Report 2020-102 Recommendation 16 Responses

Report 2020-102: Public Safety Realignment: Weak State and County Oversight Does Not Ensure That Funds Are Spent Effectively (Release Date: March 2021)

Recommendation #16 To: Fresno, County of

To ensure that the county reports accurate and consistent information to the Corrections Board, beginning with its next annual report, Fresno should consistently report all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

Fresno County's response has not changed from the original response.

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

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

Fresno County's response has not changed from the original response.

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

We continue to disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

1-Year Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 6-month response.

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

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

6-Month Agency Response

Fresno County's response has not changed from the 60-day response.

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

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

60-Day Agency Response

Fresno County response to this recommendation has not changed from the initial response to the Public Safety Realignment Report issued on March 25, 2021. Fresno County disagrees with this recommendation for the reasons stated in the response to the first recommendation provided in the initial response to the first recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Fresno's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Fresno's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

All Recommendations in 2020-102

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.