COMMITMENT • INTEGRITY • LEADERSHIP	View PDF report View Fact Sheet
Public Safety Realignment Weak State and County Oversight Does Not Ensure That Funds Are Spent Effectively Report Number: 2020-102

Use the links below to skip to the appendix you wish to view:

• Appendix A—Demographic and Statistical Information Related to Public Safety Realignment
• Appendix B—Revenue and Expenditures Related to Public Safety Realignment
• Appendix C—Scope and Methodology

---

Appendix A

Demographic and Statistical Information Related to Public Safety Realignment

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed the California State Auditor’s Office (State Auditor) to review Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles counties’ jail population data and determine each county’s total jail population prior to realignment through the present. The Audit Committee also directed the State Auditor to identify any trends in jail population at each of the counties. Our review included inmate racial and ethnic makeup, the ratio of inmates to staff, inmate releases, inmate risk levels, and inmate deaths by category. The following figures present these data and any trends they reveal.

Counties in California report to the Corrections Board the number of inmates they release each year due to a lack of jail capacity. Figure A.1 provides those numbers for Los Angeles and Fresno. Alameda has reported no releases of inmates due to a lack of jail capacity because it has not neared its capacity. Therefore, Alameda is not included in Figure A.1.

Figure A.1

Inmate Releases Due to Lack of Jail Capacity for Fresno and Los Angeles

We reviewed the number of jail inmates per staff member to identify any trends, as shown in Figure A.2, in part because inmate advocate lawsuits alleged inadequate staffing in county jail facilities. Alameda has reduced its jail population, leading to a lower ratio of inmates per staff member. We did not identify any other significant trends.

Figure A.2

The Average Number of Jail Inmates Per Staff Member for Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles From 2013 Through 2019

The Audit Committee requested information on the racial demographics of inmates in the counties we reviewed and any trends from fiscal years 2010–11 through 2019–20. We did not identify any new trends in racial demographics of inmates, as the proportions of each race tracked by the jails remained generally consistent from 2010 through 2019. We present the data by calendar year for Fresno and Los Angeles, and by fiscal year for Alameda because it provided its data by fiscal year. Therefore, Alameda’s 2019 data reflects fiscal year 2019–20. In Figure A.3, we present the racial demographics of jail inmates in 2010 and 2019.

Figure A.3

Jail Racial Demographics for Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles

Similar to our analysis of racial demographic trends in jail populations, our review found that the percentage of women in jails did not significantly change from 2010 through 2019. Similar to Figure A.3, we report Alameda’s data by fiscal year.

Figure A.4

Inmate Gender Proportions for Alameda, Fresno and Los Angeles

Our review of trends in jail populations included the risk level that each county assigned to inmates from 2015 through 2019, which we display in Figure A.5. Counties use different terms and methods for evaluating inmate risk levels because the Corrections Board does not provide a definition that it requires counties to use. Therefore, we have consolidated the county risk level terms into maximum, medium, and minimum risk levels. We found that two counties have evaluated a decreasing proportion of inmates as minimum risk since 2015, the year counties implemented a new data system and the first year for which they have available data.

Figure A.5

Percentage of Inmates at Each Risk Level for Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles

Finally, we also reviewed the causes of inmate deaths for the three counties. In addition to reporting the instances of inmate deaths to Justice, counties also report how the inmate died, such as due to an accident or natural causes. Figure A.6 displays the causes of inmate deaths from 2011 through 2019. For Fresno and Los Angeles, the figure displays county data rather than data from Justice because the counties’ data were more complete. Causes of death labeled as “other” include the categories “pending investigation” and “undetermined.” Among the three counties, natural causes was the most frequent cause of death followed by suicide and accidents.

Figure A.6

Causes of Inmate Deaths From 2011 Through 2019

---

Back to top

Appendix B

Revenue and Expenditures Related to Public Safety Realignment

The Audit Committee directed the State Auditor to review Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles counties’ financial data for public safety realignment funds from fiscal years 2011–12 through 2019–20. Specifically, the Audit Committee asked us to determine the annual amount of realignment funding each of these three counties received, as well as their sheriff’s offices’ annual expenditures, including the amount of realignment funds they spent and the major categories of their realignment expenditures.

Table B.1 reflects the total amount Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles counties received each fiscal year from 2011–12 through 2019–20 for the 10 public safety realignment accounts plus the Mental Health account. As shown in the table, the State only allocated counties revenue for the Recidivism Reduction Fund in fiscal years 2014–15 and 2015–16.

Table B.1

The State’s Allocations of Realignment Funding to the Three Counties, Fiscal Years 2011–12 Through 2019–20

Alameda’s Realignment Funding by Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)
Realignment Funding Source	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16	2016–17	2017–18	2018–19	2019–20	Total
Behavioral Health	$0	$46,700	$58,900	$61,500	$60,800	$68,300	$75,400	$77,100	$76,500	$525,200
Community Corrections	7,700	27,300	35,800	36,200	38,900	47,000	47,100	53,000	49,700	342,700
Community Corrections Performance Incentive	700	2,600	2,100	1,800	2,100	2,000	2,400	2,200	1,700	17,600
District Attorney and Public Defender	300	400	600	600	700	1,000	1,000	1,100	1,100	6,800
Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities	17,500	18,500	17,900	19,200	20,900	21,800	23,000	24,400	25,500	188,700
Juvenile Justice	2,900	3,500	4,300	4,600	5,400	5,100	5,300	5,600	5,500	42,200
Local Innovation	0	0	0	0	0	200	300	600	300	1,400
Mental Health	42,500	52,400	53,200	53,100	53,300	53,000	53,100	53,100	53,000	466,700
Protective Services	0	57,300	77,200	86,000	91,100	89,100	94,100	97,900	95,600	688,300
Recidivism Reduction	0	0	0	300	100	0	0	0	0	400
Trial Court Security	17,700	19,900	22,300	23,800	24,800	22,800	24,400	25,000	24,200	204,900
Totals	$89,300	$228,600	$272,300	$287,100	$298,100	$310,300	$326,100	$340,000	$333,100	$2,484,900
Fresno’s Realignment Funding by Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)
Realignment Funding Source	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16	2016–17	2017–18	2018–19	2019–20	Total
Behavioral Health	$0	$25,300	$30,000	$31,000	$31,400	$36,100	$39,100	$39,400	$39,100	$271,300
Community Corrections	7,400	19,800	27,500	27,400	30,300	37,200	38,600	40,100	39,200	267,500
Community Corrections Performance Incentive	3,400	4,700	3,300	4,200	3,700	3,600	2,700	2,000	1,800	29,400
District Attorney and Public Defender	300	400	600	500	600	900	900	1,000	1,100	6,300
Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities	13,500	14,800	14,800	15,900	17,300	17,500	18,500	20,000	21,300	153,600
Juvenile Justice	3,100	3,500	4,500	5,100	6,500	5,700	5,900	5,700	5,400	45,400
Local Innovation	0	0	0	0	0	200	400	300	100	1,000
Mental Health	26,800	33,000	33,600	33,500	33,600	33,400	33,500	33,500	33,400	294,300
Protective Services	0	34,600	45,700	50,300	53,000	52,000	54,900	57,000	55,700	403,200
Recidivism Reduction	0	0	0	300	100	0	0	0	0	400
Trial Court Security	12,000	13,500	15,100	16,100	16,800	15,500	16,500	16,900	16,600	139,000
Totals	$66,500	$149,600	$175,100	$184,300	$193,300	$202,100	$211,000	$215,900	$213,700	$1,611,500
Los Angeles’s Realignment Funding by Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)
Realignment Funding Source	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16	2016–17	2017–18	2018–19	2019–20	total
Behavioral Health	$0	$326,800	$421,300	$439,300	$437,100	$489,400	$530,400	$536,600	$530,600	$3,711,500
Community Corrections	94,300	254,300	330,600	327,400	319,200	398,600	398,500	415,400	412,500	2,950,800
Community Corrections Performance Incentive	21,400	46,300	39,400	41,700	43,400	44,700	38,700	36,600	37,000	349,200
District Attorney and Public Defender	3,400	4,700	7,200	6,800	7,800	11,700	11,700	13,200	13,500	80,000
Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities	130,300	141,300	133,600	144,300	158,700	166,400	175,800	185,700	192,700	1,428,800
Juvenile Justice	18,400	23,100	30,100	32,500	37,500	34,700	35,200	37,700	36,100	285,300
Local Innovation	0	0	0	0	0	2,300	3,000	1,900	1,500	8,700
Mental Health	264,600	326,500	331,400	330,900	332,200	330,300	331,200	330,800	330,300	2,908,000
Protective Services	0	457,300	607,100	674,200	712,300	697,400	733,400	765,700	748,000	5,395,400
Recidivism Reduction	0	0	0	1,600	800	0	0	0	0	2,400
Trial Court Security	119,300	134,400	150,800	160,800	167,200	154,200	164,700	168,800	163,200	1,383,400
Totals	$651,700	$1,714,700	$2,051,500	$2,159,500	$2,216,200	$2,329,700	$2,422,600	$2,492,400	$2,465,400	$18,503,700

Table B.2 compares each county’s sheriff’s office public safety realignment expenditures to their total expenditures for each fiscal year from 2011–12 through 2019–20. Although there is no requirement to do so, Alameda and Los Angeles track their expenditures in a way that allowed us to identify how much of the public safety realignment funding the sheriff’s office spent in those counties. However, due to the methods Fresno uses to track its expenditures, it was unable to provide reports that identify how much of its public safety realignment funds its sheriff’s office spent. As a result, we present only the county’s total public safety realignment expenditures.

Table B.2

Sheriff’s Office Expenditures for Each Fiscal Year Since Realignment (Dollars in Millions)

	Fiscal Year
	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16	2016–17	2017–18	2018–19	2019–20	Total
Alameda Sheriff
Realignment Expenditures	$44	$51	$53	$54	$39	$61	$59	$62	$68	$491
Total Expenditures	$356	$357	$386	$401	$428	$441	$464	$499	NA	$3,332
Fresno Sheriff
Total Expenditures	$155	$163	$165	$178	$190	$197	$211	$243	$259	$1,761
Los Angeles Sheriff
Realignment Expenditures	$224	$263	$337	$339	$394	$364	$357	$337	$424	$3,039
Total Expenditures	$2,590	$2,635	$2,804	$2,988	$3,170	$3,248	$3,163	$3,402	$3,511	$27,511

Finally, the Audit Committee requested that we review how the Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles sheriff’s offices spent public safety realignment funds by category, such as enforcement, treatment, and jail operations. However, nothing in state law requires counties to track expenses by such categories. Instead, Table B.3 includes a breakdown of how Alameda’s sheriff’s office, probation department, and other departments spent their realignment funds, using categories the county does track, such as personnel costs. Neither Fresno nor Los Angeles account for their realignment expenditures by these categories. Instead, both counties wait until many public safety expenses have accumulated over time and then provide a lump‑sum reimbursement to their departments.

Table B.3

Alameda’s Realignment Expenditures by Category (Dollars in Thousands)

	Sheriff’s Office Realignment Expenditures
	Personnel Costs	Services	Supplies	Other*	Total
2011–12	$38,230	$4,310	$770	$–	$43,310
2012–13	42,280	7,050	1,260	–	50,590
2013–14	46,610	5,220	1,140	–	52,970
2014–15	48,170	4,900	810	–	53,880
2015–16	37,400	610	310	–	38,320
2016–17	53,490	5,700	940	–	60,130
2017–18	50,630	6,440	1,030	–	58,100
2018–19	53,750	6,670	1,180	–	61,600
2019–20	59,590	7,170	910	–	67,670
	Probation Department Realignment Expenditures
	Personnel Costs	Services	Supplies	Other	Total
2011–12	$1,860	$6,790	$30	$–	$8,680
2012–13	3,110	6,370	20	–	9,500
2013–14	5,080	6,000	10	–	11,090
2014–15	3,340	8,840	30	350	12,560
2015–16	5,990	15,880	60	–	21,930
2016–17	7,720	9,900	10	60	17,690
2017–18	7,630	19,200	70	–	26,900
2018–19	8,370	15,520	30	–	23,920
2019–20	8,500	22,600	160	–	31,260
	Other Departments’ Realignment Expenditures†
	Personnel Costs	Services	Supplies	Other	Total
2011–12	$52,970	$13,300	$40	$65,890	$132,200
2012–13	50,100	58,260	–	70,610	178,970
2013–14	54,260	61,050	–	75,010	190,320
2014–15	56,310	59,400	–	60,660	176,370
2015–16	58,450	76,620	–	60,360	195,430
2016–17	60,160	79,300	–	57,000	196,460
2017–18	59,740	82,980	–	60,190	202,910
2018–19	65,370	81,750	–	58,550	205,670
2019–20	61,170	86,540	–	56,480	204,190

---

Back to top

Appendix C

Scope and Methodology

The Audit Committee directed the State Auditor to conduct an audit of realignment spending by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in order to increase transparency and provide state oversight of prison realignment spending. The Audit Committee was concerned about a lack of transparency in the way counties were implementing realignment and using their realignment funds. Specifically, the Audit Committee was concerned about overcrowding, poor physical and mental health treatment, and mismanagement of funds by sheriff’s offices in jails across the State. Table C lists the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address them.

Table C

Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them

AUDIT OBJECTIVE		METHOD
1	Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.	Reviewed laws, rules, and regulations related to public safety realignment.
2	For fiscal years 2010–11 through 2019–20, review the three counties’ jail population data and determine the following: a. Each county’s total jail population prior to realignment through the present. b. Any trends in jail population at each of the counties, including inmate racial and ethnic makeup, and inmate deaths by category.	For each of the three counties, reviewed average daily jail populations. Analyzed, by year, trends in each county’s jail statistics and demographics regarding race or ethnicity, gender, inmates released early to the community, the number of inmates counties received due to realignment, inmate risk classification, number and cause of inmate deaths, and assaults on staff. Reviewed each county’s total average daily jail population, including the number of inmates affected by realignment, as well as the total rated jail capacity per the Corrections Board.
3	For fiscal years 2011–12 through 2019–20, review county realignment fund revenue and expenditure data and determine the following: a. The annual amount of realignment funding each county received, including funding directed to the county sheriff’s office and other relevant departments. b. Whether the counties have made any projections of future realignment funding. c. Each county sheriff’s office’s annual expenditures, including total realignment expenditures, and the extent of any surplus or deficit for each fiscal year. d. The major categories of realignment expenditures at each county and the county sheriff’s office—including categories such as enforcement, treatment, and jail operations. e. Whether these expenditures are consistent with realignment requirements. If not, determine the reasons.	For the public safety realignment funds we reviewed, for fiscal years 2011–12 through 2019–20, we performed the following: Analyzed revenue data for the realignment accounts to verify that the counties deposited funding from the State appropriately. Interviewed county staff and reviewed available policies and procedures to assess counties’ processes for budgeting realignment funding and for projections of future funding. Fresno does not track expenditures in a way that allowed for the county to report how much its sheriff’s and probation department spent from realignment funds. Therefore, we analyzed only Alameda’s and Los Angeles’s expenditure data to identify how much funding their sheriff’s and probation departments spent, as well as total realignment expenditures. In addition, due to the way the three counties we reviewed track their expenses, they were unable to report how much they spent on items such as enforcement, treatment, and jail operations. Instead, we identified how much realignment funding Alameda spent on personnel, services, and supplies, whereas Fresno and Los Angeles do not track their expenditures in a manner that allows such categorization. Appendix B further describes the limitations we faced with Fresno’s and Los Angeles’s expenditure data. Analyzed whether the counties had any surpluses or deficits in each realignment account. Documented the sheriff’s offices’ total expenditures for each county. For a limited selection of expenditures, evaluated whether the counties spent the money appropriately. Alameda and Los Angeles have policies that do not require these counties to retain documentation from before fiscal year 2014–15. Therefore, for these counties, we tested expenditures from fiscal years 2014–15 through 2019–20.
4	Review and evaluate each county’s policies, procedures, and practices for implementing prison realignment financial requirements, and determine best practices and other opportunities to improve financial accountability, transparency, and oversight.	Identified financial requirements and best practices for implementing prison realignment. Reviewed best practices for accountability, transparency, and oversight of county funds. Assessed the Corrections Board’s oversight of counties’ realignment implementation and determined whether counties have implemented the requirements or best practices we identified.
5	To the extent possible, determine the impact of realignment on each county’s jail population, jail staff, enforcement personnel, and surrounding communities.	Interviewed county jail staff regarding the impact of realignment on their duties, inmate management, and jail operations. Interviewed representatives from social services, employment services, community‑based organizations, and victims’ advocate groups to identify the impacts of realignment on the community. Compared California’s crime statistics to the nation’s and to those of other, similar states to identify any potential effects realignment may have had on crime within the surrounding communities.
6	Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.	Reviewed the Corrections Board’s biennial inspection reports to the Legislature to identify facility deficiencies for the three counties and determine the impact such deficiencies may have on inmates or staff. Identified the Corrections Board’s roles and responsibilities in law, reviewed relevant policies and procedures of the Corrections Board, and tested the Corrections Board’s compliance with its key statutory responsibilities by reviewing its annual reports to the Legislature and by interviewing Corrections Board personnel.

Assessment of Data Reliability

In performing this audit, we relied on data from various accounting and jail information management systems in Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles counties to review financial and demographic information for fiscal years 2010–11 through 2019–20. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily obligated to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer‑processed information we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations. To obtain assurance on the accuracy of the financial data, we selected expenditures and traced the amounts reported to supporting documentation. We found that in some cases, counties did not have physical documentation of the date for payments. In addition, we verified that revenue the counties received for public safety realignment agreed with the amounts the State reported that it had allocated to those counties. For jail data, we verified the accuracy and completeness of electronic data by comparing key fields, such as booking numbers and position titles, to source documentation, such as booking, medical, and personnel records, where available. However, much of the jail data did not have available physical records to provide source documentation. Overall, we found Alameda, Fresno, and Los Angeles counties’ accounting and jail information systems to be of undetermined reliability. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings and conclusions.

---

Back to top