If San Diego County's benefit committee believes that its processes for distributing grant funds are vital to its effective management of distribution fund grants, it should seek legislative authority to change its process. Otherwise, San Diego County's benefit committee should instruct the Controller to release funds directly to the grant recipients.
The IGLCBC had a process in place since its establishment that required agreements to be entered into between the IGLCBC and the entities that were awarded grants, and appreciates the draft audit reports conclusion that the practice shows some benefits. The IGLCBC has required these direct agreements to meet the requirements Government Code Section 12715(c), (d), (e), and (h), which provide that the IGLCBC will administer the various grants and that the grants shall terminate if a local jurisdiction uses a grant for an unrelated purpose. Section 12716 also requires the IGLCBC staff to submit reports on the Committees grant activities. For this reason, the IGLCBC grant program was structured to fund grants through these agreements that it could directly enforce against local jurisdiction recipients if necessary.
On January 23, 2014, the California State Controller notified the County of San Diego Grant Administrator that the Controllers office will no longer be making the entire distribution to the County of San Diego, therefore distributions will be made to directly to individual cities or special districts awarded grant funds. For the upcoming grant year, and with this additional guidance, the County will be requesting that grant agreements for all recipients be in place in advance of the IGLCBCs request to the Controller for distribution of grant funds not awarded to the County. The IGLCBC will still require statements and that interest payments be returned to the Committee for distribution for additional grants. At the April 9, 2014 meeting of the IGLCBC, the Committee made a motion to support a legislative amendment fix to the relevant sections of the Government Code to allow the IGLCBC to continue its previously-existing practice. Until such time that an amendment is passed, however, the IGLCBC will request that the Controllers office issue checks directly to non-County grant recipients.
†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year or subsequent to one year.
*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.