Report 2011-129 All Recommendation Responses

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

Recommendation #1 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To improve the usefulness of its reports so that they can be used to assess the outcomes of realignment, the board should work with counties and relevant stakeholders, such as the committee that established performance outcome measures for the block grant, to determine the data that counties should report. To minimize the potential for creating a state mandate, the board should take into consideration the information that counties already collect to satisfy requirements for other grants.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

On June 20, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1468, establishing the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG). The JJDWG was mandated to recommend a plan for improving the current juvenile justice reporting requirements for the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) by April 30, 2015. The JJDWG submitted the required report to the BSCC Board and the Board discussed the report's recommendations at its June 10, 2015 and on January 11 2016, the Board transmitted the final report to the Legislature. In June 2016, several of the JJDWG's recommendations, including the recommendation to consolidate the reporting requirements for YOBG and JJCPA, were amended into Assembly Bill1998 (Campos) (Reg. Sess. 2015-2016). On September 30, 2016, the Governor signed AB 1998 (Chapter 880, Statutes of 2016). The new reporting requirements mandate that counties report on:"countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks,...including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations." (Welf.& Inst. Code, section 1961, subd. (c)(3).)

  • Completion Date: October 2016

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

On June 20, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1468, establishing the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG). The JJDWG was mandated to recommend a plan for improving the current juvenile justice reporting requirements for the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) by April 30, 2015. The JJDWG submitted the required report to the BSCC Board and the Board discussed the report's recommendations at its June 10, 2015 meeting but did not approve at that point given some concerns. Since that time, there has been significant progress made toward building consensus around which recommendations will be adopted and how they will be implemented. The process of drafting any needed legislative changes has begun and it is anticipated that amended requirements, should the law be changed, will be in place by the end of the current legislative session.

  • Estimated Completion Date: November 1, 2016

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

On June 20, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1468, establishing the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG). This working group has specified representation and is charged with analyzing the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data.

The most immediate requirement of the JJDWG is that it recommend a plan for improving the current juvenile justice reporting requirements for the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). Specifically, the group is directed by law to look toward streamlining and consolidating current requirements without sacrificing meaningful data collection. Although the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) had previously hoped the Juvenile Justice Standing Committee would be able to assist it in moving forward on implementing some of the State Auditor's recommendations, that did not happen. However, in light of the legal mandate accompanying the JJDWG, we are confident these issues will begin to be tackled. The first meeting of the JJDWG has been set for October 9, 2014 and their recommended plan is due by April 30, 2015.

  • 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

On June 20, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1468, establishing the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG). This working group has specified representation and is charged with analyzing the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data.

The most immediate requirement of the JJDWG is that it recommend a plan for improving the current juvenile justice reporting requirements for the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). Specifically, the group is directed by law to look toward streamlining and consolidating current requirements without sacrificing meaningful data collection. Although the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) had previously hoped the Juvenile Justice Standing Committee would be able to assist it in moving forward on implementing some of the State Auditor's recommendations, that did not happen. However, in light of the legal mandate accompanying the JJDWG, we are confident these issues will begin to be tackled. The first meeting of the JJDWG has been set for October 9, 2014 and their recommended plan is due by April 30, 2015.

  • 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 one-year response assessment.


1-Year Agency Response

CSA's criticisms of BSCC's YOBG reporting rely upon an assumption of responsibility that far exceeds the legislative mandate. BSCC has met all of its mandated reporting requirements. BSCC never intended, nor does it advocate, that information in the annual legislative reports be used to draw conclusions about the "outcomes of realignment."

Nevertheless, BSCC asked the Juvenile Justice Standing Committee (JJSC) to review YOBG outcome measures for possible revision. The JJSC met on April 10th and July 16th. Data is a major focus of this committee and both meetings included discussion of data systems and performance measures. On April 10th, information was presented to the full committee on the YOBG program. Three former ESC members shared information about their development of performance outcomes and the limitations related to that process. On July 16th, the JJSC was presented with information on BSCC's experience over the past three years collecting, analyzing and reporting YOBG data. Particular attention was given to the challenges of data collection and reporting that stem from ambiguity and limitations in law.

The JJSC has not specifically discussed what data counties can/should report for YOBG performance outcomes. It has taken a more global approach, choosing instead to assess data collection and reporting for California's juvenile justice system as a whole. This is particularly appropriate post-realignment. Given the current shift away from prescriptive state administration of programs and toward increased county responsibility for decisions and outcomes, this broader view is essential.

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

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

As we indicated on page one of our report, although the law does not specifically require the board's reports to include an assessment of the outcomes of realignment, because the board is the only state administering body referenced in the law that realigned juvenile offenders, we would expect that its annual reports would give the Legislature information with which to make such an assessment. We recognize that the board has taken steps to convene relevant stakeholders to discuss block grant outcome measures for possible revisions; however, at this time, the results of the board's efforts to convene stakeholders are unclear.


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC indicated that it established a Juvenile Justice Steering Committee (JJSC) that will discuss issues related to the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG), including data collection and reporting requirements.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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

The BSCC indicated that it would provide materials relating to the JJSC, including meeting materials, with its 1-year response.


60-Day Agency Response

The board did not specifically address this recommendation in its response. (See 2013-406, p. 230)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #2 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To improve the usefulness of its reports so that they can be used to assess the outcomes of realignment, if the Legislature chooses not to change the law as suggested, or if the counties are unable to report countywide statistics, the board should discontinue comparing outcomes for juveniles who receive block grant services to those who do not in its reports.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

As noted above, with the enactment of AB 1998, counties that receive YOBG and JJCPA funding are now required to report annually on countywide juvenile justice trend data. As a part of this annual report, counties will also be required to provide: "a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter [YOBG and JJCPA] have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice trends identified in the report." (Welf. & Inst. Code, section 1961, subd. (c)(3).)

  • Completion Date: October 2016

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

Historically, the YOBG annual reports have included data comparing outcomes for juveniles who received block grant services to those who did not as this is one of the few ways we have had to present outcomes. Given the recommendations of the JJDWG, it appears likely the outcome reporting requirements will change in a way that will make this recommendation obsolete. Therefore, we anticipate this recommendation will be "fully implemented" by the end of the current legislative session.

  • Estimated Completion Date: November 1, 2016

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

Historically, the YOBG annual reports have included data comparing outcomes for juveniles who received block grant services to those who did not. Given the structure of the YOBG program, this is one of the few ways we have had to present outcomes. Although the BSCC has heretofore disagreed with this recommendation, it is anticipated that the work of the JJDWG will result in at least partial implementation. Since the JJDWG is mandated to recommend a plan for improving the reporting requirements for YOBG with an eye toward streamlining and consolidating current requirements without sacrificing meaningful data collection, it is likely that the current requirements will be replaced in the near future. The first meeting of the working group has been set for October 9, 2014 and the recommended plan is due by April 30, 2015.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Please refer to our one-year response.

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Please refer to the one-year response assessment.


1-Year Agency Response

In the first two annual reports, data comparing outcomes for juveniles who received block grant services to those who did not were included and described in detail. Absent any change to the program - either through legislative or administrative means - this is one of the few ways we have to present outcomes. As such, BSCC disagrees with this recommendation and anticipates the legislative report due next March will again include a comparison of outcomes for juveniles who receive YOBG-funded services with those who do not.

CSA's inference that counties should report data for their juvenile justice systems as a whole exceeds not only the legislative mandate but also the capability of most counties. Moreover, the suggestion that BSCC could measure the success of realignment given the limited scope of the YOBG legislation, the lack of data at both the State and local levels, and the lack of defined goals for the program, is misguided.

Consistent with current public safety priorities and with State law, BSCC is working with counties to develop juvenile investment strategies that capitalize on efficiencies, leverage funds, and employ evidence based practices. This is our mandate relative to realignment - be it adult or juvenile - and this is the foundation from which we administer YOBG and every other program for which we have responsibility.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: September 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As we indicated on page one of our report, although the law does not specifically require the board's reports to include an assessment of the outcomes of realignment, because the board is the only state administering body referenced in the law that realigned juvenile offenders, we would expect that its annual reports would give the Legislature information with which to make such an assessment.


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC indicated that because no changes have been made to the YOBG program, the BSCC will continue to include data comparing outcomes for juveniles who receive block grant services to those who do not in its reports.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation. Beginning on page 22 of our audit report, we discuss our concerns with the potentially misleading information that the board presents in its annual reports.


60-Day Agency Response

The board asserted that it will consider whether there are alternative approaches to present county outcome data when preparing its 2013 annual report. (See 2013-406, p. 230)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #3 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 create policies and procedures that include clear, comprehensive guidance to counties about all aspects of performance outcome and expenditure reporting. At a minimum, such guidance should include specifying how counties should define when a juvenile has received a service and whether certain services, such as training, should qualify as serving juveniles.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

As noted in our original response to the audit report, BSCC past practice has been to provide training to county personnel responsible for submitting data. In addition, BSCC historically made available a "user's manual" to guide those responsible for data submission. Further, instructions are incorporated into all reporting forms. In response to this recommendation, those instructions have been updated where possible to address the concerns of the State Auditor. To implement AB 1998, BSCC will create new reporting forms for use by the counties. BSCC will provide corresponding training and technical assistance to counties with the rollout of these new forms. AB 1998 removes the prior mandate that the BSCC approve county plans and instead requires that the BSCC collect and post the information on its website so that stakeholders and the general public can easily view it. Finally, AB 1998 also eliminated the requirement to report on which or how many juveniles received services so there is no need for guidance on how to define when a juvenile has received a service and whether certain services qualify as serving juveniles.

  • Completion Date: October 2016

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

Because AB 1998 changed tracking and reporting requirements, this recommendation is pending until BSCC creates and implements new reporting forms, corresponding training and technical assistance to counties.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

As noted in our original response to the audit report, BSCC past practice has been to provide training to county personnel responsible for submitting data. In addition, BSCC historically made available a "user's manual" to guide those responsible for data submission. Further, instructions are incorporated into all reporting forms. In response to this recommendation, those instructions have been updated where possible to address the concerns of the State Auditor.

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

As noted in our original response to the audit report, BSCC past practice has been to provide training to county personnel responsible for submitting data. In addition, BSCC has also made available a "user's manual" to guide those responsible for data submission. This has not been possible for the YOBG program due to staffing and budgetary constraints. Consequently, instructions are incorporated into all reporting forms and those instructions have been updated where possible to address the concerns of the State Auditor.

Since the reporting requirements are likely to change in the very near future, the BSCC is looking toward the opportunity to more fully implement this recommendation based upon the new direction charted by the JJDWG. The JJDWG recommendations are due by April 30, 2015; action on this recommendation would commence thereafter.

  • 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

As noted in our original response to the audit report, BSCC past practice has been to provide training to county personnel responsible for submitting data. In addition, BSCC has also made available a "user's manual" to guide those responsible for data submission. This has not been possible for the YOBG program due to staffing and budgetary constraints. Consequently, instructions are incorporated into all reporting forms and those instructions have been updated where possible to address the concerns of the State Auditor.

Since the reporting requirements are likely to change in the very near future, the BSCC is looking toward the opportunity to more fully implement this recommendation based upon the new direction charted by the JJDWG. The JJDWG recommendations are due by April 30, 2015; action on this recommendation would commence thereafter.

  • 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

As noted in our original response to the audit report, BSCC practice has been to provide training to county personnel responsible for submitting data. Additionally, BSCC historically made available a "users manual" to guide those responsible for data submission. This has not been possible for the YOBG program due to staffing and budgetary constraints. However, all data collection instruments were pilot tested prior to implementation and each year BSCC staff use feedback from counties and personal observation to enhance the forms. The feedback received has not indicated significant confusion on the part of users. Because it was not possible to develop separate "user's manuals," guidance is incorporated into the forms and has also been provided in other communications distributed along with the forms.

Recognizing these steps fall short of providing an optimal level of scrutiny, given the necessary resources, BSCC would welcome the opportunity to institute the steps and measures it typically uses when collecting survey information. In the interim, we have modified the instructions provided to counties as needed and will continue to do so. BSCC progress toward implementation of this recommendation is reflected in the March 2013 legislative report. Prior to development of that report, BSCC clarified with counties that capacity building services, such as training, do not qualify as serving juveniles. Consequently, that report presents standardized information for all such services. We intend to further define terminology within the context of YOBG as the need arises.

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

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

Although the board states that the feedback it has received has not indicated significant confusion on the part of counties, our audit results demonstrated that counties submitted inconsistent and inaccurate information. We believe that it is both practical and very necessary to provide additional guidance to counties for how to report performance outcome data in a consistent and meaningful manner. Without additional guidance to the counties, the board will continue to collect inconsistent and dissimilar information, which results in reports that can be misleading.


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC stated that it clarified with counties whether certain services, such as training, could qualify as serving juveniles. As a result, the BSCC's most recent report to the Legislature presents standardized information for all such services.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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

The BSCC indicated that it would provide documentation of the guidance that was provided to counties with its 1-year response.

.


60-Day Agency Response

According to the board, it has begun reviewing its existing directions and forms provided to counties. Based on the outcome of this review, the board will make the needed adjustments to the guidelines prior to the counties' next reporting date in October 2013. (See 2013-406, p. 230)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


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


Recommendation #5 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 consider verifying the counties' data by conducting regular site visits on a rotating basis or by employing other procedures to verify data that counties submit.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

The BSCC relies on counties to use their own quality assurance measures to ensure that reported data is correct and the BSCC posts all public information to its website. The Board does not have the resources to independently verify these data.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

The BSCC relies on counties to use their own quality assurance measures to ensure that reported data are correct and the BSCC posts all public information to its website.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

As noted previously, the JJDWG will begin meeting October 9, 2014. We are eager to receive the recommendations out of this group and will be reconsidering the State Auditor's above concern in light of those recommendations.

  • 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

As noted in our response to recommendation 1, the JJSC began meeting in April. We anticipate its work will inform our consideration of procedures to verify data that counties submit.

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

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


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC indicated that the JJSC will review and revise the data collection and reporting requirements for YOBG. The work of the JJSC will subsequently inform the BSCC's consideration of procedures to verify the data that counties submit.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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

The BSCC stated that it would provide documentation relating to the JJSC, including whether the JJSC has begun to revise reporting requirements with its 1-year response.


60-Day Agency Response

The board indicated that it is exploring options to increase the staff resources available to administer the program; however, the board did not address whether it has explored options to verify counties' data that would not require an increase in staff resources. (See 2013-406, p. 231)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #6 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To increase the amount of juvenile justice data the counties make available to the public, the board should work with counties on how best to report these data.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

The JJDWG membership included broad representation of counties and disciplines. In addition, the organization of Chief Probation Officers of California was consulted regarding the impact to counties of the recommendations of the JJDWG. The enactment of AB 1998 increases the amount of juvenile justice data counties make available to the public, to include at a minimum: countywide arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations.

  • Completion Date: October 2016

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

Assembly Bill 1468 (Ch. 26, Stats. 2014) established the Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG) within the board and it was to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies. Its January 2016 report to the Legislature, titled Rebuilding California's Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to Improve Data Collection, Performance Measures and Outcomes for California Youth, was based on research as well as input from a survey of county probation officers. Therefore, we consider our recommendation to be fully implemented.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

The JJDWG membership included broad representation of counties and disciplines. In addition, the Chief Probation Officers of California was consulted regarding the impact to counties of the recommendations of the JJDWG. Given the recommendations of the JJDWG, and considering the input from counties, it is quite possible the outcome reporting requirements will change in a way that will increase the amount of juvenile justice data counties make available to the public. Therefore, we anticipate this recommendation will be fully implemented by the end of the current legislation session.

  • Estimated Completion Date: November 1, 2016

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

In establishing the new JJDWG, the Legislature mandated broad representation from the membership. The working group will begin meeting in October and is charged with analyzing the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data. As such, we expect the work of the JJDWG to inform our consideration of changes to county reporting of juvenile justice data.

  • 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

In establishing the new JJSC, broad county representation was a high priority and the final, approved membership reflects that. The JJSC began meeting in April and has begun to review the data collection and reporting requirements for YOBG. We expect the work of the JJSC will inform our assessment of changes to county reporting of juvenile justice data.

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

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


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC indicated that the JJSC will review and revise the data collection and reporting requirements for YOBG. The work of the JJSC will subsequently inform the BSCC's assessment of changes to the juvenile justice data that counties report.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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

The BSCC stated that it would provide additional information relating to the JJSC, including whether the JJCS has begun to revise data collection and reporting requirements, with its 1-year response.


60-Day Agency Response

The board did not address this recommendation in its response. (See 2013-406, p. 231)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #7 To: Justice, Department of

To ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data the counties submit into the Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS), Justice should follow its procedure to send annual summaries of the JCPSS data to the counties for review and to conduct occasional field audits of the counties' records.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2014

Summaries for the calendar year 2013 data were sent out on March 25, 2014 to all 58 counties and responses from the 56 counties participating in JCPSS affirmed their data by mid-April 2014. (Del Norte and Sierra Counties do not submit data to JCPSS.)

In early May 2014, the DOJ's Criminal Justice Statistics Center (CJSC), in conjunction with the CPOC's Training Committee, developed an audit questionnaire related to JCPSS data entry.

In mid-May 2014, the DOJ's Client Services Program, which conducts audits on behalf of the Department's various Programs, performed a desk audit of 10 randomly selected probation departments using the audit questionnaire in order to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data being submitted into the JCPSS. As a result, all probation departments completed and returned the audit questionnaire with only one probation department answering one of the audit questions incorrectly. Consequently, the CJSC contacted this particular probation department via telephone regarding this error and has provided training to ensure their data entry into JCPSS is correct.

DOJ will perform a desk audit of an additional 10 randomly selected probation departments in November 2014 to meet the semi-annual commitment discussed in DOJ's November 20, 2013 response. Subsequently, DOJ will address and resolve any outstanding issues identified via the audit.

  • Completion Date: May 2014

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

Although the Department of Justice (Justice) is not conducting field audits of counties' records, we consider this recommendation to be resolved because Justice is performing desk audits. Desk audits should result in identifying potential errors in counties' data.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2013

DOJ will continue to provide annual summary JCPSS data to counties in March of each year for their review and to obtain confirmation from each county that the summary accurately reflects the data submitted by that county for the year. If a county does not agree with the summary data provided by DOJ, the county corrects the data and resubmits it with a written confirmation.

Summaries for the calendar year 2012 data were sent out on March 19, 2013, and responses from all 56 counties participating in JCPSS affirmed their data by mid-April 2013. (Del Norte and Humboldt Counties do not submit data to JCPSS.)

Starting in January 2014, the DOJ will conduct semi-annual field audits of probation departments. DOJ staff will analyze data submitted by counties to assess the quality and completeness of the data. The analysis will be reviewed by supervisory/management staff, who will determine which counties will be audited. In addition, the DOJ will reach out to the training committee of the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) to obtain assistance in auditing juvenile probation information and to identify areas of training that DOJ can provide to CPOC to further ensure integrity in the data.

  • Estimated Completion Date: January 2014

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


1-Year Agency Response

When DOJ revised its JCPSS Manual, it implemented comprehensive edits and conditional checks on the data submitted by counties as a way of verifying the data while saving the State money in terms of additional resources and travel costs.

  • Completion Date: March 2013
  • Response Date: September 2013

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

Although Justice revised the JCPSS manual, it eliminated the requirement for it to conduct field audits on JCPSS data. By deleting this procedure, it is clear that Justice does not intend to take appropriate action to proactively address the issues we found with JCPSS data.


6-Month Agency Response

Justice revised its JCPSS manual to include a requirement for staff to conduct comprehensive edits and conditional checks on the data submitted by counties. The revised manual also includes a description of the year-end process for assuring the accuracy of the information submitted by probation departments.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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

Although Justice revised the JCPSS manual, it eliminated the requirement for it to conduct field audits on JCPSS data. By deleting this procedure, it is clear that Justice does not intend to take appropriate action to proactively address the issues we found with JCPSS data.


60-Day Agency Response

Justice indicated that it revised its JCPSS manual to include a description of the year-end process for assuring the accuracy of the information submitted by probation departments. The policy will require probation departments to provide written confirmation of receipt of the summary reports and to notify Justice if the probation departments detect any discrepancies. However, Justice also stated that it eliminated the requirement for it to conduct field audits on JCPSS data but provided no alternative procedure. By deleting this procedure, it is clear that Justice does not intend to take appropriate action to proactively address the issues we found with JCPSS data. (See 2013-406, p. 231)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #8 To: Justice, Department of

To ensure that its Automated Criminal History System (criminal history system) contains complete and accurate data related to juvenile offenders, Justice should implement a process to ensure that staff enter data correctly into the system.

1-Year Agency Response

Program staff reviewed all of the existing juvenile disposition codes available in the Automated Criminal History System (ACHS) and identified 11 disposition outcomes that required new juvenile disposition codes. With the request and implementation of these new codes, all juvenile disposition updates will have a unique juvenile code available for staff to perform their updates in the ACHS. The request for the new codes was submitted to DOJ technical staff and code creation was completed the first week of June 2013. On June 10, 2013, Criminal Offender Record Program management distributed an e-mail to all supervisory staff notifying them of the new codes. During that week, each supervisor met with their respective unit staff to discuss the implementation of the new codes and passed out hard copies of the new codes to be used effective immediately.

  • Completion Date: June 2013
  • Response Date: September 2013

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


6-Month Agency Response

Justice stated that staff has started the process of updating the reference manual to provide instructions on how to update the juvenile offender information into the criminal history system. In addition, Justice indicated that staff will receive hands-on training once the reference manual is finalized.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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


60-Day Agency Response

Justice stated that staff has started the process of updating the reference manual to provide instructions on how to update the juvenile offender information in the criminal history system. In addition, Justice indicated that staff is working to ensure that no overlap occurs between adult and juvenile reporting. (See 2013-406, p. 231)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #9 To: Justice, Department of

To ensure that its criminal history system contains complete and accurate data related to juvenile offenders, Justice should implement a procedure similar to the one it employs for the JCPSS to verify the accuracy of information the counties submit.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2014

The Hawkins Data Center (HDC) provided juvenile cycle data and the first data sampling was completed in May 2014. DOJ sampled 50 cycles and identified four cycles, or 8% that were updated with incorrect disposition codes. In each case, the juvenile record cycles were updated with the same incorrect adult disposition code instead of the appropriate corresponding juvenile disposition code. All of the cycles sampled were corrected to reflect the appropriate juvenile disposition codes. Staff responsible were made aware of the errors, reminded to use juvenile disposition codes on juvenile cycles, and provided with the list of new juvenile disposition codes in a staff meeting. DOJ will produce another sampling of 50 juvenile cycles in November 2014.

To ensure that DOJ's criminal history system contains complete and accurate data for juvenile offenders, the HDC provided statistics from the Department's ACHS showing agencies with a decline in juvenile disposition submissions for an eight month period.

Using these statistics, the CJSC identified a group of Juvenile Courts which showed declined submissions and contacted them via telephone/email to determine the reason for the decline. All of the Juvenile Courts contacted either did not know why there was a decrease in submissions or suggested that the decline is likely a result of new juvenile filings having decreased and/or their courts being under staffed.

  • Completion Date: May 2014

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

The Department of Justice provided policies and procedures which indicate that it will semi-annually sample data from the JCPSS and correct any identified errors.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2013

Starting in January 2014, on a semi-annual basis, the DOJ will pull 50 juvenile cycles from records in the Automated Criminal History System (ACHS) for supervisory review against the source documents from submitting agencies. Any discrepancies identified between the source document and the ACHS entry will be reconciled to ensure the ACHS data is accurate.

Additionally, the DOJ will pull data from ACHS by county for records containing juvenile dates of birth to determine the number of juvenile submissions on a semi-annual basis. For agencies showing a decline in the number of submissions, DOJ will contact those agencies to identify the cause of the decline and to provide training as needed to ensure accurate submission of juvenile data.

  • Estimated Completion Date: January 2014

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


1-Year Agency Response

DOJ is the statutorily mandated repository of criminal history information submitted by criminal justice agencies and always strives to maintain accurate and timely criminal history information. DOJ staff have and will continue to contact agencies for clarification if the submitted information cannot be reasonably updated to the criminal history system.

  • Completion Date: August 2012
  • Response Date: September 2013

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

Justice did not address whether it plans to implement any procedure to verify the accuracy of information the counties submit.


6-Month Agency Response

DOJ is the statutorily mandated repository of criminal history information submitted by criminal justice agencies and always strives to maintain accurate and timely criminal history information. DOJ staff have and will continue to contact agencies for clarification if the submitted information cannot be reasonably updated to the criminal history system.

  • Response Date: March 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Justice did not address whether it plans to implement any procedure to verify the accuracy of information the counties submit.


60-Day Agency Response

According to Justice, counties are responsible for submitting accurate criminal history information. Justice indicated that staff contact counties when questions arise and more experienced staff verify the work of newer staff. However, Justice did not address whether it plans to implement any procedure to verify the accuracy of information the counties submit. (See 2013-406, p. 232)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #10 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To increase the amount of information related to realignment and to allow stakeholders to identify the population of juvenile offenders sent directly to adult prison, Corrections should obtain complete offense dates from the courts, if possible.

6-Month Agency Response

Corrections' policies and procedures that require staff to request documents from the courts of complete offense dates are not listed. In addition, Corrections distributed guidance to staff to enter complete offense dates in its database when the information is received.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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


60-Day Agency Response

Although Corrections provided policies and procedures that require staff to request offense dates from the courts, none of them were created recently. Corrections' current policies are not adequate because the issue we identified occurred after Corrections' policies were already in place. Thus, Corrections needs to take additional steps, such as updating its policy manual or issuing a memo to staff, to ensure that it receives complete offense dates from the courts. (See 2013-406, p. 232)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #11 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To assist the Legislature in its effort to revise state law to specify the intended goals of juvenile justice realignment, the board should work with stakeholders to propose performance outcome goals to use to measure the success of realignment.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

This is precisely what the JJDWG has done by submitting its recommendations to the BSCC in its April 1, 2015 report. As noted in Recommendation #1, the recommendations in the Report have not been approved as stakeholders work towards consensus.

  • Completion Date: May 2015

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

The new JJDWG, which will begin meeting on October 9, 2014, is comprised of stakeholders representing a variety of disciplines and jurisdictions. Since the work group is required to review YOBG reporting requirements, we expect their work will help shape future performance outcome goals.

  • 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

In establishing the new JJSC, broad county representation was a high priority and the final, approved membership reflects that. The JJSC began meeting in April and has begun to review the data collection and reporting requirements for YOBG. We expect the work of the JJSC to help shape future performance outcome goals.

CSA's vision of BSCC's role relative to YOBG reporting relies upon an assumption of responsibility that far exceeds the legislative mandate. Although BSCC now has a mandate to provide leadership for statewide realignment efforts, that only came into effect as of July 1, 2012, when the audit was nearly concluded.

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

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

Given the importance of performance outcome goals in defining the success or failure of realignment, we would expect the JJSC's work to include developing such goals. In addition, the board's response regarding its role relative to block grant reporting is troubling and short-sighted. Regardless of the effective date of the law, because the board is the only state administering body referenced in the law that realigned juvenile offenders, we would expect that its annual reports would give the Legislature and the public the information with which to make an assessment of realignment outcomes. Further, if the board continues to insist that its responsibilities to provide leadership relative to realignment began in July 2012, when our audit was nearly complete, we are confused as to why the board has not taken steps to provide more leadership in the over one year it has had this responsibility.


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC indicated that the JJSC will review and revise the data collection and reporting requirements for YOBG, including performance outcome goals.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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


60-Day Agency Response

The board did not address this recommendation in its response. (See 2013-406, p. 232)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation #12 To: State and Community Corrections, Board of

To ensure that counties do not maintain excessive balances of unexpended block grant funds, the board should develop procedures to monitor counties' unspent funds and follow up with them if the balances become unreasonable.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds is incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendices D and E of BSCC's March 2013, March 2014, March 2015, and March 2016 legislative reports show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. The BSCC has a limited role in administering YOBG/JJCPA funding, which has further been limited by AB 1998. As such, the BSCC does not plan on further monitoring the account balances or evaluate whether carried forward balances become "unreasonable."

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds are incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendices D and E of BSCC's March 2013, March 2014, and March 2015 legislative reports show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. BSCC does not plan to develop anything further in this area.

This topic invites an important reminder about the changed nature of public safety since enactment of YOBG. Given today's post-realignment and post-Proposition 30 landscape, it is essential to allow counties the flexibility to manage their funds in accordance with local needs and priorities. Indeed, Proposition 30 clearly stated "The [realignment] legislation shall provide local agencies with maximum flexibility and control over the design, administration, and delivery of Public Safety Services..." (Section 36(a)(2) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) For the purposes of this section, Public Safety Services is defined (in part) as "... providing housing, treatment and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders." (Section 36(a)(1) of Article XIII of the California Constitution)

  • Estimated Completion Date: November 1, 2016

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


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds is incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendicies D and E of BSCC's March 2013 and March 2014 legislative reports show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. BSCC does not plan to develop anything further in this area, pending recommendations from the JJDWG.

This topic invites an important reminder about the changed nature of public safety since enactment of YOBG. Given today's post-realignment and post-Proposition 30 world, it is essential to allow counties the flexibility to manage their funds in accordance with local needs and priorities. Indeed, Proposition 30 clearly stated "The [realignment] legislation shall provide local agencies with maximum flexibility and control over the design, administration, and delivery of Public Safety Services..." (Section 36(a)(2) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) For the purposes of this section, Public Safety Services is defined (in part) as "... providing housing, treatment and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders." (Section 36(a)(1) of Article XIII of the California Constitution)

Should the recommendations of the JJDWG support a change in direction, the BSCC would re-evaluate the State Auditor's suggestion at that time.

  • 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

Since there were no YOBG reporting requirements during 2008-09 and 2009-10, data to assess county levels of unspent funds is incomplete. In 2010, reporting requirements were enacted and BSCC began collecting expenditure data from counties. Appendicies D and E of BSCC's March 2013 legislative report show planned versus actual expenditures for each county. Unspent funds equal the difference between the two. BSCC does not plan to develop anything further in this area.

This topic invites an important reminder about the changed nature of public safety since enactment of YOBG. Given today's post-realignment and post-Proposition 30 world, it is essential to allow counties the flexibility to manage their funds in accordance with local needs and priorities. Indeed, Proposition 30 clearly stated "The [realignment] legislation shall provide local agencies with maximum flexibility and control over the design, administration, and delivery of Public Safety Services..." (Section 36(a)(2) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) For the purposes of this section, Public Safety Services is defined (in part) as "... providing housing, treatment and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders." (Section 36(a)(1) of Article XIII of the California Constitution) In further support of the need to align YOBG with the broader realignment mandates, the most recent amendments to Government Code Section 30025 place the Juvenile Justice Subaccount, including the Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account, within the Local Revenue Fund 2011 bringing it clearly under the umbrella of Public Safety Realignment. (Senate Bill 1020, enacted 6/27/12)

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

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

The report that the board attached in its annual report is not a complete representation of counties' unspent funds given that counties are not required to spend all block grant funds each year. As a result, counties may save block grant funds from one year to the next. Further, our recommendation does not impinge on a county's ability to spend funds how its sees fit and therefore it is unclear to us why the board seemed to make that our recommendation does so. On the contrary, our recommendation simply suggests that the board should monitor unspent funds in the event that they become excessive. We consider this to be a sound business practice, particularly given that the three of the counties we visited held unspent funds for at least four years.


6-Month Agency Response

The BSCC stated that its most recent legislative report will include data on counties' unexpended block grant funds. It also indicated that additional attention will be given to this recommendation during the next reporting cycle.

  • Response Date: March 2013

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

The most recent legislative report did not explicitly include any information regarding counties' unspent funds. In addition, the BSCC indicated it would provide additional policies and procedures relating to monitoring counties' unspent funds in its 1-year response.


60-Day Agency Response

The board did not address this recommendation in its response. (See 2013-406, p. 233)

  • Response Date: November 2012

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


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure that it has the information necessary to meaningfully assess the outcomes of juvenile justice realignment, the Legislature should consider amending state law to require counties to collect and report countywide performance outcomes and expenditures related to juvenile justice as a condition of receiving block grant funds. In addition, the Legislature should require the board to collect and report these data in its annual reports, rather than outcomes and expenditures solely for the block grant.

Description of Legislative Action

N/A

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: February 2014

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


Recommendation for Legislative Action

The Legislature should consider revising state law to specify the intended goals of juvenile justice realignment. To assist the Legislature in this effort, the board should work with stakeholders to propose performance outcome goals to use to measure the success of realignment.

Description of Legislative Action

N/A

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: February 2014

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


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To offset potential disincentives and provide counties with a more consistent level of funding from year to year, the Legislature should consider amending the block grant funding formula. For example, the formula could be adjusted to use the average number of felony dispositions over the past several fiscal years instead of using only annual data.

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 2011-129

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