Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Probation Department - Budget, Juvenile Halls and Camps Operating Costs, and Contracting Procedures, Los Angels Co DAC, 2015

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
5OO WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 525
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OO1 2.3873
PHONE: (213) 974-8301 FAX: (213) 626-5427
JOHN NAIMO
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER

July 24,2015

Michael D. Antonovich, Mayor
Hilda L. Solis
Mark Ridley-Thomas
Sheila Kuehl
Don

TO:

Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor

FROM:

John Naimo
Auditor-Co

SUBJECT:

**
er

PROBATION DEPARTMENT . BUDGET, JUVENILE HALLS AND
CAMPS OPERATING COSTS, AND DEPARTMENTAL CONTRACTING
PROCEDURES REVIEW (Board Agenda ltem 10, April 14,20151

On April 14, 2015, your Board instructed the Auditor-Controller (A-C) to conduct an
audit within 90 days of the Probation Department (Probation or Department) with a
particular focus on its budget, fiscal, and personnel functions to ensure compliance with
Board of Supervisors (Board) approved policies and best practices, including a thorough
review of:

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

Recruitment, examination, hiring, and promotional practices to determine whether
the Department is effectively recruiting, retaining, and promoting the most qualified
staff for its operating needs;
Current cost of operating the juvenile halls and camps, including the cost per youth,
annual maintenance costs, and deferred building maintenance costs;
The Department's federal and State grants and the outcomes and evaluations of the
grants;
The Department's Request for Proposal (RFP) procedures and its process for
examining satisfactory compliance with the statements of work (SOW) for contracted
community-based organizations (CBOs) and agencies;
The Department's management and accounting of its budget, revenue, and
expenditures; and
Feedback from youth under the Department's supervision, utilizing appropriate
subject matter experts to conduct the interviews.
Help Conserve Paper

- Print Double-Sided

"To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service"

Board of Supervisors
July 24,2015
Page 2

We have completed a review of Probation's budget, and operating costs of juvenile halls
and camps (items 2 and 5). ln addition, we completed a review of the Department's
RFP procedures and their processes for examining compliance with the SOW for
contracted CBOs (item 4).

Our review included interviewing Probation management and staff,

comparing
performance
Probation's actual financial
to its budget, and reviewing the Department's
current revenues and expenditures, and potential changes to these categories that
could affect future budgets. We also determined the current cost of operating
Probation's juvenile halls and camps, reviewed Probation's methodology used in
calculating the Average Daily Cost Per Youth (ADCPY), compared the Department's
ADCPY to probation departments in other jurisdictions, and reviewed the Department's
juvenile halls'and camps'annual and deferred maintenance costs.

ln addition, we evaluated Probation's contract solicitation procedures and monitoring
efforts for a select number of programs in which the Department contracts with CBOs to
provide program services.

The three remaining portions of the Board Motion will be completed by consultants
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting (SEC) and Violence Intervention Program (VlP). SEC's
report on items 1 and 3 of the Board Motion will be issued in November 2015, and VIP's
report on item 6 will be issued in October 2015. Both SEC and VIP are in the
preliminary phases of their reviews.

Results of Review
Budqet, and Juvenile Halls and Camps Operatinq Costs
Probation operated within its budgeted Net County Cost (NCC) for Fiscal Years (FY)
2012-13 to 2014-15 (through March 2015), and the Department's financial performance
compared to its budget resulted in favorable variances. However, our review noted that
Probation needs to improve its budget, fiscal, and juvenile halls and camps cost
calculation processes.

The revenue and expenditure variances between Probation's actual financial results
compared to its final budget for the FYs reviewed were relatively significant. We did
note that several of the variances were outside the Department's control, while some
were due to Probation not claiming reimbursable expenditures for certain programs.
Nevertheless, the excess amounts in the budget do not represent the best estimate of
actual expected costs.

Probation's attached response indicates that they have included operational staff to
address operational needs ín the budget planning process, and that monthly financial

Board of Supervisors
July 24,2015
Page 3

reporting methods are being implemented to inform Department managers and sfaff as
to the sfatus of their budgets and expenditures.
ln addition, Probation did not
a

Request reimbursement for California Community Corrections Performance
lncentives (CCPI) Act of 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 678 program costs from the CCPI
Fund in FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, which resulted in the Department using $10.2
million of Los Angeles County (County) General Fund monies to fund SB 678
program expenses, resulting in an increased NCC.

Probation's response indicates that they will re-evaluate the $10.2 million expended
from the County General Fund during FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 for SB 678
programs, and determine the feasibility of recovering such expenditures from the
CCPI Special Revenue Fund.
o

Conduct formal analysis of future outlooks. The Department only forecasts for the
current and upcoming FY for budget purposes. Board policy requires that a longrange forecast be developed and maintained to reflect continuing programs,
anticipated new initiatives, revenue changes, cost increases, and other factors that
may impact strategy for maintaining a balanced budget over several years.
Probation's response indicates that they will be implementing a five-year scorecard
to develop long-range budget forecasfs to identify funding rssues and solutions.

Work with the Chief Executive Office (CEO) to monitor the progress of Capital
Projects, or report Capital Project statuses to the Board annually, as required by the
County Fiscal Manual. ln addition, the Department does not have reserves or other
funds for unmet needs or potential unexpected events.
Probation's response indicates that they will continue to work with CEO to monitor
and track the Department's Capital Projects. ln addition, Probation will continue to
request funding from the CEO for the Department's unmet needs.
o

Track administrative, educational, and transportation services costs by each juvenile
hall and camp, and did not track revenues and expenditures separately for five of the
six Challenger Memorial Youth Center juvenile camps.
Probation's response indicates that they will evaluate the feasibility of modifying their
current budgetary structure and consider operational efficiencies, needs, and
ad d ition al resources req u i re d.

a

Use actual financial information to calculate the ADCPY for juvenile halls and
camps, or include all costs related to operating the juvenile halls and/or camps,

Board of Supervisors
July

24,2015

Page 4

including some costs related to health, mental health, pharmaceutical, and building
maintenance services.
Probation's response indicates that they will use actual operating cosfs, ensure all
direct juvenile hall and camp operating cosús are included in the calculation of the
ADCPY, and review other county probation departmenf's cosfs in calculating the
ADCPY to examine differences in the cosfs.

Gontract Procedures and Monitoring

Probation's RFP procedures complied with County policy. The Department
appropriately screened the proposals for minimum qualification requirements, and
evaluated the proposals using the "lnformed Averaging" scoring method. However,
Probation should ensure that scoring categories in evaluation documents are divided
into sufficiently detailed sub-categories to enhance the transparency and objectivity of
each evaluatods conclusions.

Probation's response indicates that they will ensure evaluation documents are divided
nto su b-categorie s for futu re sol i citation s.

i

ln addition, Probation's contract monitoring process did not always ensure that the
Department effectively monitored the SOW requirements for their contracted CBOs.
Specifically, we noted that:
o

Probation's contract monitoring plan (Plan) was not prepared based on risk and is
not complete. Specifically, the Plan was not prepared based on the risk to the
Department of the contractors' non-compliance, annually updated, or list the group
responsible for monitoring the specific programs. In addition, the Plan did not
include seven programs that Probatíon and another County department jointly
contract with CBOs to provide services.
Probation's response indicates that they will develop a comprehensive, risk-based
Plan and wíll conduct ongoing monitoring of their jointly contracted CBOs.
The monitoring scope for 12 (86%) of the 14 programs reviewed did not include the
necessary steps for staff to ensure that the CBOs complied with the key SOW
requirements.
Probation's response indicates that they will develop and implement monitoring tools
that include the key SOW requirements.

o

Probation did not issue a written report listing the results of their monitoring reviews
for one (7o/o) of the 14 programs reviewed. ln addition, Probation's policy does not

Board of Supervisors
July 24,2015
Page 5

require copies of the monitoring reports to be sent to the Department's executive
management to ensure key managers are aware of their contractors' performance.

Probations response indicates that they will have their contract monitors rssue
reports detailing the results of the reviews. Probation also indicated that they
implemented a process that notifies executive management of the results of their
reviews.

Details of these and other findings and recommendations are included in Attachments
through lll.

I

Review of Report

We discussed our report with Probation management on June 30, 2015.

The
Department's attached response (Attachment lV) indicates general agreement with our
findings and recommendations.

We thank Probation management and staff for their cooperation and assistance during
our review. lf you have any questions, please contact me, or your staff may contact
Arlene Barrera at (213) 97 4-0729.
JN:AB:DC:AA:JU
Attachments

c: Sachi A. Hamai, Interim Chief Executive Officer
Patrick Ogawa, Acting Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors
Jerry E. Powers, Chief Probation Officer
Public lnformation Office
Audit Committee

PROBATION DEPARTMENT
BUDGET, JUVENILE HALLS AND GAMPS OPERATING COSTS,
AND DEPARTMENTAL CONTRACTING PROCEDURES REVIEW

Table of Gontents
Page
Background ...............

1

Scope

2

Budget Structure.

2

Budget to Actual Financial Comparison............

3

Revenues and Expenditures Validation

7

Senate Bill 678 Revenues

7

Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Revenues ......

I
I

Future Outlook of Revenues and Expenditures

Capital Projects and Unmet Needs

1

Juvenile Halls and Camps Operating Costs

12

0

Average Daily Cost Per Youth

14

Comparison to Other Probation Departments........

15

Annual and Deferred Building Maintenance Costs

15

Request for Proposal Evaluation Review

17

Statement of Work Monitoring Review

..18

Contract Monitoring Plan .........

..18

Contract Monitoring Scope ......

..20

Contract Monitoring Reports....

..21

Attachment

I

PROBATION DEPARTMENT
BUDGET, JUVENILE HALLS AND CAMPS OPERATING COSTS,
AND DEPARTMENTAL CONTRACTING PROCEDURES REVIEW

Background
The Probation Department's (Probation or Department) Budget and Fiscal Services Unit
is responsible for overseeing the Department's operational costs, and the preparation
and implementation of the Department's budget. This includes monitoring and
analyzing financial activity of the Department, preparing various financial reports,
certifying the availability of funds for purchases and contracts, and providing support to
Probation's bureaus and managers.

Probation's services are admínistered and financed through five separate operating
budget units, which include Juvenile lnstitutions Services (JlS), Support Services, Field
Services, Special Services, and Care of Juvenile Court Wards. The Department
recommends and enforces court-ordered sanctions for probationers, including the
detention of juvenile offenders and the return to court of non-compliant adult offenders,
conducts pre-trial services for adult and juvenile cases, provides supervision and
monitoring of probationers, prevents and reduces criminal activity by developing and
implementing strategies from early intervention through suppression, and provides
services to post-released supervised individuals. The Department currently supervises
over 46,000 adult offenders and over 7,800 juvenile probationers, and operates three
juvenile halls and 14 juvenile camps that house approximately 1,400 youth.
Probation is funded primarily through the Los Angeles County (County) General Fund
and receives revenues from other sources, such as the federal government and State of
California (State), including California Public Safety Realignment Act, Assembly Bill
(AB) 109 funding, which transferred the community reintegration and supervision
responsibility for certain categories of post-released supervised persons from the State
to the County. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, Probation has over 6,700 budgeted
positions and an annual budget of $860.4 million.
Probation contracts with communíty-based organizations (CBOs) to provide a variety of
seruices including gang intervention programs, educational services, and various
programs funded through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). JJCPA
programs include home-based support, employment, and other services to at-risk youth.
The Department also works with other County departments (e.9., the Department of
Children and Family Services) to jointly contract with CBOs for services. A list of these
programs is included in Attachment ll.

The Department's Contracts and Grants Management Division is responsible for
contract development and procurement. Responsibility for monitoring the CBOs'
contract compliance is decentralized. Specifically, Probation's Contract Monitoring
Office (CMO) is responsible for monitoring the CBOs' compliance with fiscal and
administrative contract requirements, and performs programmatic compliance
AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF IOS AA'GELES

Probation Department

Paqe 2

monitoring for CBOs providing services funded through JJCPA. Responsibility for
programmatic compliance monitoring of all other CBOs is decentralized to the
Department's operational bureaus.
Scope
We have completed a review of Probation's budget, and operating costs of juvenile halls
and camps (items 2 and 5). ln addition, we completed a review of the Department's
Request for Proposal (RFP) procedures and their process for examining compliance
with the statements of work (SOW) for contracted CBOs (item 4).

Our review included interviewíng Probation management and staff,

comparing
Probation's actual financial performance to its budget, and reviewing the Department's
current revenues and expenditures, and potential changes to these categories that
could affect future budgets. We also determined the current cost of operating
Probation's juvenile halls and camps, reviewed Probation's methodology used in
calculating the Average Daily Cost Per Youth (ADCPY), compared the Department's
ADCPY to probation departments in other jurisdictions, and reviewed the Department's
juvenile halls'and camps'annual and deferred maintenance costs.

ln additíon, we evaluated Probation's contract solicitation procedures and monitoring
efforts for a select number of programs in which the Department contracts with CBOs to
provide program services.
Budqet Structure
Probation uses six budget units to track and control budget actívity. Departmental
services are administered and financed through five of the budget uníts that account for
the Department's General Fund operations. These five units include 1) JlS, which funds
the juvenile halls and camps, intake and detention control, community detention
services, and transportation; 2) Support Services, which funds administrative,
management, information technology, quality assurance, and training services; 3) Field
Services, which funds juvenile and adult investigation and supervision services; 4)
Special Services, which funds juvenile special services and placement services; and 5)
Care of Juvenile Court Wards, which funds parole placement of juvenile court wards in
residential facilities, foster homes, and the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitations housing, as mandated by State law.
The FY 2013-14 Net County Cost (NCC) allocations among Probation's General Fund
operating budget units are included in Table 1, below.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF IOS ANGELES

Probation Department

Paqe 3

Table I
Probation Net Gounty Cost by Operating Budget Unít
Fiscal Year 2013-14
Operating Budget

Unit

Juvenile lnstitutions Services
Support Services
Field Services
Special Services
Care of Juvenile Court Wards

Total

Revenues
fi

92,234,182

Expenditures
$

14,543,818
105,774,781
90,287,837

$

302,840,618

339,201,085

Net

GountyCost

$

246,966,903
111,242,770
103,106,878

125,786,588
208,881,659
97,884,913
1,576,213

$

773,330,458

$

%

ofTotal
52.5%
23.7Yr

21.9%

7,597,076

1.6%

1,576,213
470,489,840

o.3%

Source: County of Los Angeles FY 2014-15 Final Budget.

The remaining non-operating budget unit, Community-Based Contracts, is used to fund
private contracts, administered by the Department, to reduce juvenile crime and provide
juvenile delinquency prevention services. The FY 2013-14 budget for CommunityBased Contracts was $3.9 million.
Probation also established the Community Corrections Performance lncentives (CCPI)
Special Revenue Fund in FY 2014-15 to receive State funds authorized by the CCPI Act
of 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 678. The SB 678 program established a performance-based
funding system for county probation departments that share State savings from lower
prison costs with probation departments that implement evidence-based supervis¡on
practices, and achieve a reduction in the number of adult probationer commitments to
State prison. As of \Aay 2015, Probation had an available fund balance of $140.5
million for SB 678 programs.
ln addition, the County maintains a Provisional Financing Uses (PFU) Budget Unit in the
County General Fund to account for funds that have yet to be allocated. ln FY 2014-15,
$14.5 million in restricted funds were budgeted in PFU for Probation for specific
programs and projects (e.9., Probation Case Management, Education Reform, United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) Settlement, etc.). Funds are temporarily held in
PFU until funding needs are determined, and transferred to Probation's operating
budget through Board of Supervisors (Board) approved budget adjustments.

Budget to Actual Financial Gomparison
The Department operated within its budgeted NCC during the three FYs reviewed. ln
reviewing the Department's adherence to its General Fund budget, we compared the
actual financial results to the final budget for FYs 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15
(through March 2015). Probation had a positive (under budget) NCC variance of $7.6
million, ç24.2 million, and $54.3 million for the three years, respectively. The results are
summarized in Table 2, below.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF IOS AA'GELES

Probation Deoartment

Paqe 4

Table 2
Budget to Actual Fînancial Gomparison
Fiscal Years 2012-13 to 2O14-15 (through March 2(}15)

1( 2012-13

Revenues
Expenditures
Net Count¡r Cost

$

$

Budget

Actual

335,380,OOO $
820,973,000
48s,s93,OOO S

274

Over or (Under)
Budqet

j34,2O2

g

(57 ,245,798)

(64,860,96s)

756,112,O31

477,977,829 $

(7,61 5,1711

Ft 2013-14
Budqet
Revenues
E:<penditures
Net Countyr Gost

$

$

342,914,000

Over or (Under)
Budget

Actual
$

302,840,618

837,572,OOO

773,330,45A

494,658,000 $

47O,4A9,84O

$

(4O,O73,382)

5

(6,4,241,542)
(24,',t68,r60)

F( 2014-15 (through March 2015 - 9 Months)
Budqet
Revenues

Þ<penditures
Net Gounty Cost

$

5

340,634,000

Over or (Under)
Budget

Actual
$

139,334,742

S

860,410,0O0

604,767,981

519,776,000 $

465,433,239 $

(2O1,299,258)
(255,642,O19)
(54,342,7611

Sources. County of Los Angeles FYs 2O13-14 and 2O14-15 Final Budgets, and electronic
Countwide Accounting and Purchasing System (eCAPS)

During the review period, Probation collected considerably less revenues than
budgeted, and considerably underspent total budgeted expenditures. Specifically,
Probation's budgeted revenues in FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 were $335.4 million and
$342.9 million, and actual revenues were $278.1 million and $302.8 million, or $57.3
million (17%) and $40.1 million (12Vo) less than budgeted, respectively. Also,
Probation's budgeted expenditures were $821.0 million and $837.6 million, and actual
expenditures were $756.1 million and $773.3 million, or $64.9 million (8%) and $64.3
million (8%) less than budgeted, respectively. We did not complete a budget to actual
analysis of FY 2014-15 (through March 2015) revenues and expenditures, since the FY
is not yet complete, and all revenues and expenditures have not been fully accounted.

According to Department management, shortfalls in federal and State funding, and
savings due to hiring delays were the primary causes for the Department's revenues
and expenditures being under-realized. Certain revenue shortfalls were associated with
underspending, where revenues are only claimable for actual expenditures incurred.
Details for FY 2013-14 variances are shown in Table 3, below.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Probation Department

Paqe 5

Table 3
Revenues and Expenditures - Budget to Actual Enancial Comparison
Fiscal Year 2013-14

Budget
Revenues

Charges for Services - Other
Court Fees & Costs
Federal Aid - Mental Health
Federal - Other
Forfeitures & Penalties
lnstitutional Care & Services

4,284,000

$

Other Court Fines
Other Sales
Recording Fees
Rents & Concessions
Royalties
Sale of Capital Assets
State - Other
State - Public Safety Realignment 20'1

Transfers ln
Total Revenues

$

1 545,000

4,416,000
74,592,000
200,000
9,430,000
174,000
523,000

lnterest
Miscellaneous

$
254,085
5,153,027
64,881,061
5,955,330
2,286,056

ttt,tt4
2,524,508

'1,674,000

128,000
5,000
59,591,000
176,306,000
10,046,000

1

Over or (Under)
Budget

Actual

5,000
229
59,000
9,3'10
28,076,243
182,980 656
9,945,000

(1

,e97,944)
(1,290,915)
737,027
(9,710,939)
(200,000)
(3,47 4,670)

(1"â'??2'
850,508
5,000
229
(69,000)
(5,000)
9,310

(31,514,757)
6,674,656
(101 ,000)

$

342,914,000

$

302,840,618

$

,073,382

$

640,802,000

$

583,445,519

$

(57,356,481)
(4,985,618)

Expenditures
Salaries & Employee Benefits
Services & Supplies
Other Charges
Capital Assets - Equipment
@oss Total
lntrafund Transfer
Total Expenditures

$
$

$
$

$

777,341,776
(4,011,31e)
773,330,458

$

$

844,371,000
(6,799,000)
837,572,000

Net County Gost

$

494,658,000

s

470,489,840

187,154,382

192,140,000
9,001,000
2,428,000

5,957 ,256

(3,043,744)

784,620

g

(1,643,380)
(67,029,2241
2,787,681
(64,241,5421

$

(24,168,160)

$

Source: County of Los Angeles FY 2014-15 Final Budget.

The $40.1 million revenue shortfall in FY 2013-14 was mainly due to the following
a

State - Other Revenues - Actual revenues received were $31.5 million less than
budgeted, primarily due to less than expected transfers from the CCPI Fund for
SB 678 programs, and JJCPA revenues, which support evidence-based
programs and services for juveniles with higher needs for special services, at-risk
youth who have factors that potentially predispose them to criminal activities, and
youth in juvenile halls and camps. SB 678 and JJCPA revenues are discussed in
detail below.

o

Public Safety Realignment 2011 (Realignment) Revenues - Actual revenues
received were $6.7 million more than budgeted, primarily due to $23.7 million in
prior year Realignment revenues that were recognized in FY 2013-14. This was
AU DITOR-CO NTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS AÍVGELES

Probation Department

Paqe 6

offset by shortfalls in FY 2013-14 Realignment revenues of $17.0 million,
including, but not limited to, AB 109 funds, which supporl services directed
toward designated incarcerated individuals and post-prison release population,
and Juvenile Probation Funding, which support probatíon services targeting
youth who are habitual truants, runaways at risk of being wards of the court, or
are under juvenile court or Probation supervision.
a

Federal Revenues - Actual revenues received were $9.0 million less than
budgeted, prímarily due to shortfalls in Title lV-E funds, which provide out-ofhome care for juvenile probationers, until they are returned home, placed
permanently with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for
permanent residencylcare. The Department indicated that the shortfalls in Title
lV-E funds resulted from the federal government decreasing the federal
reimbursement rate, and the types of allowable reimbursable activities. The
Department's overhead rate also decreased, which resulted in lower claimable
amounts.

The $64.3 million savings in operating expenditures in FY 2013-14 were mainly due to
the following:
a

Salaries & Employee Benefits (S&EB) - Actual expenditures were $SZ.¿ million
less than budgeted. The Department indicated that the surplus was mainly due
to hiring delays in the Adult Bureau of the AB 109 program and other grantfunded programs. As of May 2015, Probation had an approximately 18% deficit
in budgeted staffing, which include 400 vacant positions that were established to
satisfy DOJ staffing requirements. The Department indicated that stricter
screening processes, which include extensive background checks and polygraph
tests, have disqualified many seeking employment with the Department. This is
partially offset by increases in overtime, long-term disability, and dependent care
benefit costs.

a

Services & Supplies (S&S) - Actual expenditures were $5.0 million less than
budgeted, mainly due to savings in foodicafeteria services, contracted program
services, building rentals, and training services.

Overall, for FY 2013-14, Probation's financial performance compared to its budget
resulted in favorable variances. However, the revenue and expenditure variances were
relatively significant. We did note that several of the variances were outside the
Department's control (i.e., shortfalls in available federal and State funding), while some
were due to Probation not claiming reimbursable expenditures for certain programs (i.e.,
SB 678 programs). Nevertheless, the excess amounts included in the budget do not
represent the best estimate of actual expected costs.
Budgets help facilitate control over revenues and expenditures, and provide the most
benefit when they represent the best estimate of actual expected results. Accordingly,
Probation management should re-evaluate the individual components of the
AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS A'VGEIES

Probation Department

Paqe 7

Department's budget to ensure, that indivídually, they represent the best estimate of
actual expected results. ln addition, the Department should ensure Probation managers
and staff continue to be involved in the budget process, and assist the Budget and
Fiscal Services Unit ín developing and monitoring revenue and expenditure estimates.
Recommendations

Probation Department management:
1

2.

Re-evaluate the individual components of the Department's budget to
ensure, that individually, they represent the best estimate of actual
expected results.

Ensure Department managers and staff continue to be involved in the
budget process, and assist the Budget and Fiscal Services Unit in
developing and monitoring revenue and expenditure estimates.
Revenues and Expenditures Validation

As indicated in Table 3 above, Probation reported actual revenues of $302.8 million and
expenditures of $773.3 million for FY 2013-14. We reviewed supporting documentation
(e.9., grant awards, funding allocations, expenditure claims, etc.) and/or analyzed
pertinent data to validate $285.9 million (94%) of Probation's operating revenues, and
all of Probation's operating expenditures, and determined the amounts reported were
generally reasonable and accurate.
Senate Bill 678 Revenues

As previously indicated, Probation established the CCPI Special Revenue Fund in FY
2014-15 to account for SB 678 funds. The SB 678 program established a performancebased funding system for county probation departments that share State savings from
lower prison costs with probation departments that implement evidence-based
supervision practices, and achíeve a reduction in the number of adult probationer
commitments to State prison. SB 678 legislation passed in October 2009, and
Probation received their first allocation from the State in FY 2011-12, totaling $21.4
million. The CCPI Fund has since accumulated to $140.5 million, as of May 2015.
Probation indicated that the large accumulation of funds has been primarily due to their
inability to properly develop SB 678 related programs. Also, since the Department was
uncertain of the continued funding of SB 678, they remained conservative as funding
timelines and amounts were not estimable. As discussed below, the Department is
developing a five-year spending plan for future and existing SB 678 revenues.
Currently, SB 678 funds are disbursed out of the CCPI Fund into the County General
Fund based on claims for expenditures made by Probation. We noted that Probation's
FY 2011-12 to FY 2013-14 SB 678 program costs totaled $19.7 million. However,
during this period, Probation only requested $9.5 million in reimbursements from the
AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS AAIGELES

Probation Department

Paqe

I

CCPI Fund for SB 678 programs. Specifically, in FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, the
Department did not request $1"6 million and $8.6 million, respectively, for SB 678
program costs from the CCPI Fund, and instead used County General Fund monies to
fund SB 678 program expenditures, resulting in an increased NCC. Probation's CCPI
Fund balance and SB 678 program expenditures are shown in Table 4, below.
Table 4

ctions

Pe rforma nce lnce ntives Fund
SB 678 - Rrnd Balance and Program Expenditures

Com m unity Corre

As of
FY

Beginning Fund Balance

$

Revenue Allocation

2011-',t2

FY

$

21,426,984

935

2012-13

17,984,817

Ff 2013-',t4

$

46,310 907
258,713

$ 98,504,565

58,601,537
39,376,372
526,656

41,652,344
354,731

lnterest
Less: Claimed Ependitures
SB 678 Fund Balance

(3,s23,102) (5,9s2900)
5 17,984,817 $ 58,601,537 $ 98,504,565 $140,511,640

Expenditures

$

Less: Claimed Expenditures
SB 678 Unclaimed Þ<penditures

80

3,523J02

$

(3,523,102)
g

7,533,533

Total

May 2015

$

8,649

$

8,649,703

703

$ 148,766,607
1,221,03s
(9,476,002)

$ 140,5't 1,640

$

$

19 706,338

$

$

10,230,336

(5,9s2 900)

$

1,580,633

(9,476,002)

Sources: eC, PS and ProbaÍion Department management.

Department management should re-evaluate the $10.2 million expended from the
County General Fund during FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 for SB 678 programs, and
determine the feasibility of recovering such expenditures from the County's CCPI
Special Revenue Fund.
Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Revenues

JJCPA was created by the Crime Prevention Act of 2000 to provide a stable funding
source for local juvenile justice programs aimed at curbing crime and delinquency
among at-risk youth. As prevíously indicated, JJCPA programs include home-based
support, employment, and other services to these at-risk youth. Probation received
their first allocation from the State in FY 2000-01. The JJCPA fund has since
accumulated to $2S.t million, as of May 2015. The Department indicated that the large
accumulation of funds was due to several years of under expenditures, and
unanticipated increases in the State's final allocation. The Department has recently
initiated a review of JJCPA programs to assess whether the current programs could be
enhanced or modified to fit the current needs of the juvenile population.

The large accumulation of funds for the SB 678 and JJCPA programs, and other
Probation programs will be addressed in a separate review that will cover item 3 of the
Board's Motion.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS AÍVGELES

Recommendation
3

Probation Department management re-evaluate the $10.2 million
expended from the Gounty General Fund during Fiscal Years 2012-13
and 2013-14 for Senate B¡ll 678 programs, and determine the feasibility
of recovering such expenditures from the County's Community
Corrections Performance Incentives Special Revenue Fund.
Future Outlook of Revenues and Expenditures

Probation budgets revenues and expenditures using prior-year budgeted and actual
amounts, and makes adjustments based on analysis of revenue and expenditure
trends. We discussed potential issues that may impact the outlook of Probation's
revenues and expenditures in future years with the Department and the Chief Executive
Office (CEO). The following includes some notable issues and plans that could affect
the Department's future budgets:
a

Due to Probation's projected increase in AB 109 program S&EB and S&S costs,
AB 109 expenditures may potentially exceed revenues. The Department
indicated that the increase in S&EB related to AB 109 programs is due to Cost of
Living Adjustment increases and the filling of vacant positions, whích will lead to
an increase in S&S costs to supporl those staff. ln previous FYs, the Department
has maximized their AB 109 program revenues, but has had savings in these
areas due to their inability to fill these vacant positions. For FY 2014-15, the
Department estimates AB 109 expenditures to exceed revenues by $9.0 million.
It is anticipated that AB 109 revenues will increase in FY 2015-16. Projected AB
109 program revenues and offsetting expenditures are reflected in the
Department's FY 2015-16 projections. However, since Probation's FY 2015-16
budgeted allocations are only estimated using the previous FY's allocation and
the CEO has not determined Probation's actual allocation, the Department and
the CEO have not yet determined whether a deficit will exist in FY 2015-16. fi a
department's AB 109 claims result in a fiscal year-end deficit, the CEO may
recommend the Board
utilize any remaining allocations from other
departments or use AB 109 Reserves, which total $15.2 million, as of May 2015,
to make the department whole. Othenruise, the Department will absorb those AB
109 costs within its regular budget.

to

The Department is developing a five-year spending plan for future and existing
SB 678 revenues. This includes expenditures for the further development and
restructuring of current SB 678 related programs, and the addition of new
services (e.9., substance abuse and housing subsidy programs, etc.), which will
result in increased program costs. The Department is currently calculating the
estimated projected costs, and intends to present their plan to the Board when
finalized.

AUDITOR.CO NTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS A,VGELES

a

ln order to satisfy DOJ staffing requirements and fill vacant positions, the
Department plans to hire an additional 400 employees, which will be funded by
specific program revenues or NCC. The Department estimates S&EB to
increase by $SO.O million with the hiring of the 400 employees, which is reflected
in the Department's FY 2014-15 budget and carried over to their FY 2015-16
projections.

Based on our review of Probation's methods, related forecasts and analysis, and plans

to fill the 400 vacant positions and increase their SB 678 program activitíes, we

concluded that the Department's operating revenue and expenditure projections for FY
2015-16 appear reasonable. Probation anticipates an NCC decrease of approximately
$5.8 million in FY 2015-16.

The Department and the CEO indicated that they only forecast for the current and
upcoming FY for budget purposes, and do not conduct any formal analysis of future
outlooks. However, Board policy requires that a long-range forecast be developed and
maintained to reflect continuing programs, anticipated new initiatives, revenue changes,
cost increases, and other factors that may impact strategy for maintaining a balanced
budget over several years. Probation should continue to work with the CEO to develop
a long-range budget forecast to ensure emerging issues, like those identified above, are
considered and planned.

Recommendation
4.

Probation Department management continue to work with the Ghief
Executive Office to develop a long-range budget forecast.
Gapital Proiects and Unmet Needs

ln the FY 2014-15 final budget, Probation received funding for 11 Board-approved
Capital Projects, costing $58.2 million, with $28.7 million funded by Juvenile Justice
Realignment SB 81 funds, and the remaining $29.5 million funded by NCC. These
projects include demolishing and replacing Camp Kilpatrick, expanding office space and
staff sleeping quarters at Camp Miller, and enhancing security to increase the safety of
minors and Probation staff in the areas of highest risk at Probation's juvenile halls. ln
addition, for FY 2015-16, Probation has identified an additional20 Capital Projects at an
estimated costof $197.5 million, of which $500,000 isfunded. These projects include
constructíng parking structures at Barry J. Nidorf and Central Juvenile Halls to address
parking shortages, installing an Emergency lncident Response System at the juvenile
camps for security enhancement and risk management, constructing a new infirmary at
the Challenger Memorial Youth Center (Challenger) to meet medical and Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations, and replacing dilapídated buildings at Camp
Miller and the Dorothy Kirby Center to meet ADA standards, Fire/Safety Codes, and
DOJ and State Corrections Standards Authority mandates.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF ¿OS ANGELES

Probation Department

Pase

11

The CEO uses the County's Capital ProjectsiRefurbishment Budget Unit to budget,
manage, and fund Probation's Capital Projects, outside of the Department's operating
budget. Capital Projects must be approved by the Board before funds can be spent,
and funding for Capital Projects can be financed through outside sources (e.9., grants,
bonds, etc.) or can be derived from Board-approved County fund balance transfers or
carryover of prior year departmental savings.

We reviewed the 11 Capital Projects that Probation reported in FY 2014-15,

and

identified one project (i.e., Centinela office building replacement project), totaling $3.0
million, that was completed in 2010, but was still reported as a Capital Project in the
Department's FY 2O14-15 final budget and funded by the County General Fund. We
also noted that the Department does not report Capital Project statuses to the Board
annually, as required by the County Fiscal Manual. Probation management should
work with the CEO to determine oversight responsibility in the handling and reporting of
the Department's Capital Projects to ensure Capital Projects are properly monitored and
tracked.

fn addition, Probation reported $25.8 million in critical unmet needs for FY 2015-16.
Unmet needs include potential future projects, refurbishments, or other necessary
purchases that lack sufficient funding in the current year's budget, and include unfunded
deferred maintenance. Probation's FY 2015-16 critical unmet needs include, but are
not limited to, replacement of the roof at Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall, addressing Air
Quality Management District violations for the replacement or retrofitting of generators,
and filling 28 critically-needed administrative support positions Department-wide. The
lack of funding can be attributed to various reasons, such as varying other needs with
higher priority or the Department's inability to currently meet grant requirements (e.9.,
matching funds, etc.). Unmet needs are tracked internally by the Department, and
voluntarily reported in the Recommended Budget to notify the CEO of their most critical
unfunded needs. Additionally, Probation does not have reseryes or other funds for
unmet needs or potential unexpected events. Probation should continue to work with
the CEO to evaluate the Department's critical infrastructure needs, explore financing
options, and develop a financial plan (e.9., project prioritization, timeframes, funding
sources, etc.) to address their Capital Project and unmet needs.

Recommendations

Probation Department management:
5

Work with the Chief Executive Office to determine oversight
responsibility in the handling and reporting of the Department's

Capital Projects to ensure Capital Projects are properly monitored and
tracked.

6.

Gontinue to work with the Chief Executive Office to evaluate the
Department's critical infrastructure needs, explore financing options,
and develop a financial plan (e.9., project prioritization, timeframes,
AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF IOS ANGELES

Probation Department

funding sources, etc.)

Pase 12

to address their Capital Project and unmet

needs.

Juvenile Halls and Gamps Operatinq Gosts
Probation currently operates three juvenile halls and 14 juvenile camps, and in FY
2013-14 processed approximately 12,000 youth intakes. After intake assessment,
some minors are admitted to juvenile halls, released to residential or non-secure
detention licensed foster homes, ordered to juvenile camps, or are returned to the
courts for re-placement. Probation housed approximately 1,600 youths in FY 2013-14,
and as of March 2015, housed approximately 1,400 youths within their juvenile halls
and camps. Juvenile halls provide temporary housing for minors detained on an arrest,
awaiting a court date, and/or awaiting sentencing. While in juvenile hall, minors are
provided health, mental health, and educational assessments, and treatment. Juvenile
camps provide an intensive intervention in a residential setting for minors committed by
the Juvenile Court, with an average stay of six months. Minors receive health, mental
health, educational, and family assessments that allow for treatments to be tailored to
meet individual needs. Youth also attend school and engage in recreational activities at
both the juvenile halls and camps.
Probation's operating costs for the three juvenile halls and 14 juvenile camps for FYs
2012-13,2013-14, and 2014-15 (through March 2015) are included in Table 5, below.
Probation's operating costs include staff S&EB, food, medical and mental health
seryices, tutoring, contract services, security services, clothing and supplies,
transportation, and building maintenance.

The direct operating costs of juvenile halls and camps are captured in the JIS budget
unit. However, additional costs which benefit the juvenile halls and camps, such as
support and educational seryices, are captured in other budget units. Such costs
should be included in determining the operating costs for each juvenile hall and camp.
Our review noted that the Department does not track administrative, educational, and
transportation services costs by each juvenile hall and camp, and does not track
revenues and expenditures separately for five of the six Challenger camps (i.e., Camp
Onizuka is tracked separately under the Youth Offender Block Grant). Tracking the
Challenger camps separately could provide more detailed financial information, and a
more effective basis for planning and decision making for the Department.
Probation management should determine the feasibility of allocating administrative,
educational, and transportation services costs by each juvenile hall and camp to identify
actual operating costs more efficiently and accurately, and ensure that all expenditures
are allocated to the appropriate juvenile halls and camps. Probation Department
management should also determine the feasibility of budgeting and tracking revenues
and expenditures using additional cost centers or lower-level budget units, particularly
related to the Challenger camps.

AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS A,VGELES

Probation Department

Paqe 13

Table 5

Juvenile Flialls and Gamps Operating Costs
tscalYears 2012-13 to 2014-15 (through March 2Ol5)
Juvenile Halls Operating Costs

F( 2014-15

Barry J. Nidorf

Central
Los Padrinos
Total

Average î( 2O14-15
Daily Budgeted
F-( 2O14-15
(9 Monthsl
Population FTE
?( 2012-13
î( 2013-14
235
491
60,827,656
56,063,510
$
$
$ 38,263,510
270
489
76,017,449
71 ,1 54 ,827
50,461 ,217
279
462
67,071,988
63,508,588
43,247,681
784

1,442

$

31

$1

7

Gamps Operating Costs
Afflerbaugh
Gonzales
Mendenhall
Miller
Munz

Paige
Rockey
Scott
Scudder
Dorothy Kirby Center
Kilpatrick

$

58
29

50
59

48

48

8,970,330
9,050,789
8,600,512

$

9,503,1 ',t2

7,322,071
8,642,779

2A

50

7,970,479

8,1 18,861

49
62

48

7

,827 .150

4A

58
58

8,807,994
9,581,050
12,893,312
8,826,398

39
31
51

N/A

51

9,637,766
10,783,636

4B

I,062,223
8,402,200

97
50

11,385,611
10,184,695

15,628,313
4,276,248

23,084,809
23,062,417
13,790,936

21
21

8,361 ,972

$

6,773,263
6,O18,246
6,086,925
5,775,908
6,349,998
6,519,1 13

9,383,514
6,551 ,222

6,018,126
12,816,575
N/A

Challenger
McNair

55
55

Onizuka

51

40
48
24

Smith
Total

35

36

Jarvis

l6l,8

,927,917
,913,592
14,891 ,299

11

,858,457
11,887,930
9,934,775

N/A

N/A

7,499,240

,955

64,694,917

13,473,290

Source: eCAFS and Probation Department management.

(1) Challenger Canps Resnick, Scobee, and Sm¡th were closed ¡n May 2O11 (Smith re-opened in FY 2014'15), Routh was closed ¡n tulay 2Oo9, l-lolton in Septerrùer 2oo9, and Kilpatrick in [\/arch 2014 ln FY 2014-15
(through lvlarch 2015), the closed carrps reported operating costs of $1 5 million

Recommendations

Probation Department management:
7

Determine the feasibility of allocating administrative, educational, and
transportation services costs by each juvenile hall and camp to
identify actua¡ operat¡ng costs more efficiently and accurately, and
ensure all expenditures are allocated to the appropr¡ate juvenile halls
and camps.

8.

Determine the feasibility of budgeting and tracking revenues and
expend¡tures us¡ng additional cost centers or lower-level budget units,
particularly related to the Ghallenger Memorial Youth Genter camps.

AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Averaqe Dailv Cost Per Youth
The ADCPY is calculated by taking the total actual annual operating cost of the juvenile
halls and camps, and dividing it by the average daily population and 365 days.
Probation management indicated that they calculate the ADCPY for juvenile halls and
camps annually for monitoring purposes, using only budgeted information. ln addition,
in reviewing the Department's methodology in calculating the ADCPY, we noted that
Probation did not include all costs related to operating the juvenile halls and camps,
including the cost of health, mental health, and pharmaceutical services at the juvenile
camps that are provided by the Department of Health Services and the Department of
Mental Health under Departmental Service Orders, and building maintenance services
at the juvenile halls and camps that are provided by the lnternal Services Department
(lSD), but not billed to Probation. ln collaboration with the Depaftment, we re-calculated
the ADCPY for FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, resultíng in the rates indicated in Table 6,
below.
Table 6
Average Daily Cost Per Youth (ADCPY)
FiscalYears 2012-13 and 2013-14
FY2012-13

Ff 2013-14

ADCPYfoT Juvenile Halls

$ 605

$ 640

Average

-923-

-817 -

ADCPYfoT

$ 456

$ 552

Average

- 973 -

-818-

Da

ily Population

Camps
Daily Population

Source: eCAPS and Probation Department management.

We determined that the revised methodology and components used by Probation to
calculate the ADCPY is reasonable, and generally consistent with the methodology
used by the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the other probation
departments we compared to below. The Department indicated that the increase in
costs from FY 2012-13 to FY 2013-14, and expected increase in costs for FY 2014-15 is
primarily attributed to increased DOJ mandates requiring higher staff to youth ratios,
S&EB increases, and average daily population decreases, resulting in increases in cost
per youth at the juvenile halls and camps. To ensure the accurate calculation of the
ADCPY, Probation should use actual operating costs, and ensure that all direct juvenile
hall and camp operating costs are included in the calculation.

Recommendation

9.

Probation DepaÉment management use actual operat¡ng costs in
calculating the Average Daily Gost Per Youth, and ensure that all
direct juvenile hall and camp operating costs are included in the
calculation.
AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS AAIGELES

Comparison to Other Probation Departments
We compared the Department's FY 2013-14 ADCPY to four other jurisdíctions using the
most current available financial information provided by the other probation
departments. The results are summarized in Table 7, below.
Table 7

Average tlaily Gost Per Youth (ADGPY)
Comparison to Other Probation Departments
Los Angeles
Gounty

San Diego
Gount¡r

Orange
County

(California)

(California)

$ 640

$ s51

3

2

ADCPY for Juvenile Halls

Number of Halls

Harris

Cook
Gounty

(Californía)

Gounty
(Texas)

(lllinois)

$ 497

s 232

$ 560

1

1

1

Averaqe Elaily Population

- 8'17 -

-349-

-239 -

-228

ADGPYfoT

Camps
Camps
Average Daily Population

$ 552

$ 307

6 284

$ 272

N/A

Number of

14

3

3

3

N/A

-178-

-235-

N/A

- 818 -

-206-

-

-345-

Source. Surveyed probation departments in other jur¡sd¡ctions

The ADCPY of the other counties ranged from $232 to $560 at the juvenile halls, and
$272 to $307 at the juvenile camps. As shown in Table 7, Probation's ADCPY was
higher for both juvenile halls and camps. Our review noted that the Department and the
other counties generally included the same costs in their calculation of the ADCPY,
such as S&EB, food, medical and mental health seryices, contract services, clothing
and supplies, transportation, and building maintenance. Probation should examine the
operating costs of their juvenile halls and camps, and work with the CEO to identify
reasons for their higher ADCPY in comparison to other counties.
Recommendation

10. Probation Department management exam¡ne the operating costs of
their juvenile halls and camps, and work with the Chief Executive
Office to identify reasons for their higher Average Daily Cost Per

Youth in compar¡son to other count¡es.
Annual and Deferred Buildinq Maintenance Costs
Probation's annual maintenance costs are comprised of Building Maintenance, which
include services performed by ISD through a service agreement under ISD's budget,
and Alterations and lmprovements (A&l), which is funded by Probation's operating
budget, and include building modifications and maintenance not covered under the ISD
service agreement. Building Maintenance services include maintenance of building
hardware (e.9., door handles, hinges, etc.), electrical systems, and plumbing, and A&l
services include repa¡rs resulting from vandalism or natural disasters, new fixture
AU DITOR-CONf ROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS A'VGELES

Probation Deoartment

Paqe 16

installations, and maintenance of parking lot surfaces. Actual total maintenance costs
(i.e., Building Maintenance and A&l) for Probation's juvenile halls and camps for the last
three FYs are included in Table 8, below.
Table 8
Junenile Halls and Gamps Annual Maintenance Costs
Frscaf Years 2012:13 to 201¡t-í5 (through March 20f 5)
Juvenile Halls Maintenance Costs
Facility

FY

1( 2012-13

Aqe
Barry J Nidorf
Central
Los Padrinos

50
103
58

$

$

FY

2014-15

(9 Months)

2013-14

954,567
1,367,341
883,040

$

1,0s0,862
2,360,723
1,039,526

$

837,608
1,238,056

3,204,947

$

4,451,111 $

2,833,766

758.102

Gam ps Maintenance Gosts

Afflerbaugh
Gonzales
Mendenhall
Miller
Munz

Paige
Rockey
Scott
Scudder
Dorothy Kirby Center
Kilpatrick

Challenger

54
53

$

392,650

402,028

$

195,051

360,158

57

342,638

379,206

53
57
54
38
34
34
54
53
26

284192

353,280
595 866

255,063

242,996
234,139
237,136

169,484
126,767
187,386

696,204
320,1 38

Jarvis

McNair
Onizuka

290,667

189,728

122,326

234j49

274,238

382,352

58,281
N/A

341,O48
341,444
104,379

372,429

N/A

$

167,316
281,857

94,963
I 10,495
158,858
46,198

Smith

Total

$

153,368

3,660,810

376,352

238,504
239.826

583,780
NiA
4,943,598

99,776
178,209
2,61O,512

Source: eCAPS and Probation Department management.

(1) Challenger Carrps Resnick, Scobee, and Smith were closed in May 201 1 (SÍith re-opened in FY 201415), Routh was closed in tvlay 2009, Holton in Septenicer 2009, and Kilpatrick in March 2014. ln FY 2014-15
(through March 2015), the closed cafips reported rnaintenance costs of $429,000

ln addition, Probation has identified over 100 deferred maintenance projects at their
juvenile halls and camps for FY 2015-16, with an estimated cost of over $48.1 million.
These projects include repaving roads and parking lots, replacing sewer lines, roof¡ng,
lighting and windows, duct cleaning, completing water and air conditioning pipe projects,
installing new generators, etc. The CEO uses the County's Extraordinary Maintenance
Budget Unit (outside of the Department's operating budget) to budget, manage, and
fund deferred maintenance projects that the Department is unable to fund. Fundíng for
deferred maintenance can be financed by carryover of prior year departmental savings
or NCC. ln FY 2014-15, the Department requested and received $5.0 million of
AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS A'VGELES

Probation Department

Pase 17

FY 2013-14 carryover savings to be used toward funding its most critical deferred
maintenance projects.
Deferred maintenance projects are identified through observations made during routine
maintenance activities and systematic buildíng condition assessments of County-owned
buildings, and are prioritized in monthly meetings between management, facility
managers, and ISD staff. The prioritization of each project is generally measured by the
Department on whether any health and safety hazards exist, how critical they are to
continued operations, and growing costs if left unmaintained. The average age of
juvenile halls and camps is 52 years. The Department indicated that Camp Routh is
closed due to the cost of facility repairs, updates, and maintenance issues, and Camp
Kilpatrick is temporarily closed for replacement of the entire juvenile camp resulting from
maintenance issues.

Request for Proposal Evaluation Review

We reviewed two RFP solicitations that the Department completed during FY 2014-15
Employment Services and Home-Based Services and evaluated Probation's
compliance with County contracting guidelines. We reviewed the RFP language and
the procedures used in the two solicitations. ln addition, we reviewed a selected
number of proposals and evaluation documents from each of the two solicitations. Our

for

review included verifying that:

o
.
.
.
.

Proposal evaluation tools aligned wíth the RFP criteria.

Probation appropriately passed or faíled proposers based on the RFP minimum
requirements.
The evaluation committee included qualifíed individuals.
The evaluation committee met to discuss each evaluator's scores for each rating
factor and used the "lnformed Averaging" scoring method.
The proposals' scores were accurately calculated.

Overall, Probation conducted their solicitations in a fair and objective manner and the
evaluation process complied with County policy. ln addition, the Department
appropriately screened the proposals for minimum qualification requirements, and
evaluated the proposals using the "lnformed Averaging" scoring method. However,
although Probation inserted descriptions and questions in the evaluation tool specific to
each solicitation, Probation did not customize the tool by dividing major scoring
categories into sufficiently detailed sub-categories that would enhance transparency
and objectivity of the proposal evaluation process. As a result, the evaluation tools
contained very broad rating categories that covered multiple criteria.
For example, evaluation documents for both solicitations contained a scoring category
that was worth 30% of the total score, and required evaluators to consider up to 17
different RFP requirements to arrive at a single score. Because the evaluation
documents did not provide any guidance on which of the RFP requirements were more
critical than others, evaluators had to subjectively determine the relative importance of
AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS A'VGELES

Probation Deoartment

Paoe 18

each requirement. Evaluators may have differing opinions about the importance of
various RFP requirements, so the resulting scores may not be consistent, and may not
equate to the Department's view of what is important. Probation should divide broad
scoring categories into more detailed sub-categories in evaluation documents, where
appropriate, to enhance the transparency and objectivity of the proposal evaluation and
scoring process.
Recommendation

11. Probation DepaÉment management utilize more detailed scoring subcategories in evaluation documents, where appropriate, to allow for
more transparency of the proposals evaluation and scoring process.

Statement of Work Monitorinq Review
Departments should establish a contract monitoring process to ensure their contractors
comply with the contracts' SOW requirements. An effective monitoring process
includes:
o

A comprehensive, risk-based

contract monitoring plan (Plan) that lists all the
department's contracts and identifies the scope and frequency of individual
monitoring reviews. The Plan helps the department to manage their monitoring
resources and ensures appropriate monitoring coverage.

a

An appropriate scope of review that evaluates the contractor's compliance with key
contract requirements.

a

A standardized method for reporting the results of the reviews to better document
and enhance awareness of the contractors' performance among key managers
within a department.

We evaluated whether Probation's contract monitoring process includes each of these
elements for the 14 programs reviewed where CBOs provided the program services.
Our review was not intended to evaluate the quality or accuracy of Probation's
monitoring review results.

Contract Monitorinq Plan

To effectively allocate contract monitoring resources and mitigate contracting risk,
departments need to develop a comprehensive, risk-based Plan. The Plan should be
formalized in writing and identify the high risk programs and the high risk contractors
within each program. ln addition, the Plan should identify the scope and frequency of
the índividual monitoring reviews. Formally documenting the Plan in writing ensures
that monitors are aware of, and accountable for, their responsibilities.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS AAlGEI.ES

We evaluated Probation's Plan and whether the Department complied with the Plan.
We noted that Probation's Plan only covers 17 (71o/o) of lhe 24 programs where the
Department contracts with CBOs to províde services. For the seven programs that
were not included in the Plan, Probation and another County department jointly contract
with the CBOs to provide program services. However, Probation did not provide
documentation that the CBOs were monitored. Probation should include all of the
programs in their Plan, and ensure the CBOs are monitored for compliance with the
County contracts' requirements.

For the programs included in Probation's Plan, the Plan indicated that CBOs funded
through JJCPA are monitored by CMO once every three months and CBOs funded
through non-JJCPA sources are monitored once every six months.

Generally, Probation complied with the Plan's frequency requirements for all 14
programs that we reviewed. However, Probation indicated that the Plan is not riskbased and did not explain or justify why some CBOs are monitored once every three
months and others are monitored once every six months. ln addition, the Plan did not
identify the group responsible for programmatic monitoring of the CBOs providing nonJJCPA funded seryices, and, according to Probation, has not been updated in over
eight years. As a result, Probation's Plan does not allow the Department to effectively
manage their monitoring resources or mitigate their risk.

To effectively allocate contract monitoring resources and mitigate contracting

risk,

Probation needs to develop a comprehensive, rísk-based Plan that is updated annually.
programs
performing
programmatic,
(comprehensive), and list the group responsible for
fiscal,
and administrative monitoring of contractors.

The Plan should identify the frequency of the reviews, include all

Recommendations

Probation Department management:

12. Gonduct ongoing monitoring of the community-based organizations

that Probation and other County departments jointly contract with to
ensure compliance with the County contracts' requirements.

13. Develop a comprehensive, risk-based contract monitoring plan that is
updated annually to ensure contract monitoring resources are
effectively allocated to mitigate contracting risk.

14. Ensure the contract monitoring plan is comprehensive and identifies
who is responsible for performing fiscal, programmatic, and
administrative monitoring of contractors.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS AÍVGEIES

Probation Deoa¡tment

Paqe 20

Contract Monitorinq Scope

The scope of a contract monitoring review should include steps to evaluate the
contractor's performance with key contract requirements including deliverables noted in
the contract's SOW. Departments should develop standardized monitoring tools that list
the actions and procedures contract and program staff are supposed to follow in
evaluating a contractods compliance with the provisions of the County contracts' SOWs.
Standardized monitoring tools provide guidance to staff and help ensure consistency
among monitors within the same program. Completed monitoring tools can be used to
document the Departments' monitoring efforts. To evaluate the scope of Probation's
monitoring reviews, we revíewed the tools and other documentation that the Department
used to monitor the CBOs for the 14 programs reviewed.
Overall, Probation's monitoring scope for 12 (86%) of the 14 programs reviewed did not
include the necessary steps for staff to monitor the key SOW requirements. As a result,
Probation cannot ensure that the CBOs complied with the key SOW requirements.
Specifically, we noted:
o

For 12 (86%) programs, the monitoring scope did not include reviewing two (40%) of
the five SOW personnel requirements. Specifically, the Department did not monitor
the SOW requirements for evaluating and training employees.

For seven (50%) programs, Probation did not monitor all of the performance
outcome measures noted in the SOW.
o

For three (21o/o) programs, the monitoring scope did not include a review of all the
SOW service delivery requirements. For example, the monítoring scope did not
include Probation staff reviewing participant case files to ensure that CBOs provide
all of the required services to program participants.

a

For one (7%) program, Probation could not provide documentation that they
monitored the CBO for compliance with the contract's performance outcome
measures and service delivery requirements. Department management indicated
that the CBO is on-site with Probation staff who monitor the program daily.
However, Probation does not use and maintain monitoring tools to document their
reviews.

Based on the limited scope of Probation's monitoring efforts, it is difficult to determine if

the CBOs are providing the appropriate level of services required by their County
contracts. Probation needs to expand the scope of their monitoring reviews to cover all
key areas listed in the SOW, and develop appropriate monitoring tools that include the
expanded areas.

Details of the programs we reviewed and
Attachment lll.

a summary of our results are included in

AU DITOR.CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS A'VGELES

Probation Deoartment

Paoe 21

Recommendation

15. Probation Department management expand the scope

of

their

monitoring reviews to ensure their reviews cover all key areas listed in
the contracts' statement of work, and develop appropriate monitoring
tools that include the expanded areas.
Contract Monitorinq Reports

lssuing written reports to formally communicate the results of individual contractor
monitoring reviews improves awareness throughout the Department of the contractor's
performance. ln addition, providing a written report to the contractor provides them with
formal notification to correct the areas of noted deficiencies, and provides documented
justification to enforce contract remedies.
Probation has a policy requiring the CMO to issue written reports to their contractors on
the results of Probation's monitoring reviews. The Department issued written reports to
the CBOsfor 13 (93%) of the 14programs reviewed. Forone program, Probation did
not document the results of their review in a written report.
Probation's policy does not require copies of the monitoring reports to be sent to the
Department's executive management in order to ensure key managers within the
Department are aware of their contractors' performance. Probation should revise their
departmental policy to require all contract monitors to provide copies of all monitoring
reports to the appropriate executive managers within the Department to ensure key
managers within the Department are aware of their contractors' performance. ln
addition, Probation should ensure that written reports are issued for all monitoring
reviews detailing the results of the reviews.

Recommendations

Probation Department management:

16. Revise their departmental policy to require copies of all monitoring
reports are sent to the appropriate executive managers within the
Probation Department to ensure key managers within the Department
are aware of their contractors' performance.

17. Ensure written reports are issued for all monitoring reviews detailing
the results of the reviews.

AU DITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY OF LOS ANGETES

Attachment ll
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY.BASED ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS AS OF JULY 2015
Program/Type of Service

#
1

2

3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11

12

13
14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21

22

23
24

Academic Support and lntervention (1) (3)
Adult Dav Reportino Center
Advocacv and Outreach Services
Anti-Gano Strateqies Proorams
Communitv Treatment Facilitv Services (1) (3)
Comprehensive Services to A8109 Population
County Delinquencv Prevention Prooram
Educational and Support Services
Educational Pathwavs and Vocational Oooortunities
Emolovment Services
Enhanced Education Services
Ganq lntervention
Gender Specific in the Communitv Services
Grouo Home Services (1) (2)
Halls Writino Prooram
Home Based Gender Soecific
Home Based Services
lndividualized Transition Skills Prooram l1) 13)
Literacv Tutorinq Services
Residential Druq-Free and Foster Care Services
Residentiallv Based Services (1) l3)
Transitional Housino Placement (1) l3)
Transitional Housinq Placement Plus Foster Care l1) l3)
Wraoaround Prooram l'1) 13)

#of
GBOs
1
1

1

B

2
1

28
1

4
6
1

5
5
25
1

3
6
2
1
1

3
7
11

49

Current Year
Fundino

Funding Source
Federal, State, and Countv
State
State
Countv
State and Countv
State
Countv
Countv
State
St¡ate

$
$

$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

State
Countv
State
Federal, State, and County
State
State
State
Federal and State
Countv
$
Countv
$
Federal, State, and County
State
Federal, State, and Countv
Federal, State, and County

$
$
$
$

1.300.000
1.560.000
396,060

411.735
2.283.000
12.000.000
t ,898,710
300,000

t,432,500
2,068,000
350,000

2,000,000
s50,000
200,000,000
211,200
517,000

2,068,000
3,103,828
65,700
23,000
t ,958,112

2,165,106

21J40,320
106,460.534

Footnotes:

(1) Probation jointly contracts for these services with the Department of Children and Famíly Services (DCFS).
(2)
(3)

The contracts do not specify the funding amounts per department. As a result, the amounts indicated are for
the entire contract.
Contract is with 65 Group Home agencies. However, Probation is only responsible for monitoring the 25
agencies where Probation places minors. DCFS monitors the remaining 40 agencies.
Were not included in Probation's contract monitoring plan.

Attachment lll
SUMMARY OF CONTRACT MONITORING TESTWORK RESULTS
FOR THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS REVIEWED
Monitoring Plan
Prograny'Type of Se rv ice

#

1

2
3

4
5
o

Adult Dav Reoortinq Center
Advocacv and Outreach Services
Comprehensive Services to AEl109 Population
Educational and Support Services
Educational Pathwavs and Vocational Opportunities

Emplovment Services
Enhanced Education Services

7

I
I
10
11

12
13
14

Ganq lntervention
Gender Specific in the Community Services
Halls Writinq Proqram
Home Based Gender Specific
Home Based Services
L¡teracv Tutorinq Services
Residential Druq-Free and Foster Care Services

Frequency

Conpliant

Semi-annuallV
Semi-annually

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Semi-annually
Semi-annuallv

Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterlv
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterlv
Quarterly
Semi-annually
Semi-annuallv

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Statenent of ULrork
Reouirenæ nts Monitored l1 )
Personnel Perforrnance
Service
(21

Outcorres

13)

Deliverv

Partial

t6)

(6)

t\UA

NYA

Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Yes

Partial
Yes
Partial

Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
Partial
Yes

No

Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No

Yes
NI/A

lssued
Report
(5)

14ì

Yes
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Footnotes:

(1)

(2)
(3)

For 12 (86%) of the 14 programs reviewed, Proþation does not ensure that they monitor all of the statement of work (SOW)
requirements.
For 12 (86%) of the 14 programs reviewed, Probation's monitoring scope did not include reviewing two (40%) of the five SOW
personnel requirements. Specifically, the Department did not monitor the SOW requirements for evaluating and training
employees.
For seven (50%) of the 14 programs reviewed, Probation did not monitor all of the performance outcome measures noted in
the SOW

(4) For three (21%)
(5)
(6)

of the 14 programs reviewed, Probation's monitoring scope did not include a review of all the SOW servíce
delivery requirements.
For one (7%) of the 14 programs reviewed, Probation did not issue a written report to communicate the results of their reviews.
Probation management indicated that the community-based organization providing the program services is on-site with Probation
staff who monitor the program performance outcome measures and service delivery requirements daily. However, Probation
does not use and maintain monitoring tools and could not provide documentation of their reviews.

Attachment lV
Page 1 of 10
of

Los

COUNTY OF LOS AI'{GELES
PROBATTON DEPARTMEI\T
9150 Eâst lmperial Highway

-

Downey, Calìfornia 90242

(562| 940-2501

JERRY E- POWERS
Chief Probation Officer

July 14,2015

ïo

John Naimo
Auditor-Controf fer

FROM:
SUBJECT:

Jerry E. Powers
Chief Probation Officer
-\

l_-.
*t'
\j

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM REVIEW

OF BUDGET, JUVENILE HALLS AND CAMP OPERATING COSTS,
AND DEPARTMENTAL CONTRACTING PROCEDURES (BOARD
AGENÐA |TEM t0, APRTL 14,20151
This is ín response to the Auditor-Controller's recommendations from the April14,2015
Board Agenda ttem 10, instructing the Auditor-Controllerto conduct an audit within g0
days with particular focus on its budget, fiscal, and personne[ functions to ensure
compliance with Board-approved polícies and best practices.

This audit response covers Parts 2, 4, and 5 of the Board's requested audit which
pertains to:
Part. 2: Current cost of operating the camps and halls, including the cost per youth,
annual maintenance costs and deferred building maintenance costs

Part.4. The Deparlment's request for proposal procedures and its process for examining
satisfactory compliance with the Statements of Work (SOW) for contracted CommunityBased Organizations (CBOs) and agencies
Part 5: The Department's rnanagement and accounting
expenditures.

of its budget, revenue and

lf you have any questions or need additionalinformation, please contact Kym Renner of
my staff at (562) 940-2516.

JEP:GR:mo
Attachment

Rehuild Lives and Provide îor |lealthier and Safer Communities

Attachment lV
Page 2

BUDGET / JUVENILE HALLS AND GAMPS OPERATING COSTS
Budqet to Actual Financial Comparison

Recomrnendation #1:

Re-evaluate the individual components of the Depaftment's budget to
ensrrre, that individually, they represent the best estimate of actual expected
resu/fs.

Department Response:

The Probation Deparlment agrees in general with this recommendation. The
DepaÉment's current under-expenditures and corresponding under-realization of

revenues against the appropriated budget are a result of multiple revenue
reductions and shortfalls at both the federal, state and county level. During the
audited períod Probation informed and updated the Chief Executive Office (CEO)
and their fiscal staff on an ongoing basis of the revenue shortfalls and the
reasons for the shortfalls. Probation also committed to ensuring that there was
not a negative net county cost impact resulting from these shortfalls by ensuring
that expenditure reductions matched or exceeded the revenue shortages, On
multiple occasions the department has requested to realign those revenue areas
that we knew would not be realized to more accurately reflect actuals. As the
impact would be to increase net county cost the requests were not approved and
we have continued to adjust expenditures and revenues internally to reflect no
additional net county cost impact. Again in FY 2015-16, Probation has reported
approximately $20 million dollars in known revenue shortages which again were
not adjusted in the budget.

Recommendation #2:
Ensure Depaftment managers and staff continue to be involved in the budget
process, and assrsf the Budget and Fiscal Seruices Section in developing
and monitoring revenue and expenditure estimates.

Department Response
The Probation Depañment agrees with this recommendation and implemented in
the 2014-15 Proposed Budget process, a new inclusion of operational staff called
a Budget Forum, The process was to introduce operational needs in the
Department budget planning process. ln addition, monthly flnancial reporling
methods are being implemented to inform department managers and staff the
status of their budgets and expenditures. We will continue to refine this
1

ol

10

Attachment lV
Page 3 of 10
involvemenl

of

operations

in the development and maintenance of

the

Department's budget.
Revenue and Expenditures Validation

Recommendation #3:
Probation Department management re-evaluate the $10.2 million expended from
the County General Fund duing Fiscal Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 for Senate
B¡ll 678 programs, and determine the feasibility of recovering such expenditures

from the County's Community Conectíons Performance lncentives

Specia/

Revenue Fund.

Department Response:

The Probation Depaftmentagrees to re-evaluate the $10.2 million expended
from the County General Fund during Fiscal Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 for
Senate Bill 678 programs, and determine the feasibility of recoveríng such
expenditures from the County's Community Corrections Performance lncentives
Special Revenue Fund. The Probation Department's focus during this timeframe
was on three significant initiatives - AB 109 (i.e., Public Safety Realignment Act),

Camp DOJ, and SB 678. Due to limited resources, department efforts were
diverted from SB 678 to the more irnrnediate need of building the infrastructure to
support the release of over 30,000 offenders to date to the department's
jurisdiction under AB '109. This required the redeployment of signifícant
resources from all areas of the depaftment specifically from SB 678 programs
and adult probation services. These redeployments affected the department's
ability to fully justify the expenditure of allocated SB 678 revenues without fear of
questions relating to supplantation. Additionally, the SB 678 is a peformance
based funding allocation. During the course of the last 5 years the fundíng has
also been threatened wìth significant reduction or elimination due to state budget
issues and AB 109 impacts on the formula. ln FY 2011-12 the depaftment
established a plan to accrue a strategic funding reserve that would provide for 3
years ongoing operalional funding in the event the funding was removed or
performance resulted- in significant reductions. There have been instances
statewide where performance numbers have resulted in zero funding for several
counties. San Diego County has seen its funding reduced to zero on several

occasions. We have also seen instances of wide fluctuations in funding
allocations from year to year due to the pedormance nature of the funding. The
establishment of the strategic fiscal reserve was shared with each of the board
offices in 2012-13.

2

Attachment lV
Page 4 oÍ 10

Future Outlook of Revenues and Expenditures

Recommendation #4:
Probation Depaftment management continue to work with the Chief Executive
Office to develop a long-range budget forecast.

Department Response:
The Probation Department agrees with this recommendation and is implementing
a five-year scorecard to develop long-range budget forecast to identify funding
issues and solutions.
Capital Prgjects and Unmet Needs

Recommendation #5
Work with the Chief Executive Office to determine oversight responsibilíty in
the handling and reporting of the Depaftment's Capital Projects to ensure
Capital Projects are properly monitored and tracked.
Department Response:
The Probation Department agrees with this recommendation and continually
works with the Chief Executive Office Capital Projects to monitor and track the
Department's projects.

Recommendation #6:

Contínue to work with the Chief Executive Office to evaluate the
Department's critical infrastructure needs, explore financing options, and
develop a financial plan (e.9., project prioritization, timeframes, funding sources,
etc.) to address their Capital Project and unmet needs.

Department Response:
The Probation Department agrees with this recommendation and has continued
to request funding from the Chief Executive Office for unmet needs in the last
four (4) budget cycles to address infrastructure needs. Most significantly, as we
have repofted to the Board, we have requested each of the past three (3) years
to utilize year-end unspent fund balance to address some of these critical needs.
ln some instances, projects were approved and compfeted, in other instances the
funding was approved but the projects were not completed as lnternal Services
Department (lSD) could not scope and bid the project to encumber the funds
before the end of the following fiscal year and as such the funding reverted to the
J

Attachment IV
Page 5 of 10

fund. Lastly, not all of the requested

projects to be funded were
approved for funding with the fund balance by the CEO and the funding reverted
to the general fund.

general

Recommendation #7:

of

the feasíbility
allocating administrative, educational, and
transpoftation services cosfs by each juvenile hall and camp to identify actual
operating costs more efficiently and accurately, and ensure all expenditures
are allocated to the appropriate juvenile halls and camps.
Dete¡mine

Department Response:
The Probation Department agrees to determine and evaluate the feasibilíty of this
recommendation. However, it is important to reflect that the Department's
juvenile halls and camps currently do not operate in silos and costs associated
with each location are based on their needs as a system, not as individual
operations. Staffing levels change day{o-day and operating costs are
dependent on the number of youths assigned, transferred, or released on a daify
basis. Administrative costs are also not based on location but as an overall
department cost to support current staffing levels.

As an example, the Probation Department currently operates its Transportation
unit from a centralized location, as it is more efficient and results in less staffing
and fewer interruptions to youth programming, as youth can be returned to their
original destination more timely. Routes and staffing are determined by region
and/or destination based on the need of all 17 institutions. Normally, there are
youth on daily routes from various camps and halls on the same vehicle being
delivered to the same location. A centralized approach allows for staff
allocatíon/reallocation based on need of the Department. Additional resources
would be required to calculate costs youth by youth.
ln addition, the Probatìon Department provides enhanced educational tesources

as the Los Angeles County Office of Education is the primary provider of
educational services. The Probation Deparlment's resources are allocated
based on the needs of the population, which requires flexibility. Resources are
frequently adjusted based on the population; however, contractual services and
other resources are more stationary and can be readily calculated and added to
operational costs. Additional resources could be required to track services and
cost provided to each minor at each location. The Department will evaluate the
feasibility
modifying this budgetary structure along with operational
efficiencies,

of

4

Attachment IV
Page 6 of 10

Recommendation #8:

the feasibility of budgeting and tracking revenues and
expenditures uslng additional cosf centers or lower-level budget units,

Determine

pañiculady related to the Challenger MemorialYouth Center Camps.

Department Response:
The Probation Depaftment agrees to determine and evaluate the feasibility of this
recommendation. As índicated in the previous response, the Department's
juvenile halls and camps do not operate in silos and costs associated with each
location are based their needs as a system, not as individual operations. Given
that Challenger Youth Memorial Center is considered one location with four (4)
operational camps, the Probation Department is able to make staffing
adjustments daily to meet the established staff to youth ratios. As agreed with
the Department of Justíce (DOJ), once it is determined that staffing levels are
below the established ratios, staff can be temporarily reassigned to other camps
for shorUlong term periods (few hours to a few months) to ensure the appropriate
level of supervision without incurring oveftime costs. Flexible staffing to meet
mandated requirements is a daily schedulÍng activity and could require additionaf
resources to calculate and track these frequent changes and nuisances The
Depadment will evaluate the feasibility of modífying this budgetary structure
along with operat¡onal efficiencies.
Averaqe Dailv Cost Per Youth

Recommendation #9
Probation Depaftment management use actual operating cosfs rn calculating
the Average Daily Cost Per Youth, and ensure that all direct juvenile hall and
camp operafing cosfs are included in the calculation.
Department Response:

The Probation Department agrees with this recommendation and currently uses
the State's methodology for calculatíng Average Daily Cost Per Youth. The
calculation consists of using the total eost to operate the Departrnentls juvenile
system divided by the Average Daily Popufation (ADP) of the youth facilities; and
divide this by 365 days, which is consistent with most jurisdictions.

Recommendation #10

Probation Depañment management examine the operating cosfs of their
juvenile halls and camps, and work with the Chief Executive Office to identify
reasons for their higher Average Daily Cost Per Youth in comparison to
other counties.
5

Attachment lV
Page 7 ol 10

Department Response:

ïhe

Probatíon Department agrees with this recommendation and has requested

a list of the other counties' costs in

calculating their Average Daily
Youth. However, it is important to reflect that Los Angeles County
salaries and employee benefits are currently higher than most counties. Los
Cost Per

Angeles County staffing ratios are much higher than other counties due to legal
settlements relating to direct supervision staffing, as well as educational services
staffing. Significantly, the staffing ratios utilized for our camps are generally
accepted as 1 staff for every 8-10 minors, Statewide standards that all other
counties comply with in camps are 1 staff for every 15 minors. This in and of
itseff will result in a significantly higher cost per youth number than other counties
as staffing costs are the greatest portion of costs for camps and halls. Also,
given the age, number of, and remote locations of our facilities maintenance and
transportation costs will be significantly higher than many other counties. Finally,
25o/o of the juvenile halls and camps budget are contracts with other County
departments in providing physical health services and screening, mental health
services, building maintenance and operations. lt is important to note that as a
result of the DOJ settlement agreement, Los Angeles stands apart from other
counties because of the mental health, health and educational services required
are much higher than other counties. These services that are provided within the
LA County juvenile camp system is more intensive and costly then what is
provided to juveniles in other County's systems.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCEDURE REVIEW

Recommendation #11:

Probation management utilize more detailed scoring sub-categories in
evaluafion documents. where appropriate, to allow for more transparency of
the proposals evaluation and scoring process.
Department Response:

The Department agrees with this recommendation; however, we tailor our
evaluation documents using criteria (e.g. Background and Experience,
Approach to Providing the Required Services, Quality Control Plan and Cost
Proposal) that are subject to objective application. The points are aìlocated to
each criterion based on its relative importance to the overall RFP requirements.

This is consistent with County contracting policies and lnternal Services
Department guidelines. We will seek to apply this recommendation in future
solicitations to the extent possíble.

6

Attachment IV
Page I of 10

Statement of Work Monitoring Review

Recommendation #12
Conduct ongoing monitoring of the CEOs that Probation and other County
departments jointly contract with to ensure compliance with the County
contracts' req ui reme nts.
Department Response:

The Department agrees with this recommendation and will seek to implement
full compliance in conducting ongoing monitoring effods with all CBO contracts
including those in which Probation is not the lead agency. The Department is
compliant in many areas of monitoring these existing contracts through various
reviews, and collaborative efforts; however, we agree that we were not able to
provide formal documentation of a plan. lt should be noted that significant
monitoring resources were diverted to comply with the DOJ monitoring
requirements as the Department was instructed to accomplish the DOJ
monitoring within existing resources. The Department has committed to
continuing to monitor those areas in the DOJ agreement. Additional resources
will be required to enhance our non DOJ contract monitoríng to comply with this
recommendation.
Contract Monitoring Plan

Recommendation #13:
Develop a comprehensive, risk-based contract monitoring plan that is updated
annually to ensure contract monitoring resources are effectively allocated to
mitigate contracting risk.
Department Response:

The Department agrees with this recommendation and will seek to develop a
comprehensive, risk based contract monitoring plan for the entire Department.
Given the lack of staffing resources in our Contract Monitoring sectÍons, the
Department has not had sufficient resources to develop this annual plan: The
Department agrees that we can seek compliance in this area audited; however,
we will seek additionalstaffing resources to achieve this recommendation.

Recommendation #14:

Ensure the contract monitoring plan is comprehensive and identifies who is
responsible for performing fiscal, programmatic, and administrative monitoring
of contractors.

7

Attachment lV
Page 9 of 10

Department Response:

The Depaftment agrees with this recommendation and will seek to develop a
comprehensive risk based contract monitoring plan for the entire Department. A
centralized monitoring plan will be developed that identifies fiscal,
programmatic, and administrative monitoring compliance. While this
requìrement is not written in County policy or procedure, the Department will
seek input from the Auditor Controller Office for advice on a best practice model
within the industry. GÍven the lack of staffing resources in our Contract
Monitoring sectíons, the Department has not had sufficient resources to develop
this annual plan, nor the training or County resources to develop such a
recommendation. The Depaftment agrees that we can seek compliance in this
area audited; however, we will seek additional staffing resources to achieve this
recommendation.
Contract Monitorinq Scope

Recommendation #15:

Probation Deparlment management expand the scope of their monitoring
reviews to ensure their reviews cover all key arëas listed in the contracts'
statement of work, and develop appropriate monitoring tools that include the
expanded areas.

Department Response:
The Department agrees with this recomrnendation and will immediately begin
implementing tools to address the gaps identified in this audit. Given the lack of
staffing resources in our Contract Monitoring sections, ihe Department has not
had and continues to lack the sufficient resources to dedicate to these gaps for
a long term plan. To address the long term monitoring efforts, the Department
will seek addítional staffing resources to achieve this recommendation.
Contract Monitoring Reports

Recommendation #16:
Revrse their departmental policy to reguire copies of all monitoring repoñs
are senf to the appropriate executive managers within the Probation
Department to ensure key managers within the Department are aware of their
contractors' pertormance.

I

Attachment lV
Page 10 of 10

Department Response:

The Department agrees with this recommendation and has implemented

a

process of notifying executive management of monitoring reports effective April
2015.

Recommendation #17:

Ensure written repofts are rssued for all monitoring reviews detailing the
resu/fs of the reviews.

Department Response:

The DepaÉment agrees with this recommendation and will immediately advise
and train Contract Monitoring staff to ensure that the written reports issued
include results to the extent possible.

I

 

 

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side
Advertise Here 3rd Ad
Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side