Report 2020-102 Recommendation 9 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 #9 To: Alameda County

Unless the Legislature clarifies its intent otherwise, to ensure that the counties prudently and appropriately spend realignment funds, the Partnership Committee at Alameda should, starting with its next annual budget, review and make budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts, including the accounts that fund non-law enforcement departments and community-based organizations. Further, Alameda should ensure that it budgets all realignment funds to eliminate excessive surpluses in realignment accounts and prevent future surpluses beyond a reasonable reserve.

1-Year Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services. Alameda County continues to disagree with the State's analysis of Public Safety realignment surplus amounts cited in the State Audit report 2020-102. The attached letter from the Alameda County Auditor-Controller to the State Auditor provides background information and additional details.

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

We disagree with Alameda's contention that its Partnership Committee is not required to review and make recommendations for all public safety realignment accounts. As we state in the report on page 33 and 34, 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, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies 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. As such, Alameda's Partnership Committee should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Alameda has not provided any evidence demonstrating that the State Auditor's analysis of public safety surpluses is incorrect. Alameda communicated with our office after the State Auditor published this report in late March 2021, stating that it was unable to reconcile the surpluses we reported for its public safety accounts. We were surprised to learn of Alameda's concerns, as we provided county staff with these surpluses without question several times throughout the audit. Specifically, we discussed Alameda's surpluses with them by phone and emails from October through December 2020, during an exit conference in January 2021, and finally during Alameda's formal review of the draft report in February 2021. At no time did Alameda express concern with the accuracy of our calculations. In responses to Alameda's concern, in early April, we requested that Alameda provide evidence that demonstrates that our calculations were inaccurate; however, it has not done so. The surpluses we present in our report are consistent with the revenue and expenditure reports generated from Alameda's financial management system for each of the public safety accounts. Although Alameda disagrees with the surplus calculations, it is unclear why it is unwilling to eliminate excessive surpluses or prevent excessive surpluses in its public safety accounts in the future.

6-Month Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services. Alameda County continues to disagree with the State's analysis of Public Safety realignment surplus amounts cited in the State Audit report 2020-102. The attached letter from the Alameda County Auditor-Controller to the State Auditor provides background information and additional details.

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

We disagree with Alameda's contention that its Partnership Committee is not required to review and make recommendations for all public safety realignment accounts. As we state in the report on page 33 and 34, 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, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies 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. As such, Alameda's Partnership Committee should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Alameda has not provided any evidence demonstrating that the State Auditor's analysis of public safety surpluses is incorrect. Alameda communicated with our office after the State Auditor published this report in late March 2021, stating that it was unable to reconcile the surpluses we reported for its public safety accounts. We were surprised to learn of Alameda's concerns, as we provided county staff with these surpluses without question several times throughout the audit. Specifically, we discussed Alameda's surpluses with them by phone and emails from October through December 2020, during an exit conference in January 2021, and finally during Alameda's formal review of the draft report in February 2021. At no time did Alameda express concern with the accuracy of our calculations. In responses to Alameda's concern, in early April, we requested that Alameda provide evidence that demonstrates that our calculations were inaccurate; however, it has not done so. The surpluses we present in our report are consistent with the revenue and expenditure reports generated from Alameda's financial management system for each of the public safety accounts. Although Alameda disagrees with the surplus calculations, it is unclear why it is unwilling to eliminate excessive surpluses or prevent excessive surpluses in its public safety accounts in the future.

60-Day Agency Response

Alameda County respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "Alameda's Partnership Committee's interpretation of the scope of public safety realignment is overly narrow...". Absent legislative clarification, the County does not believe the Partnership Committee is required to review and make recommendations for all realignment accounts including those that fund non-law enforcement departments such as child welfare and behavioral health care services. Alameda County continues to disagree with the State's analysis of Public Safety realignment surplus amounts cited in the State Audit report 2020-102. The attached letter from the Alameda County Auditor-Controller to the State Auditor provides background information and additional details.

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

We disagree with Alameda's contention that its Partnership Committee is not required to review and make recommendations for all public safety realignment accounts. As we state in the report on page 33 and 34, 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, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies 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. As such, Alameda's Partnership Committee should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Alameda has not provided any evidence demonstrating that the State Auditor's analysis of public safety surpluses is incorrect. Alameda communicated with our office after the State Auditor published this report in late March 2021, stating that it was unable to reconcile the surpluses we reported for its public safety accounts. We were surprised to learn of Alameda's concerns, as we provided county staff with these surpluses without question several times throughout the audit. Specifically, we discussed Alameda's surpluses with them by phone and emails from October through December 2020, during an exit conference in January 2021, and finally during Alameda's formal review of the draft report in February 2021. At no time, did Alameda express concern with the accuracy of our calculations. In responses to Alameda's concern, in early April, we requested that Alameda provide evidence that demonstrates that our calculations were inaccurate; however, it has not done so. The surpluses we present in our report are consistent with the revenue and expenditure reports generated from Alameda's financial management system for each of the public safety accounts. Although Alameda disagrees with the surplus calculations, it is unclear why it is unwilling to eliminate excessive surpluses or prevent excessive surpluses in its public safety accounts in the future.

All Recommendations in 2020-102

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.