Most Recent Reports Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT List of the most recent reports published by the California State Auditor Report 2014-401: Data Reliability: State Agencies' Computer-Generated Data Varied in Their Completeness and Accuracy The California State Auditor just released report 2014-401: Data Reliability: State Agencies' Computer-Generated Data Varied in Their Completeness and Accuracy. Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-006: State of California: Treasurer's Cash Count as of June 30, 2014 The California State Auditor just released report 2014-006: State of California: Treasurer's Cash Count as of June 30, 2014. Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-119: City of Indio: Although the City Complied With the Mello-Roos Act in Forming and Managing Community Facilities District No. 2004-3, It Should Do More to Address Inequities <p>Our review of the disposition of bond proceeds for Community Facilities District No. 2004-3 (Terra Lago) highlighted the following:</p> <ul> <li>The city of Indio (city) complied with requirements of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Act) in forming Community Facilities District No. 2004-3 (Terra Lago), assigning and paying Terra Lago's development costs, and responding to a tax relief petition from residents.</li> <li>The city created inequities between Terra Lago's two improvement areas. <ul> <li>It charged Terra Lago's Improvement Area Number 1 (Area 1) $2.6 million for water fees that will primarily benefit Improvement Area Number 2 (Area 2).</li> <li>It paid $1.1 million for sewer infrastructure that solely benefits Area 2.</li> </ul></li> <li> While the city has taken some steps to reduce the inequities, Area 1's bond debt still covers about $1.2 million of remaining costs benefitting Area 2.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2013-125: California Department of Health Care Services: Weaknesses in Its Medi-Cal Dental Program Limit Children's Access to Dental Care <p>Our audit of the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal) Dental Program, administered by the California Department of Health Care Services (Health Care Services), highlighted the following:</p> <ul> <li>Although the proportion of children who had at least one dental procedure performed during the year --utilization rate--increased each year from 2011 to 2013, Health Care Services has not established criteria for assessing utilization rates under the fee-for-service model.</li> <li>While overall California appears to have an adequate number of active providers to meet the dental needs of child beneficiaries, some counties lacked active providers for children in the program.</li> <li>California's reimbursement rates for the 10 dental procedures most frequently authorized for payment within the program in 2012 averaged $21.60--only 35 percent of the national average for these same procedures in 2011. </li> <li>We estimate that recent changes in federal and state laws could increase the number of individuals using dental services through Medi-Cal from 2.7 million to as many as 6.4 million. </li> <li>Health Care Services has not reviewed reimbursement rates annually as required and thus, may remain unaware of their impact on access to dental services.</li> <li>Health Care Services has not enforced certain contract provisions related to increasing utilization.</li> <li>Health Care Services' current data collection efforts lack the specificity required to fully meet federal and state reporting requirements.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-301: Judicial Branch Procurement: Five Superior Courts Did Not Consistently Follow Judicial Branch Contracting Practices <p>Our review assessing five superior courts' compliance with the California Judicial Branch Contract Law highlighted the following:</p> <ul> <li>None of the five superior courts we visited--Superior Court of Alameda County (Alameda court), Superior Court of Butte County (Butte court), Superior Court of Fresno County (Fresno court), Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County (San Luis Obispo court), and Superior Court of Yuba County (Yuba court)--fully complied with the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual.</li> <li>Alameda court, Fresno court, and Yuba court made procurement payments without proper authorization.</li> <li>All five superior courts could better follow their procedures for noncompetitive procurements.</li> <li>Butte court, Fresno court, and San Luis Obispo court had not adopted procedures for the State's Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise program.</li> <li>Butte court, Fresno court, San Luis Obispo court, and Alameda court did not have procedures to implement the small business preference for competitive information technology procurements.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-110: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery: The Beverage Container Recycling Program Continues to Face Deficits and Requires Changes to Become Financially Sustainable <p>Our audit of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery's (CalRecycle) administration of the Beverage Container Recycling Program (beverage program) revealed the following:</p> <ul> <li>In the last four fiscal years, the beverage program has been operating under an annual deficit in which the revenue generated was insufficient to cover expenditures.</li> <li>The beverage program's collective gap between revenues and expenditures across all five funds has exceeded $100 million over three of the last four fiscal years.</li> <li>There are viable options available that CalRecycle and the Legislature may want to consider for enhancing revenue and reducing expenditures to the beverage program.</li> <li>CalRecycle needs to better respond to the fraud risk presented by the importation of out-of-state beverage containers for recycling refund payments.</li> <li>CalRecycle is unable to demonstrate that it is focusing its limited resources in the areas of highest risk to ensure the greatest financial return to the beverage program.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-111: California Department of Public Health: It Has Not Effectively Managed Investigations of Complaints Related to Long-Term Health Care Facilities <p>Our audit of the California Department of Public Health's (Public Health) regulation of long-term health care facilities highlighted the following:</p> <ul> <li>As of April 2014 Public Health had more than 10,000 open complaints and entity-reported incidents (ERIs) related to long-term health care facilities and nearly 1,000 open complaints against individuals.</li> <li>Public Health's oversight of complaints processing is inadequate and has contributed to the large number of open complaints and ERIs.<ul> <li>Until late 2013 it did not have a standardized method for monitoring the status of open complaints and ERIs at the district offices and for assessing whether these complaints were being addressed promptly.</li> <li>It does not have accurate data about the status of investigations into complaints against individuals.</li> </ul></li> <li> Public Health has not established formal policies and procedures for ensuring prompt completion of investigations of complaints related to facilities or to the individuals it certifies. </li> <li>Some district offices may be performing more on-site investigations of ERIs than others, while other offices may be closing more ERIs and categorizing them as no action necessary.</li> <li>Three of the four district offices we visited claim they do not have enough resources to investigate all complaints promptly, and the Professional Certification Branch noted a similar situation.</li> <li>Public Health did not always follow procedures to ensure consistent quality of complaint investigations.</li> <li>The four district offices we reviewed did not consistently ensure timely receipt of corrective action plans or evidence of corrective actions when required to do so from facilities that were notified of deficient practices. </li> <li>Public Health also did not consistently meet certain time frames for initiating complaints and ERIs.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-109: Sexual Assault Evidence Kits: Although Testing All Kits Could Benefit Sexual Assault Investigations, the Extent of the Benefits Is Unknown <p>Our review of the processing and analysis of sexual assault evidence kits highlighted the following:</p> <ul> <li>We did not identify any state or federal law that requires agencies to request analysis of every sexual assault evidence kit.</li> <li>The three law enforcement agencies we reviewed and their associated crime labs analyzed varied proportions of the sexual assault evidence kits they collected from 2011 through 2013.<ul> <li>Of about 1,900 kits that the three agencies received during this period, nearly 850 were analyzed, almost 140 were still in progress at the labs, and about 910 kits remained unanalyzed. </li> </ul></li> <li>The agencies allow their investigators to use their discretion in making decisions about whether to request a kit analysis based on the specific circumstances of the individual case in place of formal policies.</li> <li>While we concluded for the cases we reviewed that the reasons an investigator did not request a kit analysis appeared reasonable, there may be potential benefits that analyzing a kit could provide to apparently unrelated sexual assault investigations through the use of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).</li> <li>Although we did not identify any negative effects on the investigations of the 45 cases we reviewed in which the investigators did not request a kit analysis, investigators rarely documented the reasons they decided not to request an analysis.</li> <li>The California Department of Justice's Rapid DNA Service program could provide more information about the benefits of analyzing all sexual assault evidence kits.</li> <li>While it is not known how often kit analysis in cases with unknown assailants would aid the investigations of these or other cases, we believe analyzing these kits is a prudent step regardless of most case circumstances because these cases involve unknown assailants and a kit analysis could result in a match in CODIS.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-108: State Board of Equalization Building: Despite Ongoing Health and Safety Concerns, the State Has Not Thoroughly Analyzed the Costs and Benefits of Relocating Employees <p>Our assessment of the State Board of Equalization's (BOE) and the California Department of General Services' (General Services) analysis of BOE's headquarters building highlighted the following:</p> <ul> <li>BOE has not yet prepared a cohesive, properly supported analysis demonstrating that the benefits to the State of moving BOE to a new facility outweigh the costs.</li> <li>BOE staff believe that by mirroring the Franchise Tax Board's (FTB) horizontal movement of tax documents, it will achieve gains similar to those it says FTB achieved, but does not have a strong rationale underlying its assumptions.</li> <li>BOE cannot support some of its estimates in its analysis of the costs and benefits of maintaining its current spatial configuration versus relocating and consolidating its headquarters.</li> <li>Although it developed a methodology to estimate the lost productivity from its employees moving to, working at, and moving back from a temporary work location, BOE could not provide a strong rationale to support its estimate. </li> <li>BOE's estimate of its future space needs relies on a projected annual growth rate which appears to be overstated.</li> <li>After we expanded on BOE's analysis using additional components and much more conservative assumptions, we believe there could be a net fiscal benefit for the State to move BOE staff to a new facility.</li> <li>Although General Services is responsible for overseeing the use of state facilities, it has not determined whether maintaining ownership and repairing the BOE building is in the best interest of the State and has no plans for using or selling the building if BOE moves.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster) Report 2014-037: California Department of Housing and Community Development: Inconsistent Oversight Has Resulted in the Questionable Use of Some Housing Bond Funds <p>Our review of the activities related to the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Acts of 2002 and 2006, which provide housing bonds for use in financing affordable housing, highlighted the following:</p> <ul> <li>The California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) weaknesses in awarding funds for some of the programs it administers have resulted in the questionable use of funds.<ul> <li>It awarded funds to projects with costs well above the averages for their geographical areas without determining whether these costs were reasonable.</li> <li>It awarded funds to a project that did not meet the purpose of the funding program--increasing affordable housing.</li> </ul></li> <li>HCD failed to adequately monitor four of the seven housing bond programs that we reviewed.<ul> <li>It failed to obtain many status reports from program recipients.</li> <li>For the CalHome Program, it has not developed an adequate, risk-based process for determining which recipients warrant on-site visits.</li> <li>For two of the programs, it advanced funds to several recipients that for years did not provide evidence of how funds were spent.</li> </ul></li> <li>Continued weaknesses in HCD's housing bond database negatively affects its monitoring efforts.</li> </ul> Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:00:00 GMT (California State Auditor Webmaster)