Report 2020-102 Recommendation 17 Responses

Report 2020-102: Public Safety Realignment: Weak State and County Oversight Does Not Ensure That Funds Are Spent Effectively (Release Date: March 2021)

Recommendation #17 To: Los Angeles County

To ensure that the county reports accurate and consistent information to the Corrections Board, beginning with its next annual report, Los Angeles should consistently report all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The County reports the expenditures of the three realignment subaccounts that fund various "law enforcement expenditures":

1. Community Corrections Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of housing and supervision.

2. District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of revocation hearings.

3. Local Innovation Subaccount, which may fund the same activities as the Community Corrections Subaccount and District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount.

These are the three subaccounts overseen by the County's Public Safety Realignment Team.

There are other subaccounts under the umbrella of 2011 realignment, such as Behavioral Health and Protective Services, which fund "non-law enforcement expenditures" that the County has interpreted as not required to be reported in its reporting of law enforcement expenditures.

Therefore, the County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts as public safety realignment expenditures. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" and "public safety realignment," and maintains its position that it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its 6-month response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2022

The County reports the expenditures of the three realignment subaccounts that fund various "law enforcement expenditures":

1. Community Corrections Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of housing and supervision.

2. District Attorney and Public Defender's Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of revocations hearings.

3. Local Innovation Subaccount, which may fund the same activities as the Community Corrections Subaccount and District Attorney and Public Defender's Subaccount.

These three subaccounts are overseen by the County's Public Safety Realignment Team (PSRT).

There are other subaccounts under the umbrella of 2011 realignment, such as Behavioral Health and Protective Services, which fund "non-law enforcement expenditures" that the County has interpreted not required to be reported in its reporting of law enforcement expenditures.

Therefore, the County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" versus public safety realignment and it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with a previous response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on pages 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, serving at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

1-Year Agency Response

The County reports the expenditures of the three realignment subaccounts that fund various "law enforcement expenditures":

1. Community Corrections Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of housing and supervision.

2. District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount, which funds the legal mandate of revocations hearings.

3. Local Innovation Subaccount, which may fund the same activities as the Community Corrections Subaccount and District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount.

Likewise, these are the three subaccounts overseen by the County's PSRT.

There are other subaccounts under the umbrella of 2011 realignment, such as Behavioral Health and Protective Services, which fund "non-law enforcement expenditures" that the County has interpreted not required to be reported in its reporting of law enforcement expenditures.

Therefore, the County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" versus public safety realignment and it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Los Angeles has not provided any additional documentation to demonstrate that its Partnership Committee reviewed or made budget recommendations to its board of supervisors for all realignment accounts. Upon review of Los Angeles's AB 109 implementation plan it submitted with its 6-month response, we found that Los Angeles continues to limit its oversight responsibilities to only certain aspects of pubic safety realignment, similar to those we describe in the report. However, as we state in the report on page 33 and 34, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services, such as preventing child abuse, servicing at-risk children, providing adoption services, providing mental health services, and providing recovery services for substance abuse to local agencies through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through the Community Corrections account. As such, Los Angeles's Public Safety Realignment Team should include activities from all 10 public safety realignment accounts in its oversight responsibilities.

6-Month Agency Response

The County disagrees with this finding that it should report all law enforcement and non law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. The County took this recommendation under advisement assuming there was a need for more detailed reporting as required by the Legislature. However, the County notes the distinction between "prison realignment" versus public safety realignment and it is worth noting that the non-law enforcement, non-prison realignment expenditures are different from funds referenced by the State Auditor in its Audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We disagree with Los Angeles's assertion that its Partnership Committee is not required to report to the Corrections Board all law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through the accounts that constitute public safety realignment. As we state in the report on page 33, the California Constitution defines realignment legislation as legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, related to implementing the state budget plan and assigning responsibilities for public safety services, including various social services through 10 different public safety accounts. Nothing we reviewed in state law or legislative history suggests that the public safety realignment plans prepared by Partnership Committees were limited to activities funded through law enforcement accounts. Given the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, we stand by our conclusion that Los Angeles's interpretation of public safety realignment funding is overly narrow and that its Partnership Committee should report expenditures from all public safety realignment accounts.

60-Day Agency Response

LA County is analyzing the scope and detail required by the Legislature for reporting to the Corrections Board regarding law enforcement and non-law enforcement expenditures funded through public safety realignment accounts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

All Recommendations in 2020-102

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.