San Mateo County

SAN MATEO COUNTY Audit Report SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS PROGRAM Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995, and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996 July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002 STEVE WESTLY California State Controller February 2004 STEVE WESTLY California State Controller February 18, 2004 The Honorable Tom Huening Controller San Mateo County 555 County Center, Fourth Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Mr. Huening: The State Controller’s Office (SCO) has completed an audit of the claims filed by San Mateo County for costs of the legislatively mandated Sexually Violent Predators Program (Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995, and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996) for the period of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002. The county claimed $526,156 for the mandated program. Our audit disclosed that $499,015 is allowable and $27,141 is unallowable. The unallowable costs occurred because the county claimed ineligible costs. The county was paid $471,996. Allowable costs claimed in excess of the amount paid, totaling $27,019, will be paid by the State based on available appropriations. The SCO has established an informal audit review process to resolve a dispute of facts. The auditee should submit, in writing, a request for a review and all information pertinent to the disputed issues within 60 days after receiving the final report. The request and supporting documentation should be submitted to: Richard J. Chivaro, Chief Counsel, State Controller’s Office, Post Office Box 942850, Sacramento, CA 94250-0001. If you have any questions, please contact Jim L. Spano, Chief, Compliance Audits Bureau, at (916) 323-5849. Sincerely, Original Signed By: VINCENT P. BROWN Chief Operating Officer VPB:jj cc: Robert G. Adler, CPA Assistant Controller San Mateo County James Tilton, Program Budget Manager Corrections and General Government Department of Finance San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program Contents Audit Report Summary............................................................................................................................ 1 Background........................................................................................................................ 1 Objective, Scope, and Methodology................................................................................. 1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 2 Views of Responsible Officials.......................................................................................... 2 Restricted Use.................................................................................................................... 3 Schedule 1—Summary of Program Costs........................................................................... 4 Finding and Recommendation.............................................................................................. 7 Steve Westly • California State Controller San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program Audit Report Summary The State Controller’s Office (SCO) has completed an audit of the claims filed by San Mateo County for costs of the legislatively mandated Sexually Violent Predators Program (Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995, and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996) for the period of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002. The last day of fieldwork was August 28, 2003. The county claimed $526,156 for the mandated program. The audit disclosed that $499,015 is allowable and $27,141 is unallowable. The unallowable costs occurred because the county claimed ineligible costs. The county was paid $471,996. Allowable costs claimed in excess of the amount paid, totaling $27,019, will be paid by the State based on available appropriations. Background 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 their completion of a prison term 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 if the inmate is a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt. If the inmate accused of being a sexually violent predator is indigent, the statutes require counties to provide the indigent with the assistance of counsel, and experts necessary to prepare the defense. On June 25, 1998, the Commission on State Mandates determined that Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995, and Chapter 4, Statutes of 1996, resulted in state mandated costs that are reimbursable pursuant to Government Code Section 17561. Parameters and Guidelines, adopted by the Commission on State Mandates, establishes state mandates and defines criteria for reimbursement. In compliance with Government Code Section 17558, the SCO issues claiming instructions for each mandate requiring state reimbursement to assist local agencies in claiming reimbursable costs. Objective, The audit objective was to determine whether costs claimed are increased Scope, and costs incurred as a result of the legislatively mandated Sexually Violent Predators Program (Chapters 762 and 763, Statutes of 1995, and Chapter Methodology 4, Statutes of 1996) for the period of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002. The auditor performed the following procedures: • Reviewed the costs claimed to determine if they were increased costs resulting from the mandated program; • Traced the costs claimed to the supporting documentation to determine whether the costs were properly supported; Steve Westly • California State Controller 1 San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program • Confirmed that the costs claimed were not funded by another source; and • Reviewed the costs claimed to determine that the costs were not unreasonable and/or excessive. The SCO conducted the audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The SCO did not audit the county’s financial statements. The scope was limited to planning and performing audit procedures necessary to obtain reasonable assurance concerning the allowability of expenditures claimed for reimbursement. Accordingly, transactions were examined, on a test basis, to determine whether the amounts claimed for reimbursement were supported. Review of the county’s management controls was limited to gaining an understanding of the transaction flow and claim preparation process as necessary to develop appropriate auditing procedures. Conclusion The audit disclosed an instance of noncompliance with the requirements outlined above. This instance is shown in the accompanying Summary of Program Costs (Schedule 1) and described in the Finding and Recommendation section of this report. For the audit period, San Mateo County claimed $526,156 for costs of the legislatively mandated Sexually Violent Predators Program. The audit disclosed that $499,015 is allowable and $27,141 is unallowable. For fiscal year (FY) 1999-2000, the county was paid $116,199 by the State. The audit disclosed that the entire amount is allowable. For FY 2000-01, the county was paid $246,202 by the State. The audit disclosed that the entire amount is allowable. For FY 2001-02, the county was paid $109,595 by the State. The audit disclosed that $136,614 is allowable. Allowable costs claimed in excess of the amount paid, totaling $27,019, will be paid by the State based on available appropriations. Views of The SCO issued a draft report on December 31, 2003. Robert Adler, Responsible County Assistant Controller, through a telephone conversation on January 28, 2004, stated that the county did not object to the SCO’s draft Officials audit report or audit finding. Steve Westly • California State Controller 2 San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program Restricted Use This report is solely for the information and use of San Mateo 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 report, which is a matter of public record. Original Signed By: JEFFREY V. BROWNFIELD Chief, Division of Audits Steve Westly • California State Controller 3 San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule 1— Summary of Program Costs July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002 Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustments 1 July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000 District Attorney: Salaries $ 18,155 $ 18,155 $ — Benefits 5,188 5,188 — Services and supplies — — — Training and travel 353 353 — Total District Attorney 23,696 23,696 — Public Defender: Salaries — — — Benefits — — — Services and supplies — — — Training and travel — — — Total Public Defender — — — Sheriff: Salaries 5,072 5,072 — Benefits 1,719 1,719 — Services and supplies 78,261 78,261 — Training and travel — — — Total Sheriff 85,052 85,052 — Total direct costs 108,748 108,748 — Indirect costs 7,451 7,451 — Total costs 116,199 116,199 — Less offsetting savings/reimbursements — — — Total reimbursable costs $ 116,199 116,199 $ — Less amount paid by the State (116,199) Allowable costs claimed in excess of (less than) amount paid $ — July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001 District Attorney: Salaries $ 22,627 $ 22,627 $ — Benefits 6,214 6,214 — Services and supplies — — — Training and travel — — — Total District Attorney 28,841 28,841 — Public Defender: Salaries — — — Benefits — — — Services and supplies 157,996 157,996 — Training and travel — — — Total Public Defender 157,996 157,996 — Steve Westly • California State Controller 4 San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule 1 (continued) Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustments 1 July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001 (continued) Sheriff: Salaries 6,176 6,176 — Benefits 2,606 2,606 — Services and supplies 43,760 43,760 — Training and travel — — — Total Sheriff 52,542 52,542 — Total direct costs 239,379 239,379 — Indirect costs 6,823 6,823 — Total costs 246,202 246,202 — Less offsetting savings/reimbursements — — — Total reimbursable costs $ 246,202 246,202 $ — Less amount paid by the State (246,202) Allowable costs claimed in excess of (less than) amount paid $ — July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002 District Attorney: Salaries $ 17,600 $ 10,901 $ (6,699) Benefits 4,350 2,691 (1,659) Services and supplies — — — Training and travel — — — Total District Attorney 21,950 13,592 (8,358) Public Defender: Salaries — — — Benefits — — — Services and supplies 84,750 84,750 — Training and travel — — — Total Public Defender 84,750 84,750 — Sheriff: Salaries 8,998 8,098 (900) Benefits 3,724 3,352 (372) Services and supplies 37,888 22,131 (15,757) Training and travel — — — Total Sheriff 50,610 33,581 (17,029) Total direct costs 157,310 131,923 (25,387) Indirect costs 6,445 4,691 (1,754) Total costs 163,755 136,614 (27,141) Less offsetting savings/reimbursements — — — Total reimbursable costs $ 163,755 136,614 $ (27,141) LessamountpaidbytheState (109595) Allowable costs claimed in excess of (less than) amount paid $ 27,019 Steve Westly • California State Controller 5 San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program Schedule 1 (continued) Actual Costs Allowable Audit Cost Elements Claimed per Audit Adjustments 1 Summary: July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002 District Attorney: Salaries $ 58,382 $ 51,683 $ (6,699) Benefits 15,752 14,093 (1,659) Services and supplies — — — Training and travel 353 353 — Total District Attorney 74,487 66,129 (8,358) Public Defender: Salaries — — — Benefits — — — Services and supplies 242,746 242,746 — Training and travel — — — Total Public Defender 242,746 242,746 — Sheriff: Salaries 20,246 19,346 (900) Benefits 8,049 7,677 (372) Services and supplies 159,909 144,152 (15,757) Training and travel — — — Total Sheriff 188,204 171,175 (17,029) Total direct costs 505,437 480,050 (25,387) Indirect costs 20,719 18,965 (1,754) Total costs 526,156 499,015 (27,141) Less offsetting savings/reimbursements — — — Total reimbursable costs $ 526,156 499,015 $ (27,141) LessamountpaidbytheState (471996) Allowable costs claimed in excess of (less than) amount paid $ 27,019 ____________________________ 1 See Finding and Recommendation section. Steve Westly • California State Controller 6 San Mateo County Sexually Violent Predators Program Finding and Recommendation FINDING— The county claimed costs of $27,141 for one case that was ineligible. The Ineligible costs case was filed in court under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1800 claimed (extending detention of juvenile offenders). Parameters and Guidelines for the Sexually Violent Predators Program specifies that only costs incurred pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 6600 through 6608 are eligible for reimbursement. As a result, costs claimed for the Section 1800 case are ineligible as follows: Fiscal Year 2001-02 District Attorney: Salaries $ (6,699) Benefits (1,659) Total District Attorney costs (8,358) Sheriff: Salaries (900) Benefits (372) Services and supplies (15,757) Total Sheriff costs (17,029) Total direct costs (25,387) Indirect costs (1,754) Total costs $ (27,141) Recommendation In the future, the county should ensure that claimed costs are for cases that relate to the Sexually Violent Predators Program as specified in Parameters and Guidelines. Also, the county should review Parameters and Guidelines for the Extended Commitment–Youth Authority mandated program (Chapter 546, Statutes of 1984, and Chapter 267, Statutes of 1998) to determine if these costs can be claimed under that program. Steve Westly • California State Controller 7 State Controller’s Office Division of Audits Post Office Box 942850 Sacramento, California 94250-5874 http://www.sco.ca.gov S03-MCC-044