Most Recent Reports

Report 2014-043: CA-MMIS Status Letter

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

The California State Auditor just released report 2014-043: CA-MMIS Status Letter.

Report 2015-406: Implementation of State Auditor's Recommendations: Reports Released in January 2013 Through December 2014

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

The California State Auditor just released report 2015-406: Implementation of State Auditor's Recommendations: Reports Released in January 2013 Through December 2014.

Report 2014-116: California Department of Consumer Affairs' BreEZe System: Inadequate Planning and Oversight Led to Implementation at Far Fewer Regulatory Entities at a Significantly Higher Cost

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

Our audit concerning the California Department of Consumer Affairs' (Consumer Affairs) planning, development, and implementation of BreEZe--an information technology (IT) system envisioned to support all primary functions and responsibilities of its regulatory entities--revealed the following:

Consumer Affairs failed to adequately plan, staff, and manage the project for developing BreEZe.
- It did not effectively assess the regulatory entities' business needs to determine system requirements.
- Inadequate system requirements led to significant delays at key stages of the project.
- It relied on faulty assumptions in selecting a commercial "off-the-shelf" system as the foundation for BreEZe, which contributed to an increase in project costs--from $28 million in 2009 to $96 million as of January 2015 for half of the entities originally planned.
- It did not have adequate staffing to execute and implement BreEZe through critical project phases.
Between December 2010 and September 2014, the California Department of Technology's (CalTech) independent oversight raised nearly 180 significant project concerns, yet both CalTech and Consumer Affairs' officials allowed the project to continue without significant intervention.
Despite significant problems with the BreEZe project, CalTech approved additional funding for it.
The California Department of General Services and Consumer Affairs revised the BreEZe contracts' terms and conditions, at the request of the project vendor, in ways that significantly increased the financial risk to the State.
As of January 2015 only 10 regulatory entities had transitioned to BreEZe, eight more intend to transition in March 2016, and it is unknown if the remaining 19 regulatory entities will implement BreEZe.
Most executive officers of the 10 regulatory entities that had transitioned to BreEZe reported that it has decreased their regulatory entity's operational efficiency.
Due to lack of evidence, the Board of Registered Nursing's claim that the implementation of BreEZe caused inefficiency in processing applications could not be substantiated.

Report 2014-124: California's Alternative Energy and Efficiency Initiatives: Two Programs Are Meeting Some Goals, but Several Improvements Are Needed

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

Our review of two alternative energy and efficiency initiatives--the California Solar Initiative (solar initiative) and the Clean Air Vehicle Decal Program (decal program) revealed the following:

The California Public Utilities Commission (commission) will likely meet the megawatt and self-sufficiency goals of the solar initiative.
The commission needs to better monitor and quantify the progress toward some solar initiative goals.
- It has not selected a program evaluator to assess whether the Research, Development, Deployment and Demonstration Program contributed to the solar initiative's goals.
- It will not meet the goals for the California Solar Initiative Thermal Program due to low participation.
The California Department of Motor Vehicles' current decal fees are insufficient to cover all program costs.
The California Air Resources Board needs to measure the decal program's effect on air quality.
Both the solar initiative and the decal program have generally served Californians with higher incomes.

Report 2014-113: California Department of Public Health: Even With a Recent Increase in Federal Funding, Its Efforts to Prevent Diabetes Are Focused on a Limited Number of Counties

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

Our review of the California Department of Public Health's (Public Health) diabetes prevention programs, highlighted the following:

Public Health's spending has declined over the years resulting from reductions in federal funding, and California does not provide any state funding for diabetes prevention.
- In fiscal year 2012-13, California's per capita funding for diabetes prevention--at 3 cents--was the lowest in the nation.
- Public Health has not been able to expand its diabetes prevention activities to many of the counties that have a high prevalence of diabetes even with two recent additional federal grants.
Public Health does not have a process to proactively search for diabetes-related grant opportunities nor does it have staff dedicated to doing so--we identified two grants worth up to $500,000 each for which Public Health was eligible to apply but did not.
Public Health appears to spend its limited federal funds appropriately and in compliance with applicable grant requirements, and its staff managing its diabetes prevention efforts met or exceeded the qualifications for their positions.

Report 2014-136: Coastal Improvement Fund

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

The California State Auditor just released report 2014-136: Coastal Improvement Fund.

Report 2014-041: Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

The California State Auditor just released report 2014-041: Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006.

Report 2014-118: California Department of Developmental Services: Its Process for Assessing Fees Paid by Parents of Children Living in Residential Facilities Is Woefully Inefficient and Inconsistent

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

Our audit of the California Department of Developmental Services' (Developmental Services) Parental Fee Program highlighted the following:

Its parental fee assessment process is riddled with unnecessary delays, lack of documentation, incorrect calculations, and inconsistent staff interpretations.
- Developmental Services does not ensure parents provide documentation for all income and expenses.
- Months or years may pass before Developmental Services becomes aware of the need to assess fees on certain families because regional centers do not submit required monthly reports.
- Although required to do so, Developmental Services did not annually reassess most of the parental fee accounts we reviewed.
Developmental Services' initial fee assessments are inadequate--95 percent of appealed fee assessments from fiscal years 2011-12 through 2013-14 were reduced.
Developmental Services staff do not use any sort of standardized fee schedule to guide the subsequent reassessment of the fee--the reassessment is based on the judgment of a four-member committee.
Developmental Services collects only about 60 percent of assessed fees.

Report 2014-039: Fi$Cal Status Letter

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

The California State Auditor just released report 2014-039: Fi$Cal Status Letter.

Report 2014-107: Judicial Branch of California: Because of Questionable Fiscal and Operational Decisions, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts Have Not Maximized the Funds Available for the Courts

webmaster@bsa.ca.gov (California State Auditor Webmaster) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:00:00 GMT

Our review of the funds administered by the judicial branch and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), highlighted the following:

The Judicial Council did not adequately oversee the AOC in managing the judicial branch budget, which allowed the AOC to engage in questionable compensation and business practices. The AOC:
- Provides its staff with generous salaries and benefits--the AOC pays eight of its nine office directors more than the governor and many other high-ranking executive branch officials receive.
- Employs over 70 contractors and temporary employees and could save about $7.2 million per year by using state employees in comparable positions.
- Maintains a fleet of 66 vehicles without requiring its offices to justify the need.
- Made about $386 million in payments over the last four years on behalf of trial courts using funds appropriated to them but could have paid a portion of those payments from its own funds.
The AOC has sole autonomy in deciding how to spend certain judicial branch funds due to the lack of Judicial Council's involvement in the budgeting process.
The AOC has few policies, procedures, or controls in place to ensure funds are appropriately used and spent and, unlike the executive branch, is not required to undergo an annual independent financial audit.
Although it provides services to the courts, the AOC has never comprehensively surveyed the courts to identify the needs of the courts and ensure that services it provides are useful.