Report 2011-129 Recommendation 4 Responses

Report 2011-129: Juvenile Justice Realignment: Limited Information Prevents a Meaningful Assessment of Realignment's Effectiveness (Release Date: September 2012)

Recommendation #4 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To maximize the usefulness of the information it makes available to stakeholders and to increase accountability, the board should publish performance outcome and expenditure data for each county on its Web site and in its annual reports.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

BSCC partially adopted this recommendation and presented county level expenditure data in its legislative reports dated March 15, 2013, March 15, 2014, March 15, 2015 and March 15, 2016. In addition, there are summaries posted of all counties' planned programs and expenditures for fiscal year 2015-16.

With the enactment of AB 1998, BSCC is required, within 45 days of having received a county's annual report, to post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies or system enhancements that have been supported by YOBG or JJCPA funds made available to the counties in the preceding year. Additionally, BSCC is required to post on its Internet Web site its annual report to the Governor and Legislature which summarizes the programs, strategies and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county under YOBG and JJCPA. This annual report will also summarize the countywide trend data (see Recommendation 1) and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies or system enhancements support by YOBG or JJCPA have or may have contributed to, or influences, the trends identified. AB 1998 eliminates the requirement for counties to report performance outcome data to the BSCC so it is not possible for the BSCC to post this data.

  • Completion Date: October 2016

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

AB 1998 changed and increased the reporting requirements related to outcomes and expenditures. The change in law, and BSCC's steps to comply with the law, addresses the intent of our recommendation.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

BSCC partially adopted this recommendation and presented county level expenditure data in its legislative reports dated March 15, 2013, March 15, 2014, and March 15, 2015. In addition, there are summaries posted of all counties' planned expenditures for fiscal year 2015-16. The latest legislative report is also posted online.

Regarding performance outcome data, BSCC does not intend to implement CSA's recommendation. Implementing the recommendation would in some instances result in publishing outcome results in a given year for a given county based on only two juveniles. It is difficult to comprehend how this information could be useful for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties, especially when one considers that a majority of counties (approximately 30) report outcome results based on five or fewer juveniles. Indeed, in Table 5 of CSA's report, the performance outcome results reported for Yuba County are based on only two juveniles. Furthermore, on page 21 of CSA's report the reader is warned about drawing conclusions about the differences between Los Angeles County and Sacramento County with respect to offenders who received YOBG-funded services versus offenders who did not receive YOBG-funded services given that Los Angeles County spends more of its YOBG funds on high risk offenders, while Sacramento County uses YOBG funds on juvenile offenders at various risk levels. Consistent with our stance on this issue, CSA's admonition seems contrary to reporting performance outcome results by county for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties.

The above concerns notwithstanding, the BSCC is uncertain how performance outcome reporting will change as a result of JJDWG recommendations but is prepared to re-evaluate this recommendation in light of any changes to said reporting.

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

BSCC partially adopted this recommendation and presented county level expenditure data in its legislative reports dated March 15, 2013 and March 15, 2014. During the course of the audit, BSCC's website did not contain any county level data. Today, there are summaries posted of all counties' planned expenditures for fiscal year 2014-15. The latest legislative report is also posted online.

Regarding performance outcome data, BSCC does not intend to implement CSA's recommendation. Implementing the recommendation would in some instances result in publishing outcome results in a given year for a given county based on one juvenile. It is difficult to comprehend how this information could be useful for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties, especially when one considers that a majority of counties (approximately 30) report outcome results based on five or fewer juveniles. Indeed, in Table 5 of CSA's report, the performance outcome results reported for Yuba County are based on only two juveniles. Furthermore, on page 21 of CSA's report the reader is warned about drawing conclusions about the differences between Los Angeles County and Sacramento County with respect to offenders who received YOBG-funded services versus offenders who did not receive YOBG-funded services given that Los Angeles County spends more of its YOBG funds on high risk offenders, while Sacramento County uses YOBG funds on juvenile offenders at various risk levels. Consistent with our stance on this issue, CSA's admonition seems contrary to reporting performance outcome results by county for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties.

The above concerns notwithstanding, the BSCC is uncertain how performance outcome reporting may change based on recommendations of the JJDWG and is prepared to re-evaluate this recommendation in light of any changes to said reporting.

  • Estimated Completion Date: unknown

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

BSCC partially adopted this recommendation and presented county level expenditure data in its legislative reports dated March 15, 2013 and March 15, 2014. During the course of the audit, BSCC's website did not contain any county level data. Today, there are summaries posted of all counties' planned expenditures for fiscal year 2014-15. The latest legislative report is also posted online.

Regarding performance outcome data, BSCC does not intend to implement CSA's recommendation. Implementing the recommendation would in some instances result in publishing outcome results in a given year for a given county based on one juvenile. It is difficult to comprehend how this information could be useful for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties, especially when one considers that a majority of counties (approximately 30) report outcome results based on five or fewer juveniles. Indeed, in Table 5 of CSA's report, the performance outcome results reported for Yuba County are based on only two juveniles. Furthermore, on page 21 of CSA's report the reader is warned about drawing conclusions about the differences between Los Angeles County and Sacramento County with respect to offenders who received YOBG-funded services versus offenders who did not receive YOBG-funded services given that Los Angeles County spends more of its YOBG funds on high risk offenders, while Sacramento County uses YOBG funds on juvenile offenders at various risk levels. Consistent with our stance on this issue, CSA's admonition seems contrary to reporting performance outcome results by county for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties.

The above concerns notwithstanding, the BSCC is uncertain how performance outcome reporting may change based on recommendations of the JJDWG and is prepared to re-evaluate this recommendation in light of any changes to said reporting.

  • Estimated Completion Date: unknown

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Please refer to our one-year response.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown

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

Please refer to the one-year response assessment.


1-Year Agency Response

BSCC partially adopted this recommendation and presented county level expenditure data in its legislative report dated March 15, 2013. During the course of the audit, BSCC's website did not contain any county level data. Today, there are summaries posted of 2011-12 actual expenditures as well as 2013-14 proposed expenditures. The latest legislative report is also posted online.

Regarding performance outcome data, BSCC does not intend to implement CSA's recommendation. Implementing the recommendation would in some instances result in publishing outcome results in a given year for a given county based on one juvenile. It is difficult to comprehend how this information could be useful for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties, especially when one considers that a majority of counties (approximately 30) report outcome results based on five or fewer juveniles. Indeed, in Table 5 of CSA's report, the performance outcome results reported for Yuba County are based on only two juveniles. Furthermore, on page 21 of CSA's report the reader is warned about drawing conclusions about the differences between Los Angeles County and Sacramento County with respect to offenders who received YOBG-funded services versus offenders who did not receive YOBG-funded services given that Los Angeles County spends more of its YOBG funds on high risk offenders, while Sacramento County uses YOBG funds on juvenile offenders at various risk levels. Consistent with our stance on this issue, CSA's admonition seems contrary to reporting performance outcome results by county for purposes of assessing trends within and between counties.

  • Estimated Completion Date: unknown
  • Response Date: September 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

The board has not taken significant steps to increase the amount of county-level information available to the public or the Legislature. Specifically, the board is incorrect when it states that its Web site did not contain any county-level data while we were conducting our audit. On the contrary, the board's Web site did contain some county-level information, which we concluded was inadequate. The board has not added any new information to its Web site since that time. Further, the only additional county-level information produced in the board's latest annual legislative report is counties' proposed and actual expenditures--the same data available on the Web site. Thus, the board continues to fail to provide valuable information to the public and the Legislature.

As it relates to performance outcome data, we are continuously dismayed at the board's refusal to report this valuable information. As we stated on page 80 of our report, we stand by this recommendation. State law requires the board to make county-level information available on its Web site. Just because the board's sampling method provides limited information about each county, does not mean that the board should not provide this information to the public. If the board does not believe that its current sampling method is adequate for this purpose, it should modify the sampling method to gather more meaningful information from the counties.


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC indicated that it included county specific expenditure data in its most recent legislative report. In addition, the BSCC stated that it would post additional county specific data on its website.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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


60-Day Agency Response

The board stated that county expenditures will be posted on its Web site once all county reports have been reviewed and approved. In addition, the board indicated that it will review county performance outcomes reports and explore options for reporting data for each county prior to issuing its 2013 annual report to the Legislature, but states that it does not plan to report county expenditure information in its annual reports. (See 2013-406, p. 230)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


All Recommendations in 2011-129

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