Report 2011-121 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2011-121: Probationers' Domestic Violence Payments: Improved Processes for Managing and Distributing These Payments Could Increase Support for Local Shelters (Release Date: September 2012)

Recommendation #1 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

San Diego Court should ensure that procedures are in place so that courts do not reduce or waive domestic violence payments for reasons other than a probationer's inability to pay.

6-Month Agency Response

On December 20, 2012, San Diego Superior Court issued a memorandum to all its Criminal Judges and Commissioners announcing amendments to its Standard Sentencing Guidelines. In this memorandum, amendments to Penal Code 1203.097 were addressed (Stats. 2012, ch. 511 (AB 2094), Section 1). The specific information related to the Domestic Violence Fund Fee was to note an increase from $400 to $500 and that if the defendant lacks the ability to pay, the court must state on the record the reason for reducing or waiving the fee.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Additionally, in a subsequent response San Diego Superior Court indicated that its judicial leadership has addressed the issues of utilizing a financial incentive-based approach for completion of the Domestic Violence Recovery Program, which resulted in reductions to domestic violence payments, and confirmed with the prosecutor and the defense that the practice has been discontinued.


60-Day Agency Response

San Diego Court indicated that court administration discussed the audit findings with the court's judicial leadership. According to San Diego Court, the San Diego criminal justice community has approached the problem of domestic violence collaboratively over the years and has consistently urged the court to treat the completion of the mandatory counseling and treatment as a priority. Further, it explained that the prosecution and defense routinely agree to use a financial incentive-based approach to help ensure the defendant's timely completion of the 52-week Domestic Violence Recovery Program. It indicated that due to the audit findings, San Diego Court is now aware of the conflict that this plea-bargained, or agreed-upon, approach has created, especially in light of the effort to increase collection of the domestic violence fund fees. According to San Diego Court, its judicial leadership has indicated that it will embark on an effort to address the issues with its criminal justice partners, which are both the prosecution and defense bar. (See 2013-406, p. 180)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #2 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

To ensure that it is accurately setting up accounts and to ensure that probationers are not paying more fines and fees than are applicable, San Diego Court should include on the orders issued at sentencing the breakdown of all fines and fees owed.

6-Month Agency Response

San Diego Superior Court reported that the bench approved changes to the Misdemeanor Change of Plea Form, to include each fee that makes up the total domestic violence penalty. The San Diego Superior Court anticipates that the form will be printed and available for use no later than April 1, 2013.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

According to San Diego Court, staff are working to amend its change-of-plea form to list each fee and fine and to include a space for the amount of each. The court expects to have the changes approved and implemented by January 2013. (See 2013-406, p. 181)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #3 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

To ensure that it is accurately setting up accounts and to ensure that probationers are not paying more fines and fees than are applicable, San Diego Court should use the guidelines in place at the time of sentencing for those convicted of domestic violence crimes when it establishes accounts for payments.

6-Month Agency Response

San Diego Superior Court indicated that on December 31, 2012, materials were distributed to staff who have the responsibility for creating accounts receivable to assist them with correctly allocating fee/fine revenue to the appropriate account. The materials include the amount that should be allocated to each component that makes up the total amount due, based on sentencing date. According to the San Diego Superior Court, this tool assists staff who are opening accounts receivable on cases that were sentenced months or years ago, by showing what the allocations were at the time the case was sentenced.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

San Diego Court indicated that accounting staff, who open accounts receivable, are now opening accounts on domestic violence cases at the time of sentencing, even if the fines have been stayed pending completion of a program, rather than waiting until the fines and fees become due. According to San Diego Court, the accounting staff are using current sentencing guidelines to ensure proper allocation of fines and fees. Further, San Diego Court explained that for older cases on which the fines and fees were stayed and an account has not yet been opened, staff are opening the accounts receivable as the stays are lifted and the fines and fees become due. It is working to create tools for staff to clearly show the proper allocations for the applicable sentencing dates. San Diego Court expects that full implementation will be complete no later than January 2013. (See 2013-406, p. 181)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #4 To: Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County should implement a process to distribute funds regularly to domestic violence shelters.

6-Month Agency Response

As it reported during the 60 day review, Santa Clara County indicated that a permanent formula has been created. Further, it reported that since July 1, 2012 (the beginning of the current fiscal year) the funds from Trust Fund 0378 have been distributed on a quarterly basis to the qualified domestic violence shelter agencies.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

Santa Clara County developed a process for annually distributing funds to domestic violence shelters, which includes an annual Request for Statements of Qualifications to certify any domestic violence shelter providers to receive funding for the next fiscal year. According to Santa Clara County, the fund distribution will be based on a formula that has been developed by the county with input from the shelter providers. Santa Clara County indicated that it will begin using this process for funds distributed during fiscal year 201314. (See 2013-406, p. 181)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #5 To: Sacramento County

Sacramento County should finalize work with the State Controller's Office on correcting the county's overpayment of domestic violence funds to the State.

60-Day Agency Response

Sacramento County stated that it had completed the corrections to its distributions for the full three-year period, excluding the eight months in 2010 where there were no overpayments. It indicated that the final corrections totaled $45,036 for these years. Sacramento County made the adjustments during its July 2012 and August 2012 distributions to the State. (See 2013-406, p. 182)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #6 To: Sacramento County

Sacramento County should implement the process developed for reviewing statutes that affect domestic violence payment collection and distribution practices in order to prevent overpayment of domestic violence funds in the future.

60-Day Agency Response

Sacramento County established a policy for reviewing statutes that affect domestic violence payment collection and distribution practices. This policy requires Sacramento County to review all statutes related to the distribution of fines each December using the State of California's Legislative Information Web site. (See 2013-406, p. 182)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #7 To: Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should determine the magnitude of the misdirected domestic violence funds.

60-Day Agency Response

Los Angeles County determined that its Probation Department overdistributed $12,620 to the county for the period January through August 2010 and overdistributed $883 to the State from August 2010 through June 2012. These adjustments net to a total of $11,737 that it overpaid the county. (See 2013-406, p. 182)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #8 To: San Diego, County of

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should determine the magnitude of the misdirected domestic violence funds.

60-Day Agency Response

San Diego County indicated that it reviewed and reconciled its records for all distributed funds and calculated that it underpaid the State $4,300. (See 2013-406, p. 182)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #9 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should determine the magnitude of the misdirected domestic violence funds.

60-Day Agency Response

San Diego Court stated that it reviewed the domestic violence fund revenue distributions for the four court divisions with particular emphasis placed on distributions beginning in January 2010 and going forward since the audit report noted discrepancies within the central division during this period. After the review, San Diego Court calculated an overall net overpayment of $203 to the State for the period January 2010 through October 2012 for all four divisions. (See 2013-406, p. 182)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #10 To: Santa Clara County

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should determine the magnitude of the misdirected domestic violence funds.

6-Month Agency Response

Santa Clara County identified 1,640 cases that need adjustments and the amount of the misdirected funds will be $63,042.31.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

According to Santa Clara County, its Department of Revenue is currently testing programming changes necessary to correct the 482 cases that make up the overpayment to the State. Santa Clara County anticipated these changes would be ready by the end of November 2012. (See 2013-406, p. 182)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #11 To: Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should consult with the State Controller's Office to determine what action should be taken to correct the domestic violence funds that were misdirected in prior fiscal years.

60-Day Agency Response

In October 2012 Los Angeles County submitted an adjustment of the $11,737 that it overpaid the county. (See 2013-406, p. 183)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #12 To: San Diego, County of

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should consult with the State Controller's Office to determine what action should be taken to correct the domestic violence funds that were misdirected in prior fiscal years.

60-Day Agency Response

San Diego County offset county collections received in its regular disbursements in July, August, and September 2012 to adjust for the $4,300 that it underpaid the State. (See 2013-406, p. 183)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #13 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should consult with the State Controller's Office to determine what action should be taken to correct the domestic violence funds that were misdirected in prior fiscal years.

6-Month Agency Response

San Diego County reported that it made two adjustments totaling $202.92 to correct for the misdistribution of funds. The December 2012 distribution to the State for the Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund was reduced by $60.45 and the Domestic Violence Training and Education Fund was reduced by $142.47. The adjusted revenue totaling $202.92 was forwarded to its Domestic Violence Program Fund as part of the December 2012 distribution.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

San Diego Court indicated that its accounting staff will make an adjustment in December 2012 to correct the net overpayment to the State. (See 2013-406, p. 183)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #14 To: Santa Clara County

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should consult with the State Controller's Office to determine what action should be taken to correct the domestic violence funds that were misdirected in prior fiscal years.

6-Month Agency Response

Santa Clara County indicated that its Department of Revenue has contacted the State Controller's Office for direction on the handling of this adjustment and the State Controller's Office instructed the Santa Clara County's Controller-Treasurer's Office to place this as a separate line item in its submission. Santa Clara County reported that it is in the process of making this adjustment and anticipates it will be reflected in its May 2013 submission.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Subsequently, Santa Clara County provided the record of the adjustment made to the State Controller's Office.


60-Day Agency Response

Santa Clara County indicated it has contacted the State Controller's Office and will correct the prior distributions once it completes its testing of necessary programming changes. (See 2013-406, p. 183)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #15 To: Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should improve protocols for reviewing statutes that affect collection and distribution practices so that future changes can be acted upon.

6-Month Agency Response

Los Angeles County reported that in an effort to improve protocols for reviewing statutes that affect collection and distribution practices, measures are now in place to ensure all relevant collection information is updated timely. These measures include the Collection Manager checking the annual Felony and Misdemeanor Bail Schedules and the State Controller's website monthly for updates to the Trial Court Manual and Distribution Guidelines. Los Angeles County further indicated that because there is no one central place in the State of California that provides this information completely, the Collection Manager will also reference and check with state and local judicial staff.

  • Response Date: April 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

Los Angeles County indicated that its Probation Department will monitor the State Controller's Office's Web site monthly for updates to the Trial Court Manual and Distribution guidelines. However, although monitoring changes to statutes posted by the State Controller's Office is a valuable tool for identifying any relevant changes, this source may not be updated consistently. As a result, Los Angeles County could miss important statutory changes. We would expect Los Angeles County to develop a process to monitor the statutes itself to identify any relevant changes. (See 2013-406, p. 183)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #16 To: San Diego, County of

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should improve protocols for reviewing statutes that affect collection and distribution practices so that future changes can be acted upon.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From August 2014

The Office of Revenue and Recovery has redirected existing staff members to form a Compliance Unit within the ORR Fiscal Division. The Compliance Unit is responsible for: researching, identifying, and documenting existing legislation which govern/impact ORR's operations; identifying and monitoring legislative changes that impact ORR's collection and distribution practices; ensuring ongoing quality assurance relative to compliance; development and maintenance of business processes; and ongoing training and monitoring of staff in order to ensure ORR's full compliance with all applicable legislation.

To date the Compliance Unit has partnered with key agencies for information and training, documented statutes affecting collection and distribution practices, documented all legislation affecting the Fine Calculator and Distribution Tables; developed a legislation review and analysis process, documented key business processes including Fine Calculator and Distribution Table Revisions and Account Openings/Adult Court Orders, and identified Subject Matter Experts from all ORR Divisions to form a Compliance Committee to:

1. Encourage cross-functional threading

2. Improve communication among ORR divisions/units relative to compliance

3. Conduct compliance-related trainings

Contact Information for Implementation: Brenda Jaeger-Das, Senior Auditor and Controller Manager, Office of Revenue and Recovery. Phone number is (858) 637-5828 and email is brenda.jaeger-das@sdcounty.ca.gov.

  • Completion Date: August 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Please refer to our one-year response.

  • Estimated Completion Date: August 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


1-Year Agency Response

The County of San Diego, Office of Revenue and Recovery (ORR) has received, acknowledged and previously responded to the recommendations of the Bureau of State Audits. The implementation of the third part of this recommendation has been delayed due to significant unexpected staff turnover in ORR which adversely impacted ORR's ability to fully resolve this issue. Efforts continue within ORR to identify, reassign, develop and train staff resources within ORR which will be responsible for: researching, identifying, and documenting existing legislation which governs/impacts ORR, identifying and monitoring legislative changes that impact ORR's collection and distribution practices, ensuring ongoing quality assurance relative to compliance, evaluation, development and ongoing review of applicable procedures and ongoing training and monitoring of staff in order to ensure ORR's full compliance with all applicable legislation.

The County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency has implemented the process to review the balance in the fund and compare it with the rate of incoming funds quarterly effective November 2012. Supporting information has been sent.

  • Estimated Completion Date: August 2014
  • Response Date: August 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

San Diego County indicates that it implemented the process to review the balance in its special fund and compare it with the rate of incoming funds. However, this statement relates to recommendation 23 instead of this recommendation.


6-Month Agency Response

San Diego County's Office of Revenue & Recovery reported that the implementation of this recommendation remains in process as its office has been impacted by unexpected staff turnover. It indicated that it will continue to review and develop its procedures and train staff to improve protocols for reviewing statutes that affect collection and distribution practices. It expects to complete this process and provide copies of the revised procedures to the California State Auditor for review prior to its one-year response.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

San Diego County stated that it revised its accounting procedures following the completion of the audit to ensure compliance with statutes. It plans to have revised comprehensive procedures with a targeted completion date of March 2013 for all accounting processes that are affected by court ordered debt, including the domestic violence payment. San Diego County also plans to establish a compliance unit by the end of January 2013. This unit will be responsible for regular and ongoing monitoring of procedures and for ensuring that all legislative changes are reflected in the procedures. (See 2013-406, p. 183)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #17 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should improve protocols for reviewing statutes that affect collection and distribution practices so that future changes can be acted upon.

6-Month Agency Response

San Diego Superior Court indicated that a standing item related to legislative updates is now included as part of the regular agenda for its monthly Accounting Committee meeting. San Diego Superior Court reported that this committee is responsible for identifying issues and implementing court-wide solutions involving court accounting, fiscal processes and systems, and the court's contracted collections agency.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

According to San Diego Court, its accounting staff will continue to work with the court legislative analyst and Administrative Office of the Courts' staff to keep abreast of legislative changes impacting revenue distributions. San Diego Court anticipates that legislative updates can be added as an agenda item on future Accounting Committee meetings. (See 2013-406, p. 183)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #18 To: Santa Clara County

Los Angeles County, San Diego County, San Diego Court, and Santa Clara County should improve protocols for reviewing statutes that affect collection and distribution practices so that future changes can be acted upon.

6-Month Agency Response

Santa Clara County reported that on February 22, 2013, the first meeting was held for its Legislative Committee. It indicated that in the future there may be other attendees. This committee will meet quarterly after the Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

Santa Clara County explained that it, together with the Santa Clara Superior Court, has formed a Legislation Review Committee. The members of the committee are to monitor new legislation and discuss changes to departmental procedures. Santa Clara County stated this will include information on the change of the amount collected from $400 to $500 effective January 1, 2013, due to the recent passage of Assembly Bill 2094 by the Legislature. (See 2013-406, p. 184)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #19 To: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Los Angeles Court should finalize the correction of the court's misdirected domestic violence funds.

60-Day Agency Response

Los Angeles Court stated that it has finalized and completed correction of its misdirected funds on the March 2012 and July 2012 monthly revenue distribution of funds to the State. Documentation from the Los Angeles Court indicated that it made an adjustment for $7,289 that it overpaid the State. (See 2013-406, p. 184)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #20 To: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Los Angeles Court should improve protocols for reviewing statutes that affect collection and distribution practices so that future changes can be acted upon.

60-Day Agency Response

Los Angeles Court established a checklist to ensure that all areas affecting revenue distribution are changed consistently throughout the cashiering and revenue distribution systems. (See 2013-406, p. 184)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #21 To: Sacramento County

Sacramento County should increase its contracted spending for shelter services so that it reduces the balance of its special fund down to a level that is reasonable considering the needs of the fund.

60-Day Agency Response

Sacramento County obtained its board of supervisors' approval in November 2012 to increase its contracted spending for shelter services by more than $400,000 to provide additional domestic violence services and crisis intervention through June 2014. Further, it obtained approval to issue a Request for Interest for an additional $100,000 to contract with providers of domestic violence services to underserved populations. (See 2013-406, p. 184)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #22 To: Sacramento County

To ensure that they are maximizing the impact of domestic violence funds, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara counties should periodically monitor their special funds.

6-Month Agency Response

Sacramento County reported that on a monthly basis, the Department of Human Assistance's fiscal staff will review the balance in the fund and factor in projected expenditures against the fund. Sacramento County indicated that this will also provide it a projected year-end balance.

Sacramento County indicated that it will use the projected balance to plan for future expenditures in upcoming spending cycles or determine if there is sufficient project balance to warrant an additional project to develop for expending anticipated balances.

Sacramento County stated that it can provide a quarterly report on projected expenditures and balance to the California State Auditor if desired.

Sacramento County reported that it will provide an annual status of the Fund to the County Executive.

Sacramento County indicated that it has contracted with three organizations to expend a total of $1,034,031 by the end of June 2014 and the current balance plus anticipated additional revenues will cover these costs.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

Sacramento County did not respond to this recommendation. (See 2013-406, p. 184)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken


Recommendation #23 To: San Diego, County of

To ensure that they are maximizing the impact of domestic violence funds, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara counties should periodically monitor their special funds.

6-Month Agency Response

San Diego County's Health and Human Services Agency reported that it has implemented the process to review the balance in the fund and compare it with the rate of incoming funds quarterly effective November 2012. Further, San Diego County indicated that calculations have been made retroactively for the first quarter.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

San Diego County indicated that it will conduct an annual review of the balance in the fund and compare it with the rate of incoming funds quarterly. According to San Diego County, this process will be implemented in November 2012 and calculations will be made retroactively for the first quarter. (See 2013-406, p. 185)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #24 To: Santa Clara County

To ensure that they are maximizing the impact of domestic violence funds, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara counties should periodically monitor their special funds.

60-Day Agency Response

Santa Clara County developed a formula for distributing funds annually to the local domestic violence shelters based on the funds available in the domestic violence trust fund. Use of this formula will require that Santa Clara County determine the balance of its funds. (See 2013-406, p. 185)

  • Response Date: November 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure consistent assessment, collection, and allocation of domestic violence payments, the Legislature should consider clarifying whether it intends for the domestic violence payment to be a fine or a fee and, similarly, whether collections entities should allocate the domestic violence payment to the payment priority category known as fines and penalty assessments or whether the payments belong in the other reimburseable costs category.

Description of Legislative Action

AB 139 (Chapter 144, Statutes of 2013), signed by the governor on August 26, 2013, clarifies that the $500 payment is a fee, not a fine.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure consistent assessment, collection, and allocation of domestic violence payments, the Legislature should consider whether collections that belong in the other reimburseable costs category should be prorated among all assessments in that category.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 139 (Chapter 144, Statutes of 2013) clarifies that the $500 domestic violence probationers payment is a fee, not a fine, and specifies how moneys from the fee shall be disbursed.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: February 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure consistent assessment, collection, and allocation of domestic violence payments, the Legislature should consider whether collections entities have the authority to continue pursuing collection of domestic violence payments once an individual's term of probation expires.

Description of Legislative Action

AB 139 (Chapter 133, Statutes of 2013), signed by the Governor on August 26, 2013, provides that the fee may be collected by the collecting agency after the termination of the probationary period, whether the probation is terminated by revocation or by completion of the term.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure consistent assessment, collection, and allocation of domestic violence payments, the Legislature should consider whether allowable administrative costs apply to all funds in a county's special fund.

Description of Legislative Action

AB 139 (Chapter 144, Statutes of 2013), signed by the governor on August 26, 2013, provides that no more than 8 percent of the moneys deposited in the domestic violence programs special fund may be used for administrative costs.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure consistent assessment, collection, and allocation of domestic violence payments, the Legislature should consider how counties should calculate allowable administrative costs. Specifically, the Legislature should indicate whether counties should base their calculations on the balance of the special fund or deposits into that fund.

Description of Legislative Action

AB 139 (Chapter 144, Statutes of 2013), signed by the governor on August 26, 2013, provides that no more than 8 percent of the moneys deposited in the domestic violence programs special fund may be used for administrative costs.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

The Legislature should consider clarifying whether it intends for collections entities to base the percentage of domestic violence payment revenue distributed to the State and county on statutes in effect at the time of sentencing or at the time the probationer makes a payment.

Description of Legislative Action

N/A

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: February 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Unknown


All Recommendations in 2011-121

Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader