Figure 1
A timeline showing the parole agent's functional positions from June 20175 to July 2016. From June 2015 to January 2016, the parole agent functioned as a parole agent which typically requires a state vehicle. From January 2016 to May 2016, the parole agent functioned as a parole administrator which required limited travel. From May 2016 to July 2016, the parole agent returned to performing parole agent duties. Then in July 2016, the parole agent functioned as a Parole Administrator
Figure 2
A pie chart displaying the portions of logged trip that were for her commute. The two largest slices, representing the parole
agent's round-trip and one-way commutes make up 75% (50 trips) of the total logged trips. Two other slices, show the trips logged in excess of her commuting trips but still within headquarters boundaries at 11 trips and six trips for the slice representing the logged trips that were outside of her headquarters boundaries.
Figure 3
The timeline shows that from June 2015 to January 2016, while functioning as a parole agent, she improperly stored her vehicle 58 nights. From January 2016 to May 2016, she improperly stored the vehicle for 58 nights while functioning as a parole administrator.
From May 2016 to July 2016, a total of 19 nights while functioning as a parole agent. In total, the parole agent improperly stored the vehicle at her home on 135 nights.
Figure 4
Figure 4 is an illustration of two stacked bar charts that are color-coded. The color blue identifies the hours worked that includes two 15-minute breaks each day, the color green indicates the allowed 30-minute lunch each day, and the color red highlights the analyst’s misused of state time. The first bar chart depicts a typical employee workweek with 40 hours worked and 2.5 hours for lunch. The second bar chart represents the analyst’s average workweek with 32.8 hours worked, 2.5 hours for lunch, and 7.2 hours for misused of stated time.
Figure 5
The Combined Negligence of the Pharmacist, Pharmacy Management, and Personnel Staff Cost the State a Total of $5,001. The pharmacist worked an erratic schedule, often did not include her hours worked on her timesheets, and sometimes failed to properly account for absences. Pharmacy management failed to establish a set schedule for the pharmacist. The supervisor did not distinguish between the pharmacist's hours worked and compensating time off (CTO) hours earned on monthly attendance reports and approved timesheets on which the pharmacist had not accounted for absences. Personnel staff sometimes failed to deduct hours from the pharmacist's leave balances even when she included absences on her timesheets and failed to accurately credit CTO hours to the pharmacist. These failures combined resulted in the pharmacist being overcompensated by $5,001 in undercharged leave and overcredited CTO.
Figure 6
Figure 6 shows two organization charts that describe the reporting structure for the inmate-supervising employee and the program chief. The organization chart on the left represents the reporting structure from December 2014 through February 2015 when the program chief directly supervised the inmate‑supervising employee. The organization chart on the right side represents the reporting structure from March 2015 through September 2015 when another employee directly supervised the inmate‑supervising employee.
Figure 7
Figure 7 shows that in our October 2008 report, I2008-2, we identified that CDCR paid $16,530 to nine employees. In our November 2009 report, I2009-0702, we identified that CDCR paid $34,512 to a sample of 23 employees. In our March 2017 report, I2017 1, we identified that CDCR paid $2,520 to one employee.
Figure 8
Figure 8 is a color-coded timeline of the maintenance employee’s employment assignment from 1997 to 2005 at San Diego State University. The timeline shows distinctive colors to represent his hired dates and the duration of each temporary assignments in March 1997, April 1998, June 2005, and September 2005;. Lastly, the figure points out his hired date in December 2005 as a permanent employee.
Figure A
Figure A is a pie chart depicting the status of 657 cases from January 2016 through June 2016. The pie chart is broken up into the following segments: Conducted preliminary review - 368 (56%); Conducted work to assess allegations - 227 (35%); Requested information from another state agency - 18 (3%); Investigated with the assistance of another state agency - 21 (3%); and Independently investigated by the State Auditor - 23 (3%).