2021-22 claims, we found that
$4,725,383 is allowable. The State paid the county $4,947,067.
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 We have not previously conducted an audit of the county’s legislatively
mandated SVP Program.
Prior Audit
Findings
Views of We issued a draft audit report on October 11, 2024. The county’s
Responsible representative responded by letter dated October 21, 2024, agreeing with the
audit results, except for a portion of Finding 1. This final audit report includes
Officials
the county’s response as an attachment.
Restricted Use This audit report is solely for the information and use of the 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 A. Tarvin, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
November 12, 2024
-4-
San Bernardino 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 376 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 4 92,654 $ 1 94,076 $ (298,578) Finding 1
Materials and supplies 103,326 - (103,326) Finding 2
Contract services 103,256 74,457 (28,799) Finding 3
Travel and training 2,464 81,167 78,703 Finding 4
Total direct costs 701,700 349,700 (352,000)
Indirect costs 262,761 108,653 (154,108) Finding 1
Total program costs $ 9 64,461 458,353 $ (506,108)
Less amount paid by the State3 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 4 58,353
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013
Program Number 376 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 5 14,693 $ 5 03,191 $ (11,502) Finding 1
Materials and supplies 158,062 8,837 (149,225) Finding 2
Contract services 40,132 30,981 ( 9,151) Finding 3
Travel and training 3,890 109,211 105,321 Finding 4
Total direct costs 716,777 652,220 (64,557)
Indirect costs 301,978 295,023 ( 6,955) Finding 1
Total program costs $ 1,018,755 947,243 $ (71,512)
Less amount paid by the State3 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 9 47,243
July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014
Program Number 376 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 5 37,047 $ 5 32,163 $ (4,884) Finding 1
Materials and supplies 90,412 9,083 (81,329) Finding 2
Contract services 53,177 68,899 15,722 Finding 3
Travel and training 3,144 89,444 86,300 Finding 4
Total direct costs 683,780 699,589 15,809
Indirect costs 335,679 332,491 ( 3,188) Finding 1
Total direct and indirect costs 1,019,459 1,032,080 12,621
Less allowable costs that exceed costs claimed4 - (12,621) (12,621)
Total program costs $ 1,019,459 1,019,459 $ -
Less amount paid by the State3 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 1,019,459
-5-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Schedule (continued)
Actual Costs Allowable Audit
Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment Reference1
July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015
Program Number 376 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 147,652 $ 1 47,652 $ - Finding 1
Materials and supplies 3 4,468 - ( 34,468) Finding 2
Contract services 8 2,357 62,524 ( 19,833) Finding 3
Travel and training 2,649 37,625 34,976 Finding 4
Total direct costs 267,126 247,801 ( 19,325)
Indirect costs 8 8,340 88,340 - Finding 1
Total program costs $ 355,466 336,141 $ (19,325)
Less amount paid by the State3 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 3 36,141
July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016
Program Number 376 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 83,319 $ 83,319 $ - Finding 1
Materials and supplies 1 3,514 - ( 13,514) Finding 2
Contract services 3 1,502 25,782 (5,720) Finding 3
Travel and training 3,423 14,231 10,808 Finding 4
Total direct costs 131,758 123,332 (8,426)
Indirect costs 4 6,858 46,858 - Finding 1
Total program costs $ 178,616 170,190 $ ( 8,426)
Less amount paid by the State3 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 1 70,190
July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017
Program Number 376 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 404,940 $ 3 95,609 $ ( 9,331) Finding 1
Materials and supplies 4 5,502 10,906 ( 34,596) Finding 2
Contract services 2 3,528 46,171 22,643 Finding 3
Travel and training 2,572 14,982 12,410 Finding 4
Total direct costs 476,542 467,668 (8,874)
Indirect costs 272,409 265,540 (6,869) Finding 1
Total program costs $ 748,951 733,208 $ (15,743)
Less amount paid by the State3 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 7 33,208
-6-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Schedule (continued)
Actual Costs Allowable Audit
Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustment Reference1
July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018
Program Number 376 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 288,780 $ 2 68,054 $ (20,726) Finding 1
Materials and supplies 2 8,519 - ( 28,519) Finding 2
Contract services 1 3,766 30,802 17,036 Finding 3
Travel and training 1,965 38,198 36,233 Finding 4
Total direct costs 333,030 337,054 4 ,024
Indirect costs 189,009 173,129 ( 15,880) Finding 1
Total program costs $ 522,039 510,183 $ (11,856)
Less amount paid by the State3 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 5 10,183
July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019
Program Number 175 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 500,944 $ 4 88,055 $ (12,889) Finding 1
Materials and supplies 791 - (791) Finding 2
Contract services 8 5,514 60,669 ( 24,845) Finding 3
Travel and training 2,872 3,504 632 Finding 4
Total direct costs 590,121 552,228 ( 37,893)
Indirect costs 330,704 320,658 ( 10,046) Finding 1
Total direct and indirect costs 920,825 872,886 ( 47,939)
Less late filing penalty5 - (10,000) ( 10,000)
Total program costs $ 920,825 862,886 $ (57,939)
Less amount paid by the State3 (910,825)
Allowable costs claimed less than amount paid $ (47,939)
July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020
Program Number 175 Claims2:
Direct costs:
Salaries and benefits $ 886,075 $ 8 68,607 $ (17,468) Finding 1
Materials and supplies 2 4,162 - ( 24,162) Finding 2
Contract services 6 9,529 68,268 (1,261) Finding 3
Travel and training 464 25,364 24,900 Finding 4
Total direct costs 980,230 962,239 ( 17,991)
Indirect costs 556,116 543,946 ( 12,170) Finding 1
Total program costs $ 1 ,536,346 1,506,185 $ (30,161)
Less amount paid by the State3 ( 1,536,346)
Allowable costs claimed less than amount paid $ (30,161)
-7-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Schedule (continued)
-8-
J
P
D
T
I
T
L
A
J
P
D
T
I
T
L
A
C o s t E le m e n ts
u ly 1 , 2 0 2 0 , th r o u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 1
2 r o g r a m N u m b e r 1 7 5 C la im s :
ir e c t c o s ts :
S a la r ie s a n d 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
3 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
u ly 1 , 2 0 2 1 , th r o u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 2
2 r o g r a m N u m b e r 1 7 5 C la im s :
ir e c t c o s ts :
S a la r ie s a n d 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
3 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 le s s th a n a m
a
o
m
u n
o u n t p
t p a id
a id
A c tu a l C o s ts
C la im e d
$ 8 1 5 ,6 4 9
3 3 ,9 4 7
8 4 9 ,5 9 6
4 7 3 ,2 6 1
$ 1 ,3 2 2 ,8 5 7
$ 7 1 1 ,5 2 1
4 0 ,2 4 8
-
7 5 1 ,7 6 9
4 2 5 ,2 7 0
$ 1 ,1 7 7 ,0 3 9
A llo w a b
p e r A u d
$ 7 8 7 ,0
2 2 ,9
8 1 0 ,0
4 5 4 ,9
1 ,2 6 5 ,0
( 1 ,3 2 2 ,8
$ ( 5 7 ,7
$ 6 6 6 ,8
2 6 ,5
6
6 9 4 ,0
3 9 7 ,2
1 ,0 9 1 ,2
( 1 ,1 7 7 ,0
$ ( 8 5 ,7
le
it
7
9
7
8
6
5
9
7
4
2
4
0
5
3
8
8
7
5
7
2
7
5
5
9
5
9
1
0
9
9
)
)
)
)
A u d it
A d ju s tm e n t
$ ( 2 8 ,5 7 1 )
( 1 0 ,9 5 0 )
( 3 9 ,5 2 1 )
( 1 8 ,2 7 4 )
$ ( 5 7 ,7 9 5 )
$ ( 4 4 ,6 4 6 )
( 1 3 ,6 9 9 )
6 2 5
( 5 7 ,7 2 0 )
( 2 8 ,0 6 9 )
$ ( 8 5 ,7 8 9 )
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
e
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
f
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
e r e
in g
in g
in g
in g
in g
in g
in g
n c
1
3
1
1
3
4
1
e 1
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Schedule (continued)
-9-
S
P
D
T
I
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 a n d 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
4 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
5 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
3 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 C
A c tu a l C o s ts
C la im e d
2 la im s :
$ 5 ,3 8 3 ,2 7 4
4 9 8 ,7 5 6
5 7 6 ,9 5 6
2 3 ,4 4 3
6 ,4 8 2 ,4 2 9
3 ,2 8 2 ,3 8 5
9 ,7 6 4 ,8 1 4
-
-
$ 9 ,7 6 4 ,8 1 4
A llo w a b le
p e r A u d it
$ 4 ,9 3 4 ,6 7
2 8 ,8 2
5 1 8 ,0 9
4 1 4 ,3 5
5 ,8 9 5 ,9 5
3 ,0 2 6 ,8 2
8 ,9 2 2 ,7 8
( 1 2 ,6 2
( 1 0 ,0 0
8 ,9 0 0 ,1 6
( 4 ,9 4 7 ,0 6
$ 3 ,9 5 3 ,0 9
9
6
9
1
5
6
1
1
0
0
7
3
)
)
)
A u
A d ju s
$ ( 4 4
( 4 6
( 5
3 9
( 5 8
( 2 5
( 8 4
( 1
( 1
$ ( 8 6
d
tm
8
9
8
0
6
5
2
2
0
4
it
e n t
,5 9 5 )
,9 3 0 )
,8 5 7 )
,9 0 8
,4 7 4 )
,5 5 9 )
,0 3 3 )
,6 2 1 )
,0 0 0 )
,6 5 4 )
R
F
F
F
F
F
e
in
in
in
in
in
f
d
d
d
d
d
e r e
in g
in g
in g
in g
in g
n c
1
2
3
4
1
e 1
_________________________
1 See the Findings and Recommendations section.
2 Claims filed for FY 2011-12 through FY 2017-18 pertain to Program Number 376, the SVP Program as reinstated
by the Commission in its July 26, 2019 Order to Set Aside. Claims filed for FY 2018-19 through FY 2021-22 pertain
to Program Number 175.
3 Payment amount current as of September 16, 2024. All payments were made to Program Number 175 claims.
4 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.
5 The county filed its FY 2018-19 annual reimbursement claim for $448,176, by the due date specified in GC
section 17560, and amended it to $920,825 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).
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Findings and Recommendations
FINDING 1— The county claimed $5,383,274 in salaries and benefits for the audit
period. We found that $4,934,679 is allowable and $448,595 is
Overstated salaries
unallowable. Unallowable related indirect costs total $255,559, for a total
and benefits
finding of $704,154.
To calculate claimed salaries and benefits, the county multiplied each
employee’s total number of hours spent performing the mandated
activities by the average PHR for that employee’s job classification.
During testing, we found that the county had overstated claimed hours and
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 and Benefits
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Related Total Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment Indirect Costs Adjustment
2011-12 $ 492,654 $ 194,076 $ (298,578) $ ( 154,108) $ (452,686)
2012-13 514,693 503,191 (11,502) (6,955) ( 18,457)
2013-14 537,047 532,163 ( 4,884) (3,188) (8,072)
2014-15 147,652 147,652 - - -
2015-16 8 3,319 8 3,319 - - -
2016-17 404,940 395,609 ( 9,331) (6,869) ( 16,200)
2017-18 288,780 268,054 (20,726) (15,880) ( 36,606)
2018-19 500,944 488,055 (12,889) (10,046) ( 22,935)
2019-20 886,075 868,607 (17,468) (12,170) ( 29,638)
2020-21 815,649 787,078 (28,571) (18,274) ( 46,845)
2021-22 711,521 666,875 (44,646) (28,069) ( 72,715)
Total $ 5 ,383,274 $ 4 ,934,679 $ (448,595) $ ( 255,559) $ (704,154)
District Attorney’s Office
The DA’s Office claimed $2,516,428 in salaries and benefits for the audit
period. We found that $2,320,104 is allowable and $196,324 is
unallowable. Unallowable related indirect costs total $127,430, for a total
adjustment of $ 323,754.
-10-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for salaries and benefits by fiscal year:
Salaries and Benefits
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Related Total Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment Indirect Costs Adjustment
2011-12 $ 2 36,192 $ 189,885 $ (46,307) $ (25,979) $ (72,286)
2012-13 404,365 392,863 (11,502) ( 6,955) (18,457)
2013-14 397,871 392,987 (4,884) ( 3,188) (8,072)
2016-17 258,599 249,268 (9,331) ( 6,869) (16,200)
2017-18 149,511 128,785 (20,726) (15,880) (36,606)
2018-19 236,527 223,638 (12,889) (10,046) (22,935)
2019-20 372,551 355,083 (17,468) (12,170) (29,638)
2020-21 220,718 192,147 (28,571) (18,274) (46,845)
2021-22 240,094 195,448 (44,646) (28,069) (72,715)
Total $ 2,516,428 $ 2 ,320,104 $ ( 196,324) $ (127,430) $ ( 323,754)
Overstated Hours
During our review of the DA’s Office SVP Time Reports, we found that
the DA’s Office had overstated hours worked by a total of 1,626.75 hours.
The hours were overstated for the following reasons:
• For FY 2011-12, the county did not initially provide any
documentation to support the hours worked, as such documentation
had been destroyed pursuant to the county’s record retention policy.
After the exit conference, the county located and provided to us
employee time records for its FY 2011-12 claim. We reviewed these
records and found that three employees claimed time, totaling
85.25 hours, in excess of eight hours per day. As county attorneys are
salaried employees and their calculated PHRs do not include overtime
hours, we limited the allowable time to eight hours per day. We also
found that four employees claimed a total of 340.75 hours for probable
cause hearings. None of the costs related to probable cause hearings
are reimbursable under Program Number 376.
• For FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14, and FY 2016-17 through FY 2021-22,
we found that several employees claimed time in excess of eight hours
per day.
• For FY 2017-18, we found that one attorney claimed 145.25 hours
spent on an SVP client during a probable cause hearing.
• We found that three attorneys (one in FY 2020-21 and two in
FY 2021-22) claimed a total of 517 hours (212.75 hours for
FY 2020-21 and 304.25 hours for FY 2021-22) spent on an
unallowable SVP case. The case was related to a sexually violent
predator who had not committed any crimes in the county. All of the
attorneys’ time spent on this case was to prevent that sexually violent
predator from being placed within the county. Per the program’s
parameters and guidelines, this is not a reimbursable activity for the
SVP Program.
• For FY 2020-21, we found that one attorney submitted an SVP Time
Report with 8.25 hours of time for which the attorney did not provide
a code identifying the specific reimbursable activity performed.
-11-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and overstated
hours by fiscal year:
Fiscal Claimed Allowable Overstated
Year Hours Hours Hours
2011-12 2,746.50 2 ,320.50 (426.00)
2012-13 4,637.30 4 ,510.55 (126.75)
2013-14 4,541.50 4 ,488.50 ( 53.00)
2016-17 2,261.00 2 ,182.25 ( 78.75)
2017-18 1,488.00 1 ,317.75 (170.25)
2018-19 2,025.25 1 ,922.00 (103.25)
2019-20 3,052.75 2 ,914.75 (138.00)
2020-21 1,798.25 1 ,573.25 (225.00)
2021-22 1,644.25 1 ,338.50 (305.75)
24,194.80 22,568.05 (1,626.75)
Public Defender’s Office
The PD’s Office claimed $2,866,846 in salaries and benefits for the audit
period. We found that $2,614,575 is allowable and $252,271 is
unallowable. Unallowable related indirect costs total $128,129, for a total
adjustment of $380,400.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for salaries and benefits by fiscal year:
Salaries and Benefits
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit Related Total Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment Indirect Costs Adjustment
2011-12 $ 2 56,462 $ 4,191 $ ( 252,271) $ (128,129) $ ( 380,400)
2012-13 110,328 110,328 - - -
2013-14 139,177 139,177 - - -
2014-15 147,651 147,651 - - -
2015-16 83,319 83,319 - - -
2016-17 146,341 146,341 - - -
2017-18 139,269 139,269 - - -
2018-19 264,417 264,417 - - -
2019-20 513,524 513,524 - - -
2020-21 594,931 594,931 - - -
2021-22 471,427 471,427 - - -
Total $ 2,866,846 $ 2,614,575 $ ( 252,271) $ (128,129) $ ( 380,400)
Overstated Hours
During our review of the PD’s Office SVP Billable Hours Report, we
found that the PD’s Office had overstated hours worked by a total of
2,462 hours. The hours were overstated because the PD’s Office did not
provide documentation to support the hours worked for FY 2011-12,
except for one employee (Office Assistant III classification). Based on the
SVP Billable Hours Report for this employee, the PD’s Office
inadvertently claimed time spent on activities related to a probable cause
hearing. None of the costs related to probable cause hearings are
reimbursable under Program Number 376.
-12-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and overstated
hours by fiscal year:
-13-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
F
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
is c a l
e a r
1 1 - 1 2
1 2 - 1 3
1 3 - 1 4
1 4 - 1 5
1 5 - 1 6
1 6 - 1 7
1 7 - 1 8
1 8 - 1 9
1 9 - 2 0
2 0 - 2 1
2 1 - 2 2
o ta l
C la im
H o u
2 ,5 8
1 ,0 4
1 ,2 9
1 ,3 5
7 2
1 ,2 7
1 ,1 6
2 ,1 5
3 ,9 4
4 ,5 2
3 ,2 0
2 3 ,2 8
e d
r s
6 .0
5 .0
3 .0
9 .2
8 .5
4 .7
9 .2
0 .5
5 .0
7 .7
2 .5
1 .5
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
0
A llo w a b
H o u r s
1 2 4 .0
1 ,0 4 5 .0
1 ,2 9 3 .0
1 ,3 5 9 .2
7 2 8 .5
1 ,2 7 4 .7
1 ,1 6 9 .2
2 ,1 5 0 .5
3 ,9 4 5 .0
4 ,5 2 7 .7
3 ,2 0 2 .5
2 0 ,8 1 9 .5
le
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
0
O v e r s ta te
H o u r s
( 2 ,4 6 2 .0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
( 2 ,4 6 2 .0
d
0
0
)
)
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. . . .
Section V.A.1, “Salaries and Benefits,” of the parameters and guidelines
states:
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 state:
. . . 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%. . . .
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.
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
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
The county agreed with the finding and recommendation except for the
portion of the finding related to attorneys in the DA’s Office claiming
517 hours on an SVP case that we determined to be unallowable:
Staff members spent 517 hours on a non-allowable SVP case in
FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22. Those hours were spent opposing the
release of an SVP into San Bernardino County. It was explained to us
during the Exit Interview that these hours are not allowed because the
SVP did not commit his crimes in San Bernardino County. The release
of SVPs into San Bernardino County strikes at the heart of the District
Attorney’s responsibility to safeguard the public’s welfare and is directly
related to mandated work. We feel this activity should be allowed.
SCO Comment
Our finding and recommendation remain unchanged.
Although we understand the DA’s commitment to safeguarding the public
welfare, our finding is not based on the fact that the sexually violent
predator did not commit any crimes within the county.
The following activities are approved for reimbursement, per Section I.,
“Summary and Source of the Mandate,” of the parameters and guidelines:
• Designation by the County Board of Supervisors of the appropriate
District Attorney or County Counsel who will be responsible for the
sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, §6601, subdivision [i].)
• Initial review of reports and records by the county’s designated
counsel to determine if the county concurs with the state’s
recommendation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §6601, subdivision [i].)
• Preparation and filing of the petition for commitment by the county’s
designated counsel. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §6601, subdivision [j].)
• Preparation and attendance by the county’s designated counsel and
indigent defense counsel at the probable cause hearing. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, §6602.)
• Preparation and attendance by the county’s designated counsel and
indigent defense counsel at trial. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §6603 and
6604.)
• Preparation and attendance by the county’s designated counsel and
indigent defense counsel at subsequent hearings regarding the
condition of the sexually violent predator. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, §6605, subds. [b] through [d], and 6608, subds. [a]
through [d].)
-14-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
• Retention of necessary experts, investigators, and professionals for
preparation for trial and subsequent hearings regarding the condition
of the sexually violent predator. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §6603, and
6605, subd. [d].)
• Transportation and housing 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. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, §6602.)
During the audit, we identified a press release on the “News Releases”
section of the DA’s Office website. “Orange County Superior Court
Rejects Placing Sexually Violent Predator in San Bernardino County”
(November 23, 2021) states, in part:
A determination has been made by Orange County Superior Court in the
matter of [a sexually violent predator] and Liberty Healthcare’s second
attempt at placing [the sexually violent predator]in San Bernardino
County, without [having committed any] crimes within the county, and
without any nexus to San Bernardino County. . . .
On November 22, 2021, after considering information from the public
comment hearings, pursuant to Welfare and Institution Code
[section] 6609.1(a)(5), and the various statutes relating to SVP
conditional release, Orange County Superior Court rejected Liberty
Healthcare’s attempt to place [the sexually violent predator] in Newberry
Springs. Furthermore, the Court approved a proposed placement for [the
sexually violent predator] in Los Angeles County. . . .
It should be noted that Welfare and Institutions Code section 6609.1(a)(5)
is not cited in the parameters and guidelines for any of the reimbursable
activities, nor do the parameters and guidelines describe any reimbursable
activities related to “public comment” hearings.
We found that the hours claimed by the three attorneys on this case were
for the sole purpose of preventing the sexually violent predator from being
housed within the county. We determined that none of the activities
performed by staff members in the DA’s Office for this case were related
to any of the reimbursable activities listed in the parameters and
guidelines; the reimbursable activities include civil commitment
proceedings, probable cause hearings, hearings related to the condition of
the sexually violent predator, and transportation and housing at a secure
facility while awaiting trial.
FINDING 2— The county claimed a total of $498,756 in materials and supplies costs for
the audit period. We found that $28,826 is allowable and $469,930 is
Overstated materials
unallowable.
and supplies costs
-15-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for materials and supplies by fiscal year:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2011-12 $ 103,326 $ - $ (103,326)
2012-13 158,062 8,837 (149,225)
2013-14 90,412 9,083 (81,329)
2014-15 34,468 - (34,468)
2015-16 13,514 - (13,514)
2016-17 45,502 10,906 (34,596)
2017-18 28,519 - (28,519)
2018-19 791 - (791)
2019-20 24,162 - (24,162)
Total $ 498,756 $ 2 8,826 $ (469,930)
Sheriff’s Department
The Sheriff’s Department inadvertently overstated its materials and
supplies costs by $318,456. The overstatement occurred because the
Sheriff’s Department misclassified its costs for housing SVP defendants
at the County Detention Center as materials and supplies costs; they should
have been classified as travel and training costs. Therefore, we reclassified
the $318,456 as travel and training costs (see Finding 4).
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for materials and supplies applicable to the Sheriff’s
Department by fiscal year:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2011-12 $ 54,416 $ - $ (54,416)
2012-13 109,593 - (109,593)
2013-14 43,802 - (43,802)
2014-15 34,468 - (34,468)
2015-16 13,514 - (13,514)
2016-17 9 ,191 - ( 9,191)
2017-18 28,519 - (28,519)
2018-19 791 - (791)
2019-20 24,162 - (24,162)
Total $ 318,456 $ - $ (318,456)
District Attorney’s Office
The DA’s Office claimed a total of $180,300 in materials and supplies
costs for the audit period. We found that $28,826 is allowable and
$151,474 is unallowable. The costs are unallowable for the following
reasons:
• No documentation was provided to support the $48,910 claimed for
FY 2011-12, as such documentation had been destroyed pursuant to
the county’s record retention policy.
-16-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
• Inadequate supporting documentation was provided for FY 2012-13,
FY 2013-14, and FY 2016-17 claimed costs, totaling $11,996 ($6,680
for FY 2012-13, $2,617 for FY 2013-14, and $2,699 for FY 2016-17).
• Materials and supplies costs (i.e., office rent, State Bar membership
dues, business cards, calendars, various office supplies, shredding
services, etc.) claimed for FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14, and FY 2016-17,
totaling $82,671 ($32,952 for FY 2012-13, $32,129 for FY 2013-14,
and $17,590 for FY 2016-17) were not mandate-related.
• A total of $7,897 ($2,781 for FY 2013-14 and $5,116 for FY 2016-17)
in allowable travel and training costs was inadvertently claimed as
materials and supplies costs. The costs (for mileage, per diem, lodging,
airfare, training, etc.) were mandate-related; therefore, we reclassified
these costs as travel and training costs (see Finding 4).
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for materials and supplies applicable to the DA’s Office by
fiscal year:
-17-
2
2
2
2
F
Y
0
0
0
0
T
is c a l
e a r
1 1 - 1 2
1 2 - 1 3
1 3 - 1 4
1 6 - 1 7
o ta l
A m o
C la im
$ 4 8
4 8
4 6
3 6
$ 1 8 0
u n t
e d
,9 1 0
,4 6 9
,6 1 0
,3 1 1
,3 0 0
A m o u n t
A llo w a b le
$ -
8 ,8 3 7
9 ,0 8 3
1 0 ,9 0 6
$ 2 8 ,8 2 6
A u
A d ju s
$ ( 4
( 3
( 3
( 2
$ ( 1 5
d it
tm e n t
8 ,9 1 0 )
9 ,6 3 2 )
7 ,5 2 7 )
5 ,4 0 5 )
1 ,4 7 4 )
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. . . .
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. . . .
Sections IV.B.1b, IV.B.3b, IV.B.4b, IV.B.5b., and IV.B.6a of the
parameters and guidelines state that “copying and making long distance
telephone calls” is an activity that must be “specifically identified to a
defendant.”
Section V.A.2, “Materials and Supplies,” of the parameters and guidelines
states:
Only expenditures that can be identified as a direct cost of this mandate
may be claimed. List the cost of the materials and supplies consumed
specifically for the purposes of this mandate. . . .
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
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
The audit concluded the District Attorney overstated costs for materials
and supplies in resulting in $151,474 being disallowed. We will adopt
the recommendations to ensure only eligible costs are claimed, that
claims be based upon actual costs, and improved documentation.
• In FY 2011-2012, $48,910 was disallowed due to a lack of source
documentation. The documentation was destroyed pursuant to our
retention policy. Consistent with the parameters and guidelines, we
will retain records supporting claims until resolution and audit
completion.
• In FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14, and FY 2016-17, $11,996 was
disallowed for failure to provide adequate documentation. We
acknowledge all claims for reimbursement must be supported by
documentation and will do so in the future.
• In FY 2012-13, 2013-14, and FY 2016-17, $82,671 was disallowed
as not allowable costs, including office rent, general office expenses,
inadvertently charged to SVP program, shredding and recycling,
business cards and wall calendars, and small office furniture. We
acknowledge and understand that these costs are not allowable
because they do not represent “increased” costs.
• $7,897 of allowable travel and training expenses were inadvertently
claimed as materials and supplies in FY 2013-14 and FY 2016-17.
The auditors disallowed these costs under this category but allowed
them as Travel and Training Expenses under Finding 4 below. We
thank the auditors for this correction and will endeavor to classify
costs accurately in the future.
FINDING 3— The county claimed total contract services costs of $576,956 for the audit
period. We found that $518,099 is allowable and $58,857 is unallowable.
Overstated contract
services costs
-18-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
The table on the next page summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for contract services by fiscal year.
-19-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
F
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
is c a l
e a r
1 1 - 1 2
1 2 - 1 3
1 3 - 1 4
1 4 - 1 5
1 5 - 1 6
1 6 - 1 7
1 7 - 1 8
1 8 - 1 9
1 9 - 2 0
2 0 - 2 1
2 1 - 2 2
o ta l
A m o
C la im
$ 1 0 3
4 0
5 3
8 2
3 1
2 3
1 3
8 5
6 9
3 3
4 0
$ 5 7 6
u n t
e d
,2 5 6
,1 3 2
,1 7 7
,3 5 7
,5 0 2
,5 2 8
,7 6 6
,5 1 4
,5 2 9
,9 4 7
,2 4 8
,9 5 6
A m o u n
A llo w a b
$ 7 4 ,4
3 0 ,9
6 8 ,8
6 2 ,5
2 5 ,7
4 6 ,1
3 0 ,8
6 0 ,6
6 8 ,2
2 2 ,9
2 6 ,5
$ 5 1 8 ,0
t
le
5 7
8 1
9 9
2 4
8 2
7 1
0 2
6 9
6 8
9 7
4 9
9 9
A u d it
A d ju s tm e n t
$ ( 2 8 ,7 9 9 )
( 9 ,1 5 1 )
1 5 ,7 2 2
( 1 9 ,8 3 3 )
( 5 ,7 2 0 )
2 2 ,6 4 3
1 7 ,0 3 6
( 2 4 ,8 4 5 )
( 1 ,2 6 1 )
( 1 0 ,9 5 0 )
( 1 3 ,6 9 9 )
$ ( 5 8 ,8 5 7 )
District Attorney’s Office
The DA’s Office claimed $97,541 in contract services costs for the audit
period. We found that $94,270 is allowable and $3,271 is unallowable.
The costs are unallowable for the following reasons:
• For FY 2011-12, FY 2013-14, FY 2018-19 through FY 2019-20, and
FY 2021-22, it appears that the county claimed costs for the DA’s
Office during the fiscal year that it paid for contract services, rather
than the fiscal year in which the services were actually performed. We
reallocated those costs to the fiscal years in which the services were
actually performed, as required by the parameters and guidelines.
• For FY 2011-12, the county claimed $2,650 for services that had been
performed during FY 2010-11 (before the audit period).
• For FY 2013-14, the county claimed $528 for services that had been
performed during FY 2009-10 (before the audit period).
• For FY 2021-22, the county inadvertently included a late payment
amount of $1,024 on its invoice rather than the original invoice
amount of $931.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for contract services costs by fiscal year:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2011-12 $ 3,010 $ 360 $ (2,650)
2012-13 3,290 3,290 -
2013-14 8,752 8,224 (528)
2016-17 1,705 30,345 28,640
2017-18 21 5,062 5,041
2018-19 50,981 24,500 (26,481)
2019-20 7,652 4 52 (7,200)
2020-21 3,104 4,899 1,795
2021-22 19,026 17,138 (1,888)
Total $ 9 7,541 $ 9 4,270 $ (3,271)
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
Public Defender’s Office
The county claimed $479,415 in contract services costs for the PD’s Office
for the audit period. We found that $423,829 is allowable and $55,586 is
unallowable. The costs are unallowable for the following reasons:
• For each fiscal year of the audit period, it appears that the county
claimed costs for the PD’s Office during the fiscal year that it paid for
contract services, rather than the fiscal year in which the services were
actually performed. We reallocated those costs to the fiscal years in
which the services were actually performed, as required by the
parameters and guidelines.
• For FY 2011-12, the county claimed $40,670 for services that had
been performed during FY 2010-11 (before the audit period). In
addition, the county understated its total claimed costs by $44.
• For FY 2012-13, the county claimed $13,865 for services that had
been performed during FY 2009-10 and/or FY 2010-11 (before the
audit period). In addition, the county overstated its total claimed costs
by $24.
• For FY 2013-14, the county overstated the amount of a psychologist
invoice by $25.
• For FY 2020-21, the county inadvertently claimed $421 in travel costs
as contract services costs. The attorney’s travel costs (i.e., client visits,
meals, lodging) were mandate-related, and incurred during
FY 2019-20. Therefore, we deducted $421 from claimed contract
services costs and reclassified it as travel and training costs for
FY 2019-20 (see Finding 4).
• For FY 2021-22, the county inadvertently misclassified a total of $625
in travel and training costs as contract services costs. The attorney’s
travel costs were mandate-related, and consisted of $215 for mileage
reimbursement and $410 for attending a training conference
Therefore, we deducted $625 from claimed contract services costs,
and reclassified it as travel and training costs for FY 2021-22 (see
Finding 4).
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment for contract services costs by fiscal year:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2011-12 $ 100,246 $ 74,097 $ (26,149)
2012-13 36,842 27,691 (9,151)
2013-14 44,425 60,675 16,250
2014-15 82,357 62,524 ( 19,833)
2015-16 31,502 25,782 (5,720)
2016-17 21,823 15,826 (5,997)
2017-18 13,745 25,740 11,995
2018-19 34,533 36,169 1 ,636
2019-20 61,877 67,816 5 ,939
2020-21 30,843 18,098 ( 12,745)
2021-22 21,222 9 ,411 ( 11,811)
Total $ 479,415 $ 423,829 $ (55,586)
-20-
San Bernardino 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. . . .
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
The audit concluded the District Attorney overstated costs for contract
services. Specifically, $3,271 of $97,541 in claims was disallowed.
• Contract services must be claimed in the fiscal year the services were
performed. In multiple fiscal years covering the audit period, the
District Attorney claimed costs for contract services when payment
was issued. It was determined in two instances that services were
performed outside the audit period. Those two claims, totaling
$3,271, were disallowed. We understand this rule and acknowledge
the error.
• In FY 2021-22, we claimed $93 for a late payment penalty. We
understand this is not allowable and will not claim these costs in the
future.
FINDING 4— The county claimed $23,443 in travel and training costs for the audit
period. We found that the PD’s Office overstated its claims by $16,755;
Understated travel
and the Sheriff’s Department and the DA’s Office understated their claims
and training costs
by a total of $407,663. As a result, $414,351 in travel and training costs is
allowable.
-21-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
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 $ 2,464 $ 81,167 $ 78,703
2012-13 3,890 109,211 105,321
2013-14 3,144 89,444 86,300
2014-15 2,649 37,625 34,976
2015-16 3,423 14,231 10,808
2016-17 2,572 14,982 12,410
2017-18 1,965 38,198 36,233
2018-19 2,872 3,504 632
2019-20 464 25,364 24,900
2021-22 - 625 625
Total $ 23,443 $ 4 14,351 $ 390,908
District Attorney’s Office
The DA’s Office did not claim travel and training costs for the audit
period. However, as discussed in Finding 2, we found that $7,897 of the
county’s claimed materials and supplies costs was actually travel and
training costs. As a result of misclassifying these costs, the DA’s Office
understated its travel and training costs by $7,897. Therefore, we
reclassified $7,897 of the county’s claimed materials and supplies costs as
travel and training costs.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment amounts for the DA’s Office by fiscal year:
-22-
2
2
F
Y
0
0
T
is c a l
e a r
1 3 - 1 4
1 6 - 1 7
o t a l
A m o u n t
C la im e d
$ -
-
$ -
A
A m
llo w
$ 2
5
$ 7
o u
a
,7
,1
,8
n
b
8
1
9
t
le
1
6
7
A
$
$
A u d
d ju s t m
2
5
7
it
e
,7 8
,1 1
,8 9
n
1
6
7
t
Public Defender’s Office
The PD’s Office claimed $23,443 in travel and training costs for the audit
period. We found that $6,688 is allowable and $16,755 is unallowable.
The costs are unallowable because the PD’s Office did not provide
documentation to support its claimed costs. We also found that three
transactions (one in FY 2020-21 and two in FY 2021-22) were
inadvertently claimed under contract services costs; see Finding 3 for
details.
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment amounts for the PD’s Office by fiscal year:
-23-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
F
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
is c a l
e a r
1 1 - 1 2
1 2 - 1 3
1 3 - 1 4
1 4 - 1 5
1 5 - 1 6
1 6 - 1 7
1 7 - 1 8
1 8 - 1 9
1 9 - 2 0
2 1 - 2 2
o ta l
A m o u n t
C la im e d
$ 2 ,4 6 4
3 ,8 9 0
3 ,1 4 4
2 ,6 4 9
3 ,4 2 3
2 ,5 7 2
1 ,9 6 5
2 ,8 7 2
4 6 4
-
$ 2 3 ,4 4 3
A
A m o u n t
llo w a b le
$ -
3 7
-
7 0
9 1 3
8 7 7
4 0 9
2 ,8 7 2
8 8 5
6 2 5
$ 6 ,6 8 8
A u d it
A d ju s tm e n t
$ ( 2 ,4 6 4 )
( 3 ,8 5 3 )
( 3 ,1 4 4 )
( 2 ,5 7 9 )
( 2 ,5 1 0 )
( 1 ,6 9 5 )
( 1 ,5 5 6 )
-
4 2 1
6 2 5
$ ( 1 6 ,7 5 5 )
Sheriff’s Department
The Sheriff’s Department did not claim travel and training costs for the
audit period. However, as discussed in Finding 2, we found that $318,456
of the county’s claimed materials and supplies costs was related to travel
and training costs.
As a result of misclassifying these costs, the Sheriff’s Department
understated its travel and training costs by $399,766. The costs were
understated because the Sheriff’s Department miscalculated the total
number of jail days for some of its SVP defendants; used an incorrect
average daily jail rate for FY 2011-12; and miscalculated its average daily
jail rate for FY 2017-18 and FY 2019-20.
To calculate the housing costs for the SVP defendants housed as inmates
in the county jail, the county multiplied the number of jail days for each
SVP defendant by the average daily jail rate. However, we noted the
following issues:
• For FY 2011-12 through FY 2018-19, the county’s Sheriff’s
Department incorrectly calculated the total number of jail days for
each SVP defendant by including the “Date Released” as a jail day.
• For FY 2011-12, the county’s Sheriff’s Department used the
FY 2011-12 daily jail rate of $54.58 that was approved by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation instead of
using an average daily jail rate based on actual costs.
• For FY 2017-18, the Sheriff’s Department indicated that it submitted
two calculations for its average daily jail rate. One calculation
included indirect costs; the other calculation excluded indirect costs.
The Sheriff’s Department incorrectly applied the daily jail rate that
excluded indirect costs to its mandated cost claim.
• For FY 2019-20, the Sheriff’s Department calculated its daily jail rate
to include indirect costs. However, the Department applied an
incorrect indirect cost rate of 53.12% (which was based on actual costs
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
from FY 2018-19) to direct salaries and benefits, rather than 53.60%
(which was based on actual costs from FY 2019-20).
Therefore, we recalculated the county’s housing costs for FY 2011-12
through FY 2019-20 by multiplying the correct number of jail days for
each defendant by an average daily jail rate based on actual costs for each
fiscal year of the audit period.
The following table summarizes, by fiscal year, the claimed and allowable
number of jail days, and audit adjustment amounts:
-24-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
F
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
is c a l
e a r
1 1 - 1 2
1 2 - 1 3
1 3 - 1 4
1 4 - 1 5
1 5 - 1 6
1 6 - 1 7
1 7 - 1 8
1 8 - 1 9
1 9 - 2 0
o ta l
N u m b e r o
J a il
D a y s
C la im e d
9 9 7
1 ,5 7 1
6 0 5
4 0 2
1 3 8
9 1
2 5 9
5
1 3 6
4 ,2 0 4
f N u m b e r o f
J a il
D a y s
A llo w a b le
1 ,1 7 7
1 ,5 6 5
1 ,1 9 7
4 3 8
1 3 6
8 9
2 5 7
4
1 3 6
4 ,9 9 9
A u d it
A d ju s tm e
1 8
(
5 9
3
(
(
(
(
7 9
n
0
6
2
6
2
2
2
1
-
5
t
)
)
)
)
)
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment amounts for the average daily jail rate by fiscal year:
Daily Jail Daily Jail
Fiscal Rate Rate Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2011-12 $ 54.58 $ 6 8.96 $ 1 4.38
2012-13 69.76 69.76 -
2013-14 72.40 72.40 -
2014-15 85.74 85.74 -
2015-16 97.93 97.93 -
2016-17 101.00 1 01.00 -
2017-18 110.11 1 47.04 36.93
2018-19 158.09 1 58.09 -
2019-20 177.66 1 79.99 2.33
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment amounts for the Sheriff’s Department by fiscal year:
Fiscal Amount Amount Audit
Year Claimed Allowable Adjustment
2011-12 $ - $ 81,167 $ 81,167
2012-13 - 109,174 109,174
2013-14 - 8 6,663 86,663
2014-15 - 3 7,555 37,555
2015-16 - 1 3,318 13,318
2016-17 - 8,989 8 ,989
2017-18 - 3 7,789 37,789
2018-19 - 632 632
2019-20 - 2 4,479 24,479
Total $ - $ 399,766 $ 399,766
Criteria
Section IV, “Reimbursable Activities,” of the parameters and guidelines
state:
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 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.
-25-
San Bernardino County Sexually Violent Predators Program
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
The audit concluded the District Attorney misclassified allowable travel
and training expenses as materials and supplies costs.
The District Attorney inadvertently classified $7,897 in travel and
training costs as materials and supplies costs over two fiscal years. (See
Finding 2.) These costs were allowed in full under Training and Travel
Expenses. We thank the auditors for correcting this mistake and we will
endeavor to avoid such mistakes in the future.
-26-
San Bernardino 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-0006