John Keel, CPA
State Auditor

An Audit Report on

The Office of Violent Sex
Offender Management
January 2015
Report No. 15-018

An Audit Report on

The Office of Violent Sex Offender
Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015

Overall Conclusion
The Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
(Office) had evidence that (1) its case managers
supervised the 136 sexually violent predators1
that the Office oversees and (2) those sexually
violent predators received treatment. However,
the Office did not have controls over the
management of certain contracting and financial
processes. Specifically, the Office should
address deficiencies in the following areas:


Contract management.



Budgeting.



Expenditure review.



Processing the fees that sexually violent
predators pay.



Securing access to the Office’s case
management system.

Contract management. The Office’s
expenditures on contracts and memorandums of
understanding for treatment, transportation,
and other services for sexually violent predators
totaled $7.5 million (67 percent) of the Office’s
$11.2 million in expenditures from September 1,
2011, through May 31, 2014. However, the
Office did not have controls for the following:


1

Background Information
The Office of Violent Sex Offender
Management (Office) is responsible for
providing appropriate and necessary treatment
and supervision to sexually violent predators.
Texas Health and Safety Code, Section
841.003, defines a sexually violent predator as
a person who is a repeat sexually violent
offender and suffers from a behavioral
abnormality that makes the person likely to
engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.
Effective in fiscal year 2012, the Legislature
created the Office as a separate agency (its
services had previously been the responsibility
of the Council on Sex Offender Treatment,
which was administratively attached to the
Department of State Health Services).
However, Texas Government Code, Chapter
420A, specifies that the Department of State
Health Services shall provide administrative
support services as necessary.
As an independent agency that is
administratively attached to the Department
of State Health Services, the Office receives
appropriations through the Department of
State Health Services. Specifically, through
the Department of State Health Services’
strategy G.1.1:



The Legislature appropriated $4,037,687
for the Office for fiscal year 2012 and
$4,766,511 for the Office for fiscal year
2013.



The Legislature appropriated $6,029,249
for the Office for fiscal year 2014 and
$6,902,262 for the Office for fiscal year
2015.

As of May 31, 2014, the Office employed 23
staff, 15 of whom were case managers.

Planning. The Office did not conduct
formal planning, including a needs assessment and a cost estimate, for any
of the 54 contracts that auditors tested. The Office did not plan for
treatment services by determining (1) how many treatment providers would
be needed in each area of the state or (2) how much treatment services
would cost each year.

As of September 2014, the Office was responsible for overseeing 171 sexually violent predators, 32 of whom were in county
jails. The sexually violent predators in county jails receive minimal supervision from the Office. The Office also supervised
three individuals who lived in state-supported living facilities, such as a state school.
This audit was conducted in accordance with Texas Government Code, Sections 321.0131 and 321.0132.
For more information regarding this report, please contact Verma Elliott, Audit Manager, or John Keel, State Auditor, at (512) 9369500.

An Audit Report on
The Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018



Procurement. With one exception, all of the Office’s contracts were openenrollment contracts for which the Office is not required to solicit formal
bids. However, the Office did not have a formal process to identify,
evaluate, and enroll contractors.



Contract formation and rate/price establishment. For 53 of the contracts
tested, the contracts did not contain detailed descriptions of the services
the contractors would provide, how much those services would cost,
sanctions for nonperformance, or evidence of a legal review of the contract
terms. The Office was not able to provide a copy of one additional contract
selected for testing (the Office had canceled that contract).



Contract oversight. The Office monitored the seven part-time case
managers with whom it contracted. However, it did not monitor contractor
performance for 46 other contracts for services such as treatment and
transportation. (As discussed above, the Office canceled one contract.)

In addition to contracts, the Office also uses memorandums of understanding to
obtain housing services; auditors identified issues with those memorandums of
understanding that were the same as the contracting issues discussed above.
Budgeting. The Office has not implemented a budgeting process to identify or
plan for the services it provides, and it did not ensure that funds would be
available to meet its needs. Although the Office had a process to track monthly
expenditures, it did not track the amount of funds it had available for future
expenditures.
Expenditure Review. Auditors tested 115 Office expenditures totaling
$1,110,140. For 45 (39 percent) of those 115 expenditures, the Office did not have
adequate supporting documentation for the associated services and/or the services
provided were not specified in the contract. The portion of the expenditures
tested for which the Office did not have adequate supporting documentation
and/or were for services not specified in the contract totaled a net $54,018
(4.9 percent of the $1,110,140 in total expenditures tested).
Processing the fees that sexually violent predators pay. The Office has not
implemented segregation of duties in its collection of fees that sexually violent
predators pay for a global positioning system (GPS). Office case managers
determine how much a sexually violent predator will pay, collect the fee, send the
fee for deposit, and input the amount paid in the Office’s case management
system. Auditors could not find evidence that the Office used the revenue from
the fees it had collected to offset the cost of the GPS system, as statute requires.
The Office reported that, from September 2011 to May 2014, it had collected
$140,072 in fees.
Access to the Office’s case management system. The Office did not have
adequate controls over access to the system that it uses to manage case managers’

ii

An Audit Report on
The Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018

case loads. The information in that system also is the basis for invoices from
treatment providers and transportation drivers.
The Department of State Health Services processes the Office’s financial
transactions and performs other administrative duties for the Office; however, the
Office is responsible for establishing controls over its own business processes.
As of October 2014, the Office had filled vacant positions in its Austin office; those
positions were responsible for many of the Office’s administrative functions,
including budgeting, financial functions, and legal counsel.
Auditors communicated other, less significant issues regarding invoices, payments
to contractors, and policies and procedures to Office management separately in
writing.

Selected Recommendation
The Legislature should consider requiring the Office to use contracts instead of
memorandums of understanding to obtain housing services.

Summary of Management’s Response
The Office agreed with the recommendations in this report.

Summary of Information Technology Review
Auditors reviewed automated controls over access to the Office’s case
management system; as discussed above, the Office did not have adequate
controls over access to that system.

Summary of Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Office:


Procured and managed selected contracts in accordance with applicable
statutes, rules, and Office policies and procedures.



Used state funds and other assets in accordance with applicable statutes,
rules, and Office policies and procedures.

The scope of this audit covered financial and contracting activities for Office client
service contracts and memorandums of understanding that were effective between
September 1, 2011, and May 31, 2014. The scope also covered administrative
services that the Department of State Health Services (Department) provided to

iii

An Audit Report on
The Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018

the Office. The audit focused on all phases (planning, procurement, contract
formation, and contract oversight) of the contracting process.
The audit methodology included gaining an understanding of the Office’s financial
and contracting processes; collecting and reviewing financial information related
to expenditures and revenues; reviewing policies and procedures; conducting
interviews with Office staff and Department staff; reviewing statutes, rules, and
Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts requirements; and performing
selected tests and other procedures.
Auditors compared Office expenditure data in the Health and Human Services
Administrative System (HHSAS) and Uniform Statewide Accounting System and
concluded that data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.
Auditors also compared the Office’s contract list to vendor payment information in
HHSAS and to contract files and concluded that the contract list was sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this audit. Data in the Office’s case management
system was of undetermined reliability because former staff still had access to the
system (see Chapter 2 for additional details).

iv

Contents
Detailed Results
Chapter 1

The Office Did Not Have Controls Over Certain
Contracting Processes ................................................ 1
Chapter 2

The Office Did Not Have Certain Controls for Budgeting,
Expenditure Review, Fee Processing, and System Access ..... 10

Appendices
Appendix 1

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ............................. 15

Appendix 2

Summary of the Civil Commitment Process ..................... 19
Appendix 3

Office History and Case Manager Responsibilities .............. 21
Appendix 4

Statutory Notification Requirements ............................. 25

Detailed Results
Chapter 1

The Office Did Not Have Controls Over Certain Contracting Processes
Contract Management Process
Phases in developing and managing contracts
should include:



Plan – Identify contracting objectives and
contracting strategy.



Procurement – Fairly and objectively select
the most qualified contractors



Contract Formation/Rate/Price
Establishment – Ensure the contract contains
provisions that hold the contractor
accountable for producing desired results,
including all relevant terms and conditions, as
well as establish processes that are cost
effective and aligned with the cost of
providing the goods and services.



Contract Oversight – Monitor and enforce the
terms of the contract.

Source: The State of Texas Contract Management
Guide, Version 1.9.

The Office of Violent Sex Offender Management (Office)
carries out its statutory responsibility for providing treatment to
and supervising 136 sexually violent predators through 532
contracts for services such as treatment and transportation, 12
memorandums of understanding for housing, and 9 contracts for
other items. (See the text box on the following page for more
information on sexually violent predators.) However, the Office
did not have controls over the management of certain contracting
processes. Auditors tested all of the Office’s service contracts
for all contract management phases in the State of Texas
Contract Management Guide and determined that the Office did
not implement certain contracting controls (see text box for the
phases of the contracting process). Table 1 summarizes the
Office’s expenditures on contracts and memorandums of
understanding from September 1, 2011, through May 31, 2014.

Table 1

Office Contracts and Memorandums of Understanding
Expenditures on Contracts and Memorandums of Understanding
Fiscal Year
2012

Service Type
Housing Memorandums of Understanding

Fiscal Year
2013

Fiscal Year
2014
(first 9 months)

Number of Contracts
and Memorandums of
Understanding
(September 1, 2011, through
May 31, 2014)

Totals

$ 1,065,179

$ 1,464,412

$ 1,260,944

$ 3,790,535

12

Treatment Contracts

592,578

841,373

653,687

2,087,638

18

Transportation Contracts

172,095

242,457

207,592

622,144

20

60,833

87,098

79,157

227,088

8

6,800

26,606

4,454

37,860

7

231,676

294,358

265,257

791,291

9

Totals

$2,129,161

$2,956,304

$2,471,091

$ 7,556,556

Other Expenditures

$1,141,678

$1,366,595

$1,145,463

$ 3,653,736

Total Expenditures

$3,270,839

$4,322,899

$3,616,554

$11,210,292

Biennial Examination Contracts

a

Case Manager Contracts
Other Contracts (Information Technology,
b
Consultants, Drug Testing)

a
b

Those examinations determine whether sexually violent predators are no longer likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.
Not included in audit testing.

Source: The Uniform Statewide Accounting System and information the Office provided.

2

In addition to the 53 service contracts, the Office canceled 1 other service contract.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 1

Contract Planning

According to the State of Texas Contract Management Guide, planning should
include tasks such as performing a needs assessment and developing a cost
estimate. However, the Office did not conduct formal planning, including a
needs assessment and a cost estimate, for any of the 54 contracts that auditors
tested. (A needs assessment is important because it helps to
Number of Sexually Violent
develop a statement of work for a contract. A cost estimate
Predators Who Were
establishes how much services will cost, as well as the range of
Civilly Committed
services to be included in a contract.) For example:
As of September 29, 2014, 346 sexually
violent predators had been civilly
committed for outpatient treatment
and supervision. Specifically:



Office case managers directly
supervised 136 individuals who
lived in halfway houses (see
Appendix 3 for case manager
responsibilities).



The Office supervised three
individuals who lived in statesupported living facilities, such as a
state school.



Office case managers provided
limited supervision to 32 individuals
who were in county jails.



The Office did not supervise 175
individuals. Of those 175, 173 were
in prison and 2 were incarcerated in
states other than Texas.

Source: The Office’s case management
system.

Treatment contracts. As of May 31, 2014, Tarrant County
had only 1 treatment provider for 35 sexually violent predators,
and the Office had no contingency plan if that provider was no
longer able to provide services.



By not planning for the
transportation services, the Office did not develop the contracts
properly (see detailed information below) and was not
maximizing its use of state funds. For example, one driver
lived approximately 60 miles from a sexually violent
predator’s halfway house, and the Office paid that driver a
minimum $106 per trip to travel to and from the halfway
house. In addition, drivers made multiple trips to and from
their homes during a single day.


Transportation contracts.

Failure to perform either a needs assessment or cost estimate
can result in the Office not providing the services needed or knowing how
much funding it needs. Chapter 2 presents additional information on the
Office’s budgeting.
Procurement

The Office did not have a formal process to identify, evaluate, and enroll
contractors in its open enrollment contracts. Fifty-three of the 54 contracts
that auditors tested were open-enrollment contracts for which the Office was
not required to solicit formal bids. A former Office employee asserted that the
Office located contractors by word of mouth.
The Office did not use an evaluation form to review the applications it
received to help ensure that vendors met the required minimum qualifications
for any of the 53 open-enrollment contracts that auditors tested. For example:


Treatment contracts. The Office did not use an evaluation form to review
treatment provider applications for contracts; however, all of the 18 tested
met minimum qualifications.



Transportation contracts.

Not all of the applications for transportation and
case managers were complete. The Office signed 10 new contracts for
An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 2

transportation services during the scope of this audit. Five of the
applications that transportation vendors submitted for those contracts did
not contain at least one of the following: the required reference letter/prior
employment check, a notarized affidavit stating that the vendor met all of
the requirements, or proof of liability insurance. In addition, none of the
10 applications for transportation contracts contained the required child
support form showing that the vendors were not delinquent on their child
support payments.


The Office did not have applications or any
documentation showing how it evaluated the vendors associated with the
eight biennial examination contracts tested. The Office’s files for those
contracts contained only a copy of the contract. Biennial examinations
determine whether sexually violent predators are no longer likely to
engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.
Biennial examination contracts.

The Office also awarded one contract for housing services through
competitive bidding, but it did not have completed evaluations for the two
bids it received for that contract. The Office canceled that contract, as is
discussed in more detail below.
In addition, the Office did not have policies and procedures addressing
conflicts of interest. Auditors identified two instances in which conflicts of
interest involving contracts existed. In both of those instances, a
transportation driver with whom the Office contracted was the spouse of an
Office employee case manager. The information that the case managers enter
into the Office’s case management system could be used to support
transportation drivers’ invoices.
Contract Formation and Rate/Price Establishment

The 53 open enrollment contracts tested did not always contain:


Provisions that the State of Texas Contract Management Guide requires.



Detailed descriptions of the services the contractors would provide.



Information specifying how much the Office would pay for the services.



Sanctions for contractor nonperformance.

In addition, the Office did not always have documentation showing that it
conducted a legal review of contract terms. As discussed in more detail
below, the Office was not able to provide a copy of one additional contract
selected for testing.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 3

The Office used 2 different contract templates for the 53 open enrollment
contracts tested:


The Council on Sexual Offender
Treatment (which was administratively attached to the Department of
State Health Services) developed that template when it was responsible for
providing treatment to and supervising sexually violent predators. That
template included some form of all but one provision that the State of
Texas Contract Management Guide required. It did not include an
abandonment/default provision to specify that the Office could cancel the
contract without notice if the contractor did not provide services.

Contract template for fiscal year 2012.

The Office developed
that template, and that template did not contain all provisions that the State
of Texas Contract Management Guide required. Specifically, it did
Texas Government Code,
not include an indemnification/damage claim provision and a
Section 2261.101
contract
abandonment/default provision. That template also did not
That statute requires state
agencies shall create and
include a remedies and sanction schedule for contractor
incorporate a remedies schedule,
nonperformance that Texas Government Code, Section 2261.101,
a graduated sanctions schedule,
or both, for breach of contract or
requires (see text box for additional details). The Office also did
substandard performance under
not have documentation showing that it conducted a legal review of
contracts.
that template.


Contract template for fiscal year 2013 and thereafter.

The 15 contracts for biennial examination providers and case managers that
auditors tested contained detailed descriptions of the services the contractors
would provide. However, the 38 contracts for treatment and transportation
that auditors tested did not contain detailed descriptions of the services the
contractors would provide. (The Office’s expenditures on those 38 contracts
represented 24 percent of its total expenditures from fiscal year 2012 through
May 31, 2014.) Specifically:


The treatment contracts and the documents those
contracts referenced did not specify (1) the information that contractors
were required to enter into the Office’s case management system, (2) the
treatment methods the contractor would be required to use, and (3) the
criteria for how sexually violent predators would advance through the
program.



The transportation contracts did not describe what
drivers were required to do in certain situations, such as when they were
not on time or when they were involved in an accident. Those contracts
also did not include provisions designed to help to ensure the safety of the
driver, the sexually violent predator, and the public, such as provisions
regarding following traffic laws and wearing seat belts. In addition, they
did not specify how charges for the hours worked would be calculated,
how to report the mileage driven, and what costs were allowable or
unallowable.

Treatment contracts.

Transportation contracts.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 4

Contract Oversight

The Office monitored the seven part-time case manager contracts that auditors
tested. However, it did not monitor the performance of the contractors
associated with the other 46 open enrollment contracts tested. Specifically:


Treatment contractors are required to provide each
sexually violent predator with group treatment sessions and individual
treatment sessions. Those contractors are also required to enter the results
of those sessions into the Office’s case management system within 48
hours of the sessions. Auditors identified multiple instances in which
contractors entered that information more than 40 days after the sessions.
The Office also did not monitor to help ensure that the group therapy
sessions were limited to 10 individuals per group, as the Office’s policy
required.



Transportation contracts.



Biennial examination contracts. The Office could not provide evidence that it
verified (1) whether it received required reports from contractors that
performed biennial examinations within 90 days, as required by the
contract and (2) whether those reports contained all of the elements that
the contract required.

Treatment contracts.

The Office did not provide transportation
contractors with a standard mileage log; therefore, some mileage logs did
not include important information, such as the time that the driver started
driving. Because drivers are paid an hourly rate plus mileage, having a
standard mileage log would help to ensure that the Office has the
information it needs to calculate payments. In addition, the Office was not
certain which of its employees was responsible for reviewing mileage logs
for accuracy.

Memorandums of Understanding for Housing Services

The Office also used memorandums of understanding to obtain housing
services, as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code, Section 841.083(d)
(see text box for additional details). From fiscal year 2012 through
Texas Health and Safety
May 31, 2014, expenditures for housing services were the Office’s
Code, Section
largest expenditure category, representing $3,790,535 (34 percent) of
841.083(d)
the
Office’s $11,210,292 in total expenditures.
“The Office shall enter into
appropriate memoranda of
understanding for any
necessary supervised
housing. The Office shall
reimburse the applicable
provider for housing costs
under this section.”

A memorandum of understanding is less formal than a contract.
When a state agency uses a memorandum of understanding, it is not
required to follow the State of Texas Contract Management Guide or
other contracting laws and rules; however, it should comply with
state procurement laws and rules and follow the State of Texas
Procurement Manual. Auditors reviewed the Office’s 12 memorandums of
understanding for housing services and identified the following issues:

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 5



The State of Texas Procurement Manual specifies that the first
step in procurement is to identify needs, which includes providing detailed
specifications of the commodity or service and obtaining a reasonable cost
estimate. However, the Office did not perform any planning for the
housing services it obtained through memorandums of understanding.
Planning is important because it would enable the Office to determine the
number of beds it would need and how much the housing services will
cost each year. In addition, the Office did not have any contingency plans
if a provider was no longer able to provide housing services. For example,
in August 2013, one housing vendor canceled its memorandum of
understanding. (The memorandum of understanding required only a 30day notice to cancel.) That vendor was the only vendor for housing
services in its area. That vendor signed a memorandum of understanding
to extend services until the end of March 2014 to provide the Office time
to find new housing services. The Office signed a memorandum of
understanding with a new vendor on February 17, 2014. The Office
asserted that was an emergency procurement for housing services,
although it was not categorized as an emergency procurement in the
Office’s files.



As discussed above, the Office was not required to include in its
memorandums of understanding the elements and provisions that the State
of Texas Contract Management Guide requires agencies to include in
contracts. Therefore, the memorandums of understanding did not include
the following important provisions:

Planning.

Formation.



A funding out provision that stated that the memorandum of
understanding was contingent upon continued availability of funding.



A provision describing the dispute resolution process.



A right to audit provision to allow the State Auditor access to
documentation.



Detailed descriptions of the services to be provided, including
requirements for items such as sanitation, clothing and necessities, and
food service.

The memorandums of understanding also did not include the following
items not specifically required by the State of Texas Contract Management
Guide:


Provisions for remedies and sanctions that Texas Government Code,
Section 2261.101, requires for contracts.



Criteria defining when vendors could bill for a day of service.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 6



The Office had no evidence of its monitoring of the vendors that
house sexually violent predators through memorandums of understanding.
It also did not request monitoring reports from other entities, such as the
Department of Criminal Justice, that may monitor those same vendors.
Oversight.

The Office canceled the housing contract that it awarded through a competitive
bid process.

In March 2014, the Office awarded a housing contract in Liberty County,
Texas to GMW and Associates. The Office had solicited bids for that contract
through a competitive bid process. The contract award specified that the daily
rate was to be $86.57 per person receiving housing for up to 79 beds and
$76.83 per person receiving housing for 80 or more beds.
The associated request for proposals contained all required contract terms and
conditions; it also contained a more developed statement of work than the
memorandums of understanding the Office had used to procure other housing
services. However, current Office management was uncertain about whether
a signed contract existed. In addition, the Office did not have
documentation showing its planning for that contract, including the
Texas Local Government Code,
Chapter 244
development of a cost estimate. The Office also had not completed an
evaluation showing that the vendor it had selected met all minimum
Texas Local Government Code, Chapter
244, requires an entity that proposes to
requirements and was a limited liability corporation in Texas.
construct a residential facility that
houses people as a condition of
probation, parole, or mandatory
supervision and that is within 1,000 feet
of a residential area, a school, public
parks or recreation areas, a church,
synagogue, or other place of worship to
provide written notice to:



The commissioners court of any
county with an unincorporated area
that includes all or part of the land
within 1,000 feet of the proposed
correctional or rehabilitation
facility.



The governing body of any
municipality that includes within its
boundaries all or part of the land
within 1,000 feet of the proposed
correctional or rehabilitation
facility.

After the contract award, the contractor purchased a tract of land that
differed from the tract of land specified in its proposal. The Office
asserts that there are no state statutes that require it to provide
notification when a residential facility is being constructed to house
sexually violent predators. Texas Local Government Code, Chapter
244, contains notification requirements for residential facilities that will
be within 1,000 feet of a residential area (see text box). However, that
statute does not apply to the Office because the definition of “mandatory
supervision” in Texas Government Code, Chapter 508, does not apply to
individuals who are civilly committed.
In May 2014, the Office had to cancel that contract when it became
aware that the vendor had incorrectly represented itself as a limited
liability corporation in Texas.

Recommendations

The Legislature should consider requiring the Office to use contracts instead
of memorandums of understanding to obtain housing services.
The Office should:


Comply with the State of Texas Contract Management Guide and develop
and implement a process to manage its contracts.
An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 7



Conduct and document contract planning activities, including a needs
assessment and a cost estimate, for all services for which it contracts. The
Office also should include in its planning process a consideration of the
different options for each service to help ensure that it maximizes the use
of state funds.



Develop and implement a process to solicit applications for openenrollment contracts.



Develop and use standard evaluation criteria for reviewing vendors’
proposals for contracts, including a process to verify that the proposals
meet minimum qualifications.



Include all information that the State of Texas Contract Management
Guide requires in its contracts, including a detailed statement of work.
The Office also should consider requiring its general counsel to review
contracts during their formation.



Monitor contractors to help ensure compliance with contract provisions.

Management’s Response

The Office agrees with the auditor’s recommendation. In the late summer of
2014, new Office staff began identifying significant contract management and
procurement issues such as no procurement processes used to obtain existing
program services; vendors providing program services with no procurement
or contract in place; vendors providing the same services but billing at
significantly different rates; contracts that were poorly written and did not
include necessary provisions. The disregard for State Procurement and
Contract Management standards led the Office’s current Executive Director
to formally request that the State Auditor’s Office expand the scope of their
audit and provide more coverage of the procurement process and program
service contracts.


All new contracts will comply with the State of Texas Contract
Management Guide. The Office is currently evaluating the previous
administration’s disregard of the contract procurement process as the
means to obtain necessary program services. Office staff has also been
working with the Health & Human Services Commission (HHSC)
Procurement office to procure critical residential housing services.



The Office will conduct and document formal planning on all future
contracts. These include a needs assessment, determining the best
procurement method and completing a cost estimate to help ensure the
best service option is selected.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 8



The Office is currently evaluating and developing an open enrollment
contracts process to solicit applications for necessary program services.



In June 2014, in conjunction with the HHSC, the Office developed and
used standardized evaluation criteria for the Request-For-Proposal (RFP)
procurement to obtain residential housing services. The Office is also
evaluating and developing standardized evaluation criteria for an open
enrollment contracts process currently under development.



All Contract Management Guide required elements will be included in
future Office contracts. The Office’s General Counsel is involved in the
planning, formation and review of all Office contracts.



The Office has hired an Operations Monitor for the specific purpose of
monitoring contractor performance to ensure compliance with contract
provisions.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 9

Chapter 2

The Office Did Not Have Certain Controls for Budgeting, Expenditure
Review, Fee Processing, and System Access
The Office had not implemented certain processes for budgeting, review of
expenditures, fee processing, and access to its case management system.
Those issues hindered the Office’s ability to maximize the use of state funds.
For example, not reviewing expenditures increases the risk that the Office will
not have adequate supporting documentation for expenditures or will calculate
payment amounts incorrectly. Weaknesses in access to the case management
system could result in unauthorized payments to vendors.
Budgeting

The Office did not develop an internal budget to determine separate funding
amounts for each of its services. Although it anticipated growth in the
population of individuals it served, the Office did not budget specific amounts
for housing, treatment, and transportation services. As discussed in Chapter 1,
the Office also did not develop a cost estimate to determine the amounts of
funding necessary for each of those services.
When the Office awarded a contract for housing in March 2014, it had not
analyzed whether it had the funds necessary to meet the contract terms. That
contract contained payment rates that were almost twice the rates that the
Office had been paying for housing through memorandums of understanding,
which would have had a significant effect on the Office’s budget. As
discussed in Chapter 1, the Office later canceled that contract.
Texas Health and Safety Code,
Section 841.083(a)
“The office shall approve and
contract for the provision of a
treatment plan for the committed
person to be developed by the
treatment provider…The treatment
provider may receive annual
compensation in an amount not to
exceed $10,000 for providing the
required treatment.”

Texas Health and Safety Code, Section 841.083(a), limits the annual
amount that the Office can pay for treatment to $10,000 per sexually
violent predator (see text box). However, because the Office did not
track the amount it spent on treatment for each sexually violent
predator, it could not ensure that it complied with that statute. From
fiscal year 2012 through May 31, 2014, treatment service expenditures
exceeded $2 million and were the Office’s second largest expenditure
category after housing. (See Chapter 1 for additional information on the
Office’s total expenditures.)

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 10

Expenditure Review

Auditors tested 115 Office expenditures totaling $1,110,140.3 For 45 (39
percent) of those 115 expenditures, the Office did not have adequate
supporting documentation for the associated services and/or the services
provided were not specified in the contract (see Table 2). The portion of the
expenditures tested for which the Office did not have adequate supporting
documentation and/or were for services not specified in the contract totaled a
net $54,018 (4.9 percent of the $1,110,140 in total expenditures tested).
Table 2

Summary of Errors in Expenditures Tested
Issue Identified
Inadequate
supporting
documentation

a

Amount in
Error

Description
For 4 expenditures tested, the Office did not have supporting documentation that was
sufficient to determine key information about the goods or services the vendors provided.
For 26 expenditures tested, the Office did not have supporting documentation that was
sufficient to support the expenses or mileage.

11,358

For 3 expenditures tested, the amounts on the Office’s supporting documentation differed
from the amounts on the invoices.
(1) Payments for
services not
included in the
contract or
memorandum of
understanding
or (2) payment
calculated using an
incorrect payment
rate

$ 23,717

For 6 expenditures tested, the invoices included charges for services that were not included
in the Office’s contracts with the vendors.
For 12 expenditures tested, the invoices contained requests for mileage reimbursements;
however, reimbursement for mileage was not discussed in the Office’s memorandums of
understanding with the vendors.
For 2 expenditures tested, the vendors requested payment for therapy sessions that did not
occur. That situation was not addressed in the Office’s contracts with the vendors.
For 1 expenditure tested, the Office calculated the payment using an incorrect payment
rate.
Total

a

514
16,440
2,099

160
-270
$54,018

The number of expenditures in this table does not sum to 45 because some expenditures had multiple errors and, therefore, are
discussed in both categories above.
Source: Auditor testing of Office expenditures.

The Office also did not have policies and procedures for its review of
expenditures, and it could not specify which staff were responsible for
reviewing invoices from transportation contractors.
Of the 115 expenditures tested, 93 were subject to the requirements of the
Prompt Payment Act (Texas Government Code, Section 2251.021), which
specifies that a payment is overdue on the 31st day after an invoice is
received. The Office paid all but 1 of those 93 expenditures in accordance
with the Prompt Payment Act.
3

Thirty expenditures were for housing services, 20 were for treatment services, 23 were for transportation, 20 were for other
contracted services, and 22 were for non-contract expenditures.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 11

Processing the Fees that Sexually Violent Predators Pay

The Office did not segregate duties when it collected fees that sexually violent
predators pay for a global positioning system tracking device (GPS). Texas
Government Code, Section 841.084, requires sexually violent predators who
are not indigent to pay the Office monthly fees to cover a portion of the cost
of the GPS that the Office uses to track those individuals. Office case
managers determine how much a sexually violent predator will pay, collect
the fee, send the fee for deposit, and enter the amount paid in the Office’s case
management system. The Office reported that, from fiscal year 2012 to May
31, 2014, it collected $140,072 in GPS fees from the sexually violent
predators and paid $557,275 for GPS services.
Auditors could not find evidence that the Office used the revenue from the
fees it had collected to offset the cost of the GPS system, as statute requires.
The Office indicated that the revenue from the fees it had collected in fiscal
year 2012 had lapsed and that it had not yet spent the revenue from the fees it
had collected in fiscal years 2013 or 2014. The Office did not have a process
to help ensure that it used that revenue to pay for the GPS system, as required
by the statute.
Access to the Office’s Case Management System

The Office did not have adequate controls over access to its case management
system, which the Office uses to manage case managers’ caseloads. That
system is also used to generate invoices for treatment and transportation
vendors.
Auditors identified 14 former employees and contractors who still had access
to the case management system, and 2 of those individuals had administrator
access. When auditors brought that issue to its attention, the Office terminated
the access of those 14 individuals. Weaknesses in access controls could result
in unauthorized payments; however, auditors did not identify any instances of
unauthorized payments.
In addition, the Office did not have a process to periodically review case
management system users and their access levels to ensure that only
appropriate individuals could access the system and that those individuals’
access rights were appropriately restricted.
Recommendations

The Office should:


Develop and implement a budgeting process to analyze its revenues and
expenditures to help ensure that it has funds available to provide services.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 12



Develop and implement a process to review expenditures that includes,
but is not limited to, ensuring that services are specified in contract
provisions, the correct payment rate is applied, and the expenditure
amount is adequately supported.



Work with the Department of State Health Services and the Legislative
Budget Board to help ensure (1) compliance with the intent of statute
regarding GPS fees that sexually violent predators pay and (2) that the
Office uses the revenue from those fees to offset its GPS expenditures.



Revise the process and corresponding policies and procedures for
calculating and collecting the GPS fees that sexually violent predators pay
so that case managers are not solely responsible for processing those fees,
or implement compensating controls to address the weaknesses in
segregation of duties in fee calculation and collection.



Develop and implement a process to provide user access to its case
management system based on users’ job duties and responsibilities and to
disable that access promptly when it is no longer necessary.



Develop and implement a process to periodically review access to its case
management system.

Management’s Response

The Office agrees with the auditor’s recommendation. In August 2014, the
Executive Director, recognizing that the lack of financial expertise severely
hindered the Office’s ability to manage its finances, re-purposed an agency
position to hire an experienced Budget Manager for the Office. By September
the Office’s Legislative Appropriations Request was revised, the 2015
Operating Budget was established, and monthly reports and data files used to
manage the Office’s budget, expenditures, revenues and purchases were in
place. The Office is now able to provide fiscal guidance, direction and support
to its programs and operations instead of relying totally on financial support
from the Department of State Health Services (DSHS). The Office has also
posted an Accountant III position that will be dedicated to day-to-day fiscal
business processes such as reviewing vendor invoices and billing for accuracy
and compliance with contract rates and requirements, coordinating the
processing of agency invoices with field staff to ensure both a programmatic
review and fiscal review are performed and maintaining adequate supporting
documentation for all payments made and revenues received.


As indicated above Office staff has defined and developed standard
monthly detailed budget, expenditure, revenue and purchasing reports and
data files that are used to manage Office finances and support agency
programs. The Executive Director has also established a fiscal reporting
process for the Office’s Governing Board.
An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 13



In September 2014, the Office implemented new invoice and billing
requirements for services providers. In October, the Office defined the
roles and responsibility for Treatment Providers, Case Managers and
Financial staff related to the submission of invoices and payment for
services. This included establishing supporting documentation
requirements such as mileage logs, receipts for expenses, and Bing
mileage/route printouts, defining review responsibilities and establishing
invoice submission and processing timelines. The new processes and
procedures were implemented to help ensure compliance with contract
requirements, terms and conditions.



In September 2014, Office staff met with Legislative Budget Board (LBB)
staff to propose that GPS Fees be used to finance the Office’s operations.
This change required the modification of the 2016-2017 Legislative
Appropriations Request which LBB staff supported. GPS fees are now
included as a method-of-finance for the Office which reduces the need for
General Revenue and demonstrates compliance with the intent of the
statute regarding GPS Fees. Office staff also worked with DSHS staff to
define and develop a monthly GPS Fee report and budget process to
increase the Office’s spending authority as fee revenue is collected so it
can be utilized within the timeline established by the General
Appropriations Act.



In September 2014, the Office began a monthly reconciliation of the GPS
revenue collected by field staff and processed/credited to Office accounts
by DSHS financial staff. This reconciliation includes a review of the
Office’s case management system which is used to calculate and record
payment plans for GPS Fees. The Office is evaluating the GPS Fee
business processes and procedures to help identify additional controls that
could be implemented to strengthen the segregation of duties.



The Office has reviewed user access in the case management system and
has terminated any former employees or contractors. The Office has
begun to implement a process to standardize user access based on job
duties. Additionally, there is now 1 staff member, as opposed to 3, that is
responsible for the enrollment and termination of an employee or
contractor. This staff member will disable access to the case management
system for an employee or contractor on the date of termination from
employment or service termination date.



The Office has already begun to review the case management system on a
monthly basis. This process will involve a review of all active users in the
system. The Office has appointed 1 staff member for this responsibility, to
maintain the consistency of information in the system.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 14

Appendices
Appendix 1

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives
The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Office of Violent
Sex Offender Management (Office):


Procured and managed selected contracts in accordance with applicable
statutes, rules, and Office policies and procedures.



Used state funds and other assets in accordance with applicable statutes,
rules, and Office policies and procedures.

Scope
The scope of this audit covered financial and contracting activities for Office
client service contracts and memorandums of understanding that were
effective between September 1, 2011, and May 31, 2014. The scope also
covered administrative services that the Department of State Health Services
(Department) provided to the Office.
The audit focused on all phases (planning, procurement, contract formation,
and contract oversight) of the contracting process.
Methodology
The audit methodology included gaining an understanding of the Office’s
financial and contracting processes; collecting and reviewing financial
information related to expenditures and revenues; reviewing policies and
procedures; conducting interviews with Office staff and Department staff;
reviewing statutes, rules, and Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts
requirements; and performing selected tests and other procedures.
Data Reliability and Completeness

Auditors verified the completeness of expenditure data by comparing
information in the Department’s internal accounting system (the Health and
Human Services Administrative System or HHSAS) to the expenditures in the
Uniform Statewide Accounting System (USAS). Expenditure data was
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.
Auditors verified completeness of the contract population by comparing the
Office’s contract list (a spreadsheet) to vendor payment information in
HHSAS. Auditors also reviewed all contract files to verify the existence of

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 15

the contracts and to determine the purpose of the contracts. The contract list
was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.
Data in the Office’s case management system (for example, information
regarding sexually violent predators, case manager notes, treatment provider
notes, and transportation driver notes) was of undetermined reliability.
Auditors determined that former staff still had access to that system (see
Chapter 2 for additional details). Auditors also determined that certain reports
that system generated were not always correct.
Sampling Methodology

Auditors used professional judgment to select a risk-based sample of
expenditures for testing. The sampled items were generally not representative
of the population and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to project those
test results to the population.
Auditors used professional judgment to select a risk-based sample of contracts
for testing. The sample included all contracts for housing services, treatment
services, transportation services, biennial examinations, and case managers
that were active at any point from September 1, 2011, through May 31, 2014.
Information collected and reviewed included the following:


Office contract files, including planning documentation, solicitation
documentation, and contracts.



Office files for memorandums of understanding, including planning
documentation, solicitation documentation, and the memorandums of
understanding.



Office policies and procedures.



Current and former Office employee time sheets.



Global positioning system fees that sexually violent predators paid in
fiscal years 2012 through 2014.



Expenditure data in USAS.



Expenditure data in HHSAS.



Invoices and supporting documentation for expenditures from the
Department.



Emails and other documentation that supported the information that Office
employees provided during interviews.



Data on sexually violent predators in the Office’s case management
system.
An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 16



Training information for case managers.

Procedures and tests conducted included the following:


Interviewed employees at the Office and the Department.



Interviewed former employees of the Office.



Interviewed staff in the Health and Human Services Commission’s time,
labor and leave, and payroll sections.



Reviewed training documentation for case managers.



Analyzed time reports for leave taken.



Tested to determine whether the Office planned for selected contracts,
including performing a needs assessment and a cost analysis as required
by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide.



Tested whether the Office used standard evaluations to review
applications for selected contracts or proposals.



Reviewed selected contracts and memorandums of understanding to
determine whether the Office included essential terms listed in the State of
Texas Contract Management Guide.



Tested a sample of payments on invoices for appropriate documentation,
required approvals, and timely payment.



Tested whether the Office performed oversight for the selected contracts.



Obtained background checks from the Department of Public Safety for
Office employees and contractors.

Criteria used included the following:


State of Texas Contract Management Guide, Version 1.9.



State of Texas Procurement Manual, 2012.



Office policies and procedures.



Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 841.



Texas Government Code, Chapter 420A.



State of Texas Vendor Guide.



Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, Chapter 62.



Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 244.
An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 17

Project Information
Audit fieldwork was conducted from May 2014 through December 2014. We
conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis
for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The following members of the State Auditor’s staff performed the audit:


Becky Beachy, CIA, CGAP (Project Manager)



Kathy Aven, CIA, CFE (Assistant Project Manager)



Scott Boston, MPAff



Salem Chuah



Bianca F. Pineda



Nakeesa Shahparasti



Yue Zhang, MPA



Dennis Ray Bushnell, CPA (Quality Control Reviewer)



Verma Elliott, MBA, CPA, CIA, CGAP (Audit Manager)

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 18

Appendix 2

Summary of the Civil Commitment Process
The Department of Criminal Justice is responsible for identifying individuals
who meet the guidelines for commitment to the Outpatient Sexually Violent
Predator Treatment Program. It refers those individuals to a multidisciplinary team to determine their eligibility for civil commitment. The
multi-disciplinary team comprises representatives from:


The Office of Violent Sex Offender Management.



The Council on Sex Offender Treatment.



The Department of Criminal Justice.



The Department of Criminal Justice - Victim Services Division.



The Department of State Health Services.



The Department of Public Safety.

The following are the individual steps in the civil commitment process:
The Department of Criminal Justice identifies an individual who is
within 16 months of scheduled release from prison with more than one
sexually violent offense and refers the individual to the multi-disciplinary
team.

Step 1.

The multi-disciplinary team reviews and assesses the case. If it finds
that the individual is likely to commit a sexually violent offense after release
or discharge, it refers the individual for an assessment by an expert; if it does
not make such a finding, the process ends.
Step 2.

An expert who contracts with the Department of Criminal Justice
conducts an assessment to determine whether the individual has a behavioral
abnormality.
Step 3.

If the expert identifies a behavioral abnormality, the case is referred to
the Special Prosecution Unit. If a behavioral abnormality is not identified, the
process ends.
Step 4.

The Special Prosecution Unit decides whether to file a petition for a
trial to seek a commitment; it is also responsible for initiating and pursuing a
civil commitment. If the Special Prosecution Unit does not petition a trial to
seek commitment, the process ends.
Step 5.

The Special Prosecution Unit files a petition alleging a predator status
and, if the individual is indigent, the State Counsel for Offenders provides
representation for the individual in the civil commitment proceeding.
Step 6.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 19

A commitment trial is held in the 435th District Court of Montgomery
County, Texas before a judge or a 12-person jury that must unanimously
answer “yes” beyond a reasonable doubt to the following questions:
Step 7.



Is the individual a repeat sexually violent offender?



Does the individual suffer from a behavioral abnormality that makes him
or her likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence?

If the answer to either question is “no,” the process ends.
If the judge or jury unanimously responds “yes” to both questions
listed above, the individual is ordered into the Outpatient Sexually Violent
Predator Treatment Program upon release from prison.
Step 8.

After the trial, but before the individual enters the Outpatient Sexually
Violent Predator Treatment Program, the Office of Violent Sex Offender
Management coordinates transportation and residential placement for the
individual.
Step 9.

Upon release from prison, the individual is transported to the
residential facility.
Step 10.

The assigned case manager meets face-to-face with the individual at
the residential facility, activates a global positioning system tracking device,
and makes additional referrals based on the individual’s needs. (See
Appendix 3 for details on case manager responsibilities.)
Step 11.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 20

Appendix 3

Office History and Case Manager Responsibilities
History of the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management

The Legislature created the first outpatient civil commitment
program for sexually violent predators. The Interagency Council on Sex
Offender Treatment, also known as the Council on Sex Offender Treatment,
was responsible for administering Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter
841, and was part of the former Department of Health.
Fiscal Year 1999 –

The Interagency Council on Sex Offender Treatment became
an independent board administratively attached to the Department of State
Health Services.

Fiscal Year 2004 –

The Legislature created the Office of Violent Sex Offender
Management (Office) to perform functions related to the Outpatient Sexually
Violent Predator Treatment Program.
Fiscal Year 2012 -

Texas Government Code, Chapter 420A, specified that the Department of
State Health Services would provide support services to the Office as
necessary.
Table 3 lists the Office’s employees who were hired prior to May 2014 and
the location where they worked.
Table 3

Office Employees Hired Before May 2014
Title

Status

Work Location

Executive Director

Resigned in May 2014

Employee home in Austin

Deputy Director

Resigned in August 2014

Employee home in Conroe

General Counsel

Resigned in May 2014

Employee home in Conroe

Program Specialists
(three positions)

Resigned as of July 2014

Employee homes:

Program Specialist

Transferred to another
state agency in July 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Receptionist

Transferred to another
state agency in August 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Case Managers
(fifteen positions)

Were still Office employees
as of October 2014

Employee homes:

 Two in Conroe
 One in Huntsville







Five in Conroe area
Two in Dallas area
Five in Fort Worth area
Two in El Paso area
One in Austin

Source: Information the Office provided.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 21

The Office’s executive director resigned and a new executive
director was appointed.
May 2014 -

Table 4 lists the Office’s employees as of October 31, 2014, and the location
where they worked.
Table 4

Office Employees as of October 2014
Title

Month Hired

Work Location

Executive Director

May 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Deputy Director

June 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Budget Manager

August 2014

Main Office location in Austin

General Counsel

June 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Management Support
Specialists
(two positions)

August 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Operations Monitor

September 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Court Services
Coordinator

July 2014

Main Office location in Austin

Region Manager

Jan 2014

Employee home in Houston

Case Managers
(fifteen positions)

Hired before a May 2014
reorganization of the Office

Employee homes:







Five in Conroe area
Two in Dallas area
Five in Fort Worth area
Two in El Paso area
One in Austin

Source: Information the Office provided.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 22

Case Manager Responsibilities

Each sexually violent predator who is civilly committed to the Outpatient Sex
Offender Treatment Program is assigned to an Office case manager. Case
managers provide supervision and ongoing case management services, and
their responsibilities related to their clients are listed in Table 5.
Table 5

Office Case Manager Responsibilities
Area of Responsibility
Pre-release responsibilities

Description
 Enter information for each newly assigned client into the global

positioning system (GPS) tracking software a minimum of 48 hours
before the client’s release from the Department of Criminal Justice.

 Review the client’s file prior to the client’s arrival at the residential
facility.

Duties upon a client’s admission to the
Outpatient Sex Offender Treatment
Program

 Meet the client at his or her residential facility to install and activate
the GPS tracking device.

 Obtain a photograph of the client.
 Prepare the client’s daily activity schedule for the week and provide
the client with a copy.

 Notify the client of the requirement for a Texas identification card or
driver’s license, and coordinate with the client to obtain that card or
license.

 Within seven days of the client’s release:
 Schedule an assessment appointment with a treatment provider.
 Schedule the client’s registration as a sex offender with law
enforcement.
Ongoing responsibilities

 Prepare the client’s daily activity schedule for the week and provide
the client with a copy.

 Conduct surveillance of the client’s activities at least once per week
at locations on the client’s daily activity schedule.

 Conduct surveillance once a week at the client’s place of employment
(if the client is employed).

 Coordinate transportation services for the client, and authorize all
travel from the client’s residential facility.

 Refer the client for alcohol and substance abuse testing every three
months.

 Be available to accept notifications of GPS alerts at various times
throughout the year.

 Verify on a monthly basis that the client has registered as a sex

offender with the appropriate law enforcement agencies. The case
manager verifies the information on the Department of Public Safety
Web site within 30 days of the client’s release from custody.

 Have face-to-face contact with the client at least once a week during
the treatment phase and the transitional phase; have face-to-face
contact with the client at least twice a month during the aftercare
phase.

 Prepare monthly progress reports for the client by the fifth of each

month, and email a notification of the completed report to each
member of the case management team. Each report must include a
treatment summary, a summary of the client’s activities and
referrals, and a list of any violations.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 23

Office Case Manager Responsibilities
Area of Responsibility
GPS tracking duties

Description
 Enter all client schedules into the GPS tracking software 24 hours
prior to the commencement of the client’s scheduled weekly
activities.

 Review the client’s GPS location points for each day.
 Receive and review a daily GPS violation report.
 Review the charging history of the client’s GPS device at least
monthly.

 Re-evaluate the financial status of the client every six months.
 Calculate the amount of the fee the client must pay for GPS tracking.
 Collect the GPS fee from the client and submit the funds to an Office
of the Comptroller of Public Accounts’ lock box.

Responsibilities related to high-risk plans
and collateral contacts

 Ensure that the client has a high-risk plan to assist the client in

developing and recognizing high-risk situations and using internal and
external controls to reduce high-risk behaviors while in the
community.

 Meet face-to-face with any individuals with whom the client

anticipates developing a relationship. After consultation with
treatment providers, the case manager determines the type of
contact that is approved between the client and an individual. Case
managers also identify and assist in training individuals who are
potential chaperones for the client.

Responsibilities related to client
violations and interventions

 Investigate all reported client violations of program rules, orders, or
commitments. Make interventions that include verbal interventions,
written reprimands, written assignments, or a warrant request.

 If a client has absconded, the case manager immediately notifies the
appropriate law enforcement agency and immediately completes a
warrant request.

 Monitor a client who has been arrested and the status of pending
charges until final disposition of those charges.

Source: Information the Office provided.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 24

Appendix 4

Statutory Notification Requirements
Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, Chapter 62, specifies notification
requirements for the Department of Public Safety. An excerpt is presented
below.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, Chapter 62, Sex Offender
Registration Program.
Art. 62.201. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE FOR
INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO CIVIL COMMITMENT. (a) On
receipt of notice under this chapter that a person subject to
registration who is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator is
due to be released from a penal institution or intends to move to a
new residence in this state, the department shall, not later than the
seventh day after the date on which the person is released or the
seventh day after the date on which the person moves, provide written
notice mailed or delivered to at least each address, other than a post
office box, within a one-mile radius, in an area that has not been
subdivided, or a three-block area, in an area that has been subdivided,
of the place where the person intends to reside.
(b) The department shall provide the notice in English and Spanish
and shall include in the notice any information that is public
information under this chapter. The department may not include any
information that is not public information under this chapter.
(c) The department shall establish procedures for a person with
respect to whom notice is provided under this article to pay to the
department all costs incurred by the department in providing the
notice. The person shall pay those costs in accordance with the
procedures established under this subsection.
(d) The department’s duty to provide notice under this article in
regard to a particular person ends on the date on which a court
releases the person from all requirements of the civil commitment
process.

An Audit Report on the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
SAO Report No. 15-018
January 2015
Page 25

Copies of this report have been distributed to the following:

Legislative Audit Committee
The Honorable Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor, Joint Chair
The Honorable Joe Straus III, Speaker of the House, Joint Chair
The Honorable Jane Nelson, Senate Finance Committee
The Honorable Robert Nichols, Member, Texas Senate

Office of the Governor
The Honorable Greg Abbott, Governor

Office of Violent Sex Offender Management
Members of the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management Board
Ms. Christy Jack, Chairperson
Mr. Robert Dominguez
Ms. Kathryn E. McClure
Ms. Marsha McLane, Executive Director

This document is not copyrighted. Readers may make additional copies of this report as
needed. In addition, most State Auditor’s Office reports may be downloaded from our Web
site: www.sao.state.tx.us.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may also be requested
in alternative formats. To do so, contact our report request line at (512) 936-9500 (Voice),
(512) 936-9400 (FAX), 1-800-RELAY-TX (TDD), or visit the Robert E. Johnson Building, 1501
North Congress Avenue, Suite 4.224, Austin, Texas 78701.
The State Auditor’s Office is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability in employment or in the
provision of services, programs, or activities.
To report waste, fraud, or abuse in state government call the SAO Hotline: 1-800-TX-AUDIT.