Table of Contents. Transmittal Letter Executive Summary Background Objectives and Approach Issues Matrix...

Transcription

1 Internal Audit Committee of Brevard County, Florida Internal Audit of the Contract for Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services Prepared By: January 14, 2014

2 Table of Contents Transmittal Letter... 1 Executive Summary Background Objectives and Approach Issues Matrix

3 Carr, Riggs & Ingram, LLC 215 Baytree Drive Melbourne, Florida (321) (321) (fax) January 14, 2014 The Audit Committee of Brevard County, Florida and Viera, Florida We hereby submit our report covering Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services issued in response to allegations of contract mismanagement and potential improprieties by the contractor, specifically in response to an anonymous tip received by the County Manager on June 27, Upon receipt of this information, the internal auditors were called to investigate these allegations. The project was expanded to include a complete monitoring of contract compliance by the contractor in anticipation of the end of the contract term. The audit of the Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services focused on testing Judicial Correction Services, Inc. s adherence to the provisions of its contract with Brevard County dated December 7, 2010 and included tests of contract provisions specifically designed to investigate the allegations made. We will be presenting this report to the Audit Committee at the next scheduled meeting on April 30, Our report is organized in the following sections: Executive Summary Background Objectives and Approach Issues Matrix This provides a summary of the issues related to our internal audit of the Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services contract. This provides an overview of the Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services contract. The internal audit objectives and focus are expanded upon in this section as well as a review of the various phases of our approach. This section gives a description of the issues and recommended actions as well as Managements responses. We would like to thank the various departments and all those involved in assisting the Internal Auditors in connection with the review of the Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services contract. Respectfully Submitted, INTERNAL AUDITORS 1

4 Executive Summary

5 Executive Summary Allegations of potential improprieties were called in to the County Manager s office on June 27, The internal auditors were contacted to discuss the nature of the allegations and it was determined that an investigation was warranted, primarily due to the fact that more than 50% of all fraud is identified through tips. As part of our quality control procedures and diligence as the County s internal auditors, we proceeded with investigation into the allegations and expanded the project to include comprehensive monitoring of the contractor s compliance with the contract, as the contract term was nearing completion and the County was evaluating renewal provisions. The primary objective of this audit was to follow-up on the allegations of potential improprieties and to assess the compliance by the contractor, Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ( JCS ), with the provisions of its contract with Brevard County (the County ) dated December 7, 2010 to provide Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services. The audit included assessment of compliance with certain laws, rules and other County policies and procedures. During the course of our work, we discussed the control design and operating deficiencies and any compliance issues with both management of the County and with JCS personnel. Relative risk is an evaluation of the severity of the concern and the potential impact on operations. Items rated as High risk are considered to be of immediate concern and could cause significant operational issues if not addressed in a timely manner. Items rated as Moderate risk may also cause operational issues, however, they do not require immediate attention, but should be addressed as soon as possible. Items rated as Low risk could escalate into operational issues, but can be addressed through the normal course of conducting business. There are many areas of risk to consider including financial, operational, and compliance, to name a few. For public sector organizations, we also consider public perception risk when determining the relative risk rating. Our observations and recommendations for improving controls and operations are described in detail in the Issues Matrix included in this report. A summary of issues identified and their relative risk rating is provided below. Issues 1. Misdemeanor Probation Services: Our tests of sampled defendants indicated multiple instances of non-compliance with the provisions of the Agreement for Services (contract) and/or policies and procedures. Additionally, there were multiple instances in which the documentation was not sufficient for us to determine compliance with the provisions of the Agreement for Services and/or the defendants compliance with the terms of probation. In many cases, the case notes in the file were insufficient for us to conclude on JCS compliance as it relates to case management, which may be indicative of a need to perform a comprehensive review of the provisions in the Agreement for Services to ensure mutual satisfaction in the performance of the misdemeanor probation services. The County should also evaluate its policies and procedures related to the monitoring of the probation services contractor for potential modifications. Risk Rating High 2

6 Executive Summary - continued Issues 2. Modification of Fees in Probation Tracker and Segregation of Duties: The ability to make modifications to the financial data (fee schedule) of a defendant in JCS s software was not limited to Supervisors or Managers. While any changes of the financial data were highlighted in the system with notations from the Probation Officer as to why the modification was made, this process does not provide for an appropriate level of segregation of duties between the handling of receipts and posting of transactions (data) in the probation records. A central cashiering function would greatly improve controls in this process. 3. Caseload by Probation Officer: Active caseload reporting sampled indicates multiple dates on which one or more Probation Officers had active caseloads equal to or in excess of 200 cases. These case counts do not include active, indigent cases, which could result in more caseloads in excess of that threshold. We also noted the indigent status is being used for concurrent cases when the use of the hold status is suggested in JCS Florida Training Manual for use on concurrent cases. This would allow management to readily view active, indigent case counts in daily reporting. 4. Drug Screening: Unless otherwise specified by the sentencing judge or deemed necessary by the Probation Officer, JCS performs a 5-panel drug screening. Review of illicit drugs prevalent in current cases could indicate a more expansive drug screening may be more appropriate and a modification to the Agreement for Services with JCS should be considered. 5. Electronic Monitoring: While a fee schedule for electronic monitoring is included in the Agreement for Services, electronic monitoring services are provided to the County by a different contractor. If the defendant is not outfitted with the electronic monitoring device at the courthouse, the Probation Officer relies on this contractor to notify JCS if the defendant fails to initiate the electronic monitoring process within the timeframe set forth by the court. There is no requirement in the Agreement for Services to ensure the electronic monitoring device is affixed timely. 6. Benchmarking: Recidivism and other trend data was obtained from and discussed with JCS as part of this audit. While these performance benchmarks are not required to be reported by JCS in the annual report submitted to the County, these statistics may be beneficial in evaluating the success of the misdemeanor probation services program. Similar to recidivism, data on cases which terminated as a result of lost jurisdiction would also enhance the evaluation of the misdemeanor probation services program. These cases are currently included in the termination unsuccessful status (classification) rather than being separately identified in quarterly and annual reports submitted to the County. Risk Rating High Moderate Moderate Moderate Low 3

7 Background

8 Background Overview In 2010, the County selected JCS to provide Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court located in Brevard County. These services are provided under the supervision of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court and the County Housing and Human Services Department. Brevard County is one of five (5) Florida counties for which JCS currently provides misdemeanor probation services. Probationers or clients are terms that were previously used to refer to individuals receiving services when the County provided these services internally. JCS uses the term defendants. The contract (agreement for services) between the County and JCS also uses the term offenders in reference to individuals receiving services. For consistency, this report will primarily use the term defendants but may, on occasion, use the terms probationers or offenders to maintain the integrity of a specific citation or wording contained in the contract. Supervision services provided by JCS as part of this contract include the following: Misdemeanor Probation The Misdemeanor Probation program operates pursuant to Chapter 948 of the Florida Statutes to provide supervision to offenders sentenced to probation by the courts. These individuals must adhere to conditions as imposed by the court such as classes, counseling, community service, educational programs and payment of statutorily required fees and other costs as imposed by the court. Probation Officers are assigned to each County Court judge to provide monthly monitoring and supervision of on-going program compliance of all individuals sentenced to misdemeanor probation by that judge, unless redirected to another Probation Officer to accommodate non-english communication or to manage caseload among officers. JCS does not provide services for offenders sentenced in a felony court. Two County Probation Officers monitor all misdemeanor probation cases sentenced by a felony court judge. Pre-Trial Release Program The objective of the Pre-Trial Release ( PTR ) program is to release individuals incarcerated under non-felony cases such as non-violent misdemeanors, criminal traffic, or county or municipal ordinance violations involving jail time, who do not pose a risk to the community and who will, with some degree of certainty, return to court at the designated time and place. This program is designed as a cost-effective alternative to incarceration, to favorably impact the jail population. PTR Officers work on site at the Brevard County jail. Pre-Trial Diversion Program The Pre-Trial Diversion ( PTD ) program is designed to reduce recidivism (repeat offenses) within the Criminal Justice System by deferring prosecution of qualified, first-time offenders. In exchange for waiving their right to a speedy trial, the individual agrees to comply with the PTD Program requirements and perform specific sanctions. In return for successful completion of the program and listed sanctions, the charges will be dropped and no criminal record will be created. Entry into this program is evaluated and authorized by the State Attorney s Office. Pre-Trial Community Supervision Program The Pre-Trial Community Supervision program provides monitoring and supervision of offenders awaiting trial who do not meet the criteria of the Pre-Trial Release Program, are not eligible to be released on their own recognizance or who do not bond out of incarceration. This monitoring is accomplished through telephone and face-to-face contact with an assigned Probation Officer. 4

9 Background continued Overview (continued) All defendant activity is tracked in JCS s proprietary software, Probation Tracker. Activity is documented for the misdemeanor cases of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Veterans Court, Pre-Trial Release ( PTR ) program, Initial Proceedings ( IP cases ) and other monitored programs. IP cases which is what some call the first appearance by the defendant in the courtroom at the County Detention Center are typically closed within 24 hours and, if the case results in the defendant s participation in a PTR program, it will be entered as a new case as part of the PTR Court. As JCS provides little or no supervision for IP cases, they will be excluded from our sample population and from the statistical analysis presented in this report. Activity in the Veterans Court is very limited approximately 50 cases in 2012 and will also be excluded from statistical analysis presented in this report; however, these defendants were included in the population used for our sample selection. JCS collects all fees for costs of supervision, community service insurance and drug testing from each defendant. These fees are collected in amounts set forth in Exhibit B to the contract dated December 7, 2010, unless otherwise ordered by the sentencing County Court judge or if fees are modified (reduced or waived) based on demonstrated financial need. These fees serve as compensation to JCS for the services provided. There are no payments to JCS from the County under this contract. The Brevard County Clerk of the Courts (the Clerk ) collects all monies for fines, court costs, surcharges and restitutions directly from the probationer pursuant to the Clerk s policies and provisions. The probationer submits a receipt for payment of these costs to the assigned Probation Officer, at which time the probationer s records are updated to reflect completion of this requirement of probation. Staffing Key personnel for the County for Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services that are involved in the oversight of the contractor and assisted in the audit are as follows: Name Ian Golden Shaunna Heffernan Title Director Housing and Human Services Department Community Corrections Manager Housing and Human Services Department Marsha Barton Community Corrections Agency Coordinator Housing and Human Services Department Key personnel for JCS that are involved in the operations and assisted in the audit are as follows: Name Karen Lloyd Steve Pelts Rick Wayman Title Florida State Manager Chief Technology Officer Manager, Pre-Trial Release Services 5

10 Background continued Selected Statistics Recidivism Based on data provided by JCS, 1,789 defendants out of 17,188 defendants (10.4%) that have received misdemeanor probation services from JCS have had more than one probation case. Caseload by PO Caseload by Probation Officer ( PO ) reports allow the Probation Officers, JCS management, the County and judges to review case count, by status and by officer. A Terminology of Statuses was presented to the County by JCS in August 2013 and is excerpted below: Active Status Definition Defendant is actively being supervised by the Probation Officer. Successful Termination VOP Warrant All conditions of probation were completed during the probation term, without incident. The defendant is currently in violation of probation and a warrant is in process. A warrant has been signed by the judge for violation of probation and the warrant is active. Term Unsuccessful Cases for which jurisdiction for the case has been lost (see Issue #6) or terminated as unsuccessful by the court. This status also includes Pre-Trial Diversion cases that have been sent back to the State Attorney s Office for unsuccessful completion. Unsupervised Hold Termination Modified Indigent Probation cases waiting for diversion contracts to be signed or completed cases pending final documents being signed by the judge. The defendant has multiple cases to run consecutively. The case was terminated through the court process with modifications, either a violation of probation was issued or termination was requested by the Probation Officer. Cases in which all costs of supervision have been waived. The Caseload by PO reports in Probation Tracker can only present caseload activity as of the date the report is generated and cannot be generated for dates that have passed. Beginning in May 2012, however, JCS started submitting a daily Start of Day report to the Florida State Manager that included active case count data by Probation Officer, which has been retained by JCS for audit purposes. We selected a random sample of 52 dates for the purpose of testing of caseload by Probation Officer from the Start of Day reports. Of the Start of Day reports sampled, 32 had one or more Probation Officers with active case counts equal to or exceeding 190 cases. Of those 32 dates, 22 had one or more Probation Officers with active case counts equal to or exceeding 200 cases. Caseload count data for 2011 and 2012 was excerpted from annual reports submitted to the County, as required by the contract. The caseload data for 2013 was excerpted from a Caseload by PO report for the misdemeanor probation cases run on December 9, Caseload count data for Successful Termination, Term Unsuccessful and Terminated Modifed are cumulative totals from February 1, 2011 to the date of the report. Calendar year or Year-to-Date counts are calculated and presented below the table. 6

11 Background continued Selected Statistics (continued) As of December 31, 2011 February 1, December 31, 2011 Program Active VOP Warrant Unsupervised Hold Indigent Successful Termination Term Unsuccessful Terminated Modified Pre-Trial Release , Misdemeanor Probation 1, , , ,706 Total 2, , , ,288 As of December 31, 2012 February 1, December 31, 2012 Program Active VOP Warrant Unsupervised Hold Indigent Successful Termination Term Unsuccessful Terminated Modified Pre-Trial Release , Misdemeanor Probation 1, , ,080 1,148 3,608 Total 2, , ,940 1,170 4,513 As of December 9, 2013 February 1, December 9, 2013 Program Active VOP Warrant Unsupervised Hold Indigent Successful Termination Term Unsuccessful Terminated Modified Pre-Trial Release , ,030 Misdemeanor Probation 1, , ,012 1,512 4,444 Total 2, , ,896 1,536 5,474 Pre-Trial Release Misdemeanor Probation Successful Termination Term Unsuccessful Terminated Modified , , YTD , , , , YTD

12 Background continued Selected Statistics (continued) Caseload by PO (continued) The year-over-year variances between 2011 and 2012 were discussed with JCS. Regarding the decrease in case terminations in 2012 as compared to 2011, JCS advised that when their IT department performed the transfer of data from the County s system into Probation Tracker, a significant number of closed (terminated) cases were transferred in to Probation Tracker as open cases. As they were identified, these cases were researched and closed. Regarding the year-over-year variance between the terminated modified status for Pre-Trial Release cases between 2012 and 2013, JCS has advised there has been a change in their procedures which has reduced the number of cases that are opened in Probation Tracker but for which the defendant is released on their own recognizance or where charges are dropped. Financial Results On September 30, 2011, 100% of JCS stock was acquired by Correctional Healthcare Holdings, Inc. and JCS operates as a subsidiary of that company. In its annual reporting to the County for 2011 and 2012, JCS submitted the annual audit report for Correctional Healthcare Holdings, Inc. and an internally-generated report for the Brevard County operations of JCS. The financial results, as presented by JCS, are summarized below: Total Revenues: Private Probation Services $ 1,433,757 $ 1,354,400 $ 2,788,157 Expenses: Direct Services 38,581 44,213 82,794 General & Administrative 65,775 50, ,087 Occupancy 124, , ,166 Personnel Costs 1,098,552 1,134,533 2,233,085 Travel 24,516 3,410 27,926 Total Expenses 1,352,248 1,332,810 2,685,058 Net Ordinary Income 81,509 21, ,099 Other Expense: Overhead Allocation 286, , ,737 Net Loss $ (205,242) $ (276,396) $ (481,638) 8

13 Objectives and Approach

14 Objectives and Approach Objectives The primary purpose of this audit was to assess the compliance by Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ( JCS ) with the provisions of the contract to provide Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation services and to assess compliance with certain laws, rules and other County policies and procedures. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract dated December 7, 2010 was initiated in the consideration of the optional renewal periods available at the end of the contract term. The contract is scheduled to expire on January 31, Approach Our audit approach consisted of three phases: Understanding and Documentation of the Process During the first phase, we held an entrance conference with the Assistant County Manager, the Director of the Housing and Human Services Department, the Community Corrections Manager, and the Community Corrections Agency Coordinator to discuss the scope and objectives of the audit work, obtain preliminary data, and establish working arrangements. We then conducted interviews with responsible personnel from JCS and documented their roles in the processes. Detailed Testing The purpose of this phase was performance of testing procedures based on our understanding of the provisions of the contract between the County and JCS, certain laws, rules and other County policies and procedures. Our procedures included inquiries, observations, walk-throughs and testing of individual transactions. The population of defendants used for sample selection included all cases that had activity from February 1, 2011 through November 5, 2013 (the date the data was extracted from JCS s system). We utilized sampling and other auditing techniques, as deemed necessary, to meet our audit objectives outlined above. The procedures we performed are as follows: Obtain an understanding of the Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation processes and identify critical controls. Determine whether any written policies and procedures are in place over Pre-Trial and Misdemeanor Probation processes. Test a selection of Pre-Trial Release Officers, Probation Officers and In-Take Officers employed with JCS as of September 30, 2013, for the following: o Documentation of completion of required education, training, and continuing education or renewal of training; o For PTR Officers, documentation of completion of security training provided by the Brevard County Sheriff s Office. Test a selection of Start of Day reports from the 12 months ended September 30, 2013, to assess whether the caseload assigned to each Probation Officer exceeds parameters set forth in the contract. Test a selection of defendants to determine that fees assessed are collected in an amount consistent with the fee schedule agreed to in the contract for the following: o Costs of supervision; o Community service insurance; o Drug testing; o Program fees. 9

15 Objectives and Approach continued Approach (continued) Detailed Testing (continued) Test a selection of defendants to determine whether supervision is for the term set forth by the sentencing judge. Test a selection of defendants to determine whether the payment of courts costs and fees to the Brevard County Clerk of Courts, if required, is documented in the defendant s records. Test a selection of defendants to determine whether changes to the amount of the probationary fees and/or the term of the probation period are documented to support the propriety of such change. Test a selection of daily cash reports from the 12 months ended September 30, 2013, for the following: o Determine that receipts identified in the daily cash reports are consistent with the fees assessed as documented in the defendant s probation records; o Determine that receipts collected from each defendant are appropriate based on the orders set forth by the sentencing judge. Test a selection of defendants receiving misdemeanor probation services for monitoring of the defendant s adherence to the conditions imposed by the court, such as classes, counseling, community service, educational programs, and payment of statutorily required fees and other costs imposed by the court in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Agreement for Services (contract). Test a selection of defendants receiving pre-trial release services to determine offenders were evaluated for eligibility for the program and monitored in compliance with relevant state statutes and under the authority set for in the Pre-trial Release Policy and Procedures Manual. Test a selection of defendants receiving pre-trial community supervision services to determine offenders were evaluated for eligibility for the program and monitored in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 3(a)(3) of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services (contract). Test a selection of defendants receiving pre-trial diversion supervision services to determine defendants were monitored for completion of their contractual agreement with the State Attorney s Office in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 3(b) of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services (contract). Test a selection of defendants receiving drug testing services to determine defendants were monitored for completion of drug testing as set forth by the sentencing judge in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 3(c) of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services (contract). Test a selection of defendants currently classified as indigent for the following: o Determine that costs of supervision are waived as ordered by the sentencing judge; o If indigent status was determined by JCS upon initial intake or during the probation period, determine the financial status report was prepared and evaluated in compliance with JCS policies. Test a selection of defendants required to perform community service work for the following: o Determine the charges against the defendant are not on the list of prohibited charges as set forth by the community service organization; o For defendants who have completed their probationary period, determine the community service hours completed were in compliance with the orders set forth by the sentencing judge. For defendants for which courts costs and/or fines were converted to community service hours, determine the hours were converted appropriately in the defendant s records as set forth by the sentencing judge. 10

16 Objectives and Approach continued Approach (continued) Detailed Testing (continued) Test a selection of warrants to determine the warrant was prepared, reviewed, approved and remitted to the courts (judge) timely. Test a selection of defendants identified as unemployed offenders to determine that Job Assistance services were provided as outlined in Section E of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services (contract) and reporting of job assistance referrals is made to the County. Determine the County obtained copies of JCS s fiscal budget and audited annual financial report for each year in the contract period. Determine the County obtained copies of all required Certificate(s) of Insurance during the contract period. Observe the presence of an ACCESS workstation at the JCS client site to allow for applications to social services. For quarterly reports of performance benchmarks submitted to the County and the Chief Judge, determine the reports contained all the performance benchmarks required by Chapter (3), Florida Statutes, and Section N of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services (contract). Reporting At the conclusion of our audit, we documented our understanding of the processes surrounding the Pre- Trial and Misdemeanor Probation Services process based on our interviews at the County and at JCS and summarized our findings related to these processes. We conducted an exit conference with management of JCS and have incorporated Management s responses into our report. We prepared our report and related findings and provided draft copies to appropriate County management for discussions and the exit conference. We presented the final report to the County for submission to the County s Audit Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. 11

17 Issues Matrix

18 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response High 1 Misdemeanor Probation Services As part of our audit, we selected 60 individual defendants from the population of defendants receiving or who have received misdemeanor probation services. For those individuals that had multiple cases within the system, we included the case documents for all cases associated with that individual in our testing procedures. The results of this testing and issues related to noncompliance with the contract terms follows: InTake For 6 of the cases, the initial meeting with the assigned Probation Officer did not take place within 10 days. The case notes documented the defendant s request to reschedule for one of these cases. There were 17 cases for which the initial drug test was not completed within 15 days. While the cause varied from case-to-case, there are some underlying procedural issues that are creating challenges for JCS. Supervision We noted 1 case for which fees for Costs of Supervision were collected in excess of scheduled amount. The overpayment was for $15. It is JCS s policy not to provide refunds for amounts less than $25. We noted 1 defendant for which monthly supervision was not documented for 4 or more months during the probation period. For some of the sample items, however, the case notes were not sufficient to document whether or not appointments were attended by the defendant so we were unable to distinguish between missed appointments and undocumented appointments. Comprehensive and accurate documentation is essential to the effectiveness of the information for use by the sentencing judge, the State Attorney, the Probation Officer and/or the County in evaluating a defendant s compliance or noncompliance with the terms of probation. We recommend the County meet with JCS personnel to evaluate the information retained in case files as documentation and make recommendations, as necessary, to ensure the adequacy and clarity of the case files. A focus point of discussions should be how and when potential violations of probation requirements are communicated to the sentencing judge. The County should consider whether a standard should be conveyed to JCS for implementation. We suggest the County coordinate with the contractor to develop and implement a form to provide to the sentencing judge for consideration when a defendant is not complying with the terms of probation. This form will serve to document the judge s assessment of the extent of noncompliance and the intended response. The form should be retained in the defendants case files to ensure JCS has adequate documentation. Additionally, any verbal communication between the Probation Officer and the sentencing judge should be documented in the case notes. Response: The County agrees with the audit recommendations and will meet with the contractor bimonthly (every two months) to evaluate information contained in case files. The County will work with the contractor to develop and implement a form for the sentencing judge s consideration when a defendant is not complying with the terms of probation. Additionally, the County will work with the contractor to update, as needed, the informational communication to be provided to the defendant on their initial visit with their probation officer. Approximately twenty-five (25) cases will be reviewed monthly to ensure performance expectations are met and compliance with the contract. Responsible party: Shaunna Heffernan, Community Corrections Manager Housing and Human Services Department Estimated completion date: June 1, 2014 Next testing date: September

19 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response High 1 Misdemeanor Probation Services (continued) Supervision (continued) We also suggest the County coordinate with the For 2 of the cases, documentation in the defendant s contractor to update the written, standardized records did not include court documents communication provided to the defendant during acknowledging successful completion of the the initial program setup (intake) to include the probation requirements. following: There were 2 cases for which the affidavit for violation of probation was not noted in the file and 1 case for which the affidavit for violation of probation was not filed within 15 days of the occurrence. For 1 case sampled, the defendant was sentenced and violated probation on the same day. The defendant continued to pay for costs of supervision even though it appears probation may have been suspended pending the court appearance for the violation of probation. Drug Testing 20 of the defendants selected for testing missed 3 or more required drug screenings. The documentation in the case file was not sufficient to determine if or when the sentencing judge was made aware of the missed tests. For 14 defendants, we noted one or more instances for which the documentation was not sufficient for us to determine if a required drug screening was missed. 14 of the defendants selected for testing that were required to complete drug screenings failed 2 or more of the drug tests. 6 of these 14 defendants are also included in the defendants identified above as having missed 3 or more required drug screenings. Services to be provided (including employment assistance and access to the ACCESS system); Payment terms, acceptable forms of payment, the defendant s right to receive a receipt for payment and contact information for a Supervisor for the defendant to contact if they fail to receive a receipt; The defendant s right to request a review of financial status for potential indigent status / fee waiver, etc. Additionally, the contractor may wish to retain the signed copy of this document separate from other initial intake documents so compliance can be more readily identified during case file review and to improve ease of reference to the document by the assigned Probation Officer. 13

20 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response High 1 Misdemeanor Probation Services (continued) Drug Testing (continued) Now that the County has experience with Drug testing intervals were not consistent with the court order in 33 cases. For 8 of these cases, the testing interval was more frequent than required, outsourcing the misdemeanor probation services program, we recommend the County assess the nature and frequency of on-going monitoring of which may have been a result of the random the contractor in its compliance with contract selection process. For the remaining 25 cases, however, the testing was performed less frequently terms currently being performed and modify, as necessary, to ensure the program is operating as than required during the probation term with no intended by the County and the Chief Judge. explanation in the case notes. Drug screenings results were positive for opiates and/or cocaine for 4 defendants. Warrants were not issued or were not issued within 15 days for these violations. For one of these cases, the warrant was prepared, but later recalled. Warrants For 2 of the cases sampled, 15 or more days elapsed between the initial request for the warrant or the initiation of the warrant by the Probation Officer and its presentation to the sentencing judge for signature. In many cases, because of the lack of complete case notes in the defendants files, we could not conclude whether JCS complied with the terms of the contract as it relates to adequate case management. 14

21 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response High 2 Modification of Fees in Probation Tracker and Segregation of Duties During our initial meeting with JCS, we inquired as to the ability of the Probation Officers to make changes to the financial data (fee schedule) in the defendant s records in Probation Tracker without approval by a supervisor or manager. JCS stated the Probation Officers did not have the capability within the system to make such modifications. A test of the system, however, indicated that Probation Officers could, in fact make manual changes to a defendant s financial data without obtaining prior approval from a supervisor or manager. While changes to financial data of a defendant in Probation Tracker are indicated by a colored notation in the case file describing the purpose of the modification, the ability of a Probation Officer to make changes to financial information as well as handling cash receipts does not provide an acceptable level of segregation of duties. Defendants with changes to their financial data were included in our sample population. For the modifications tested, supporting documentation identifying the reason for the modification was noted in the case file. We recommend JCS contact their IT department and request that controls be implemented such that modifications to defendant financial data (fee schedules) be limited to Supervisors. Probation Officers should submit their request for a change to the Supervisor to approve and adjust in Probation Tracker. A copy of this request should be retained in the case file. We further suggest the use of a centralized cashiering function to provide for a more appropriate segregation of duties. Existing personnel could be utilized for the cashiering function as long as those employees with responsibility for receiving payment and issuing receipts do not have access to add or edit case file data, in particular, the financial data (fee schedule) fields in the defendants case files. Response: JCS contacted their IT department while the auditors were still on-site to have the system access changed, limiting the ability to make changes to financial data to Supervisors or Managers. The County agrees with the audit recommendations and will amend the agreement accordingly. The County will require a separate cashier designation other than the defendant s supervising officer. Responsible party: Shaunna Heffernan, Community Corrections Manager Housing and Human Services Department Estimated completion date: June 1, 2014 Next testing date: September

22 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response Moderate 3 Caseload by Probation Officer Section A(1)(a) of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services requires JCS to provide for one probation officer for every 200 people on active probation. It is Response: The County agrees with the audit recommendations and will amend the agreement accordingly. unclear whether it was the intent of the County to establish a maximum threshold for caseload by Probation Responsible party: Officer to 200 active cases. As noted in the Background section of this report, 22 of the 52 Start of Day reports sampled in this audit indicated one or more Probation Officers with active caseloads of 200 or more defendants. Additionally, the Start of Day report does not include case counts for indigent defendants. Inclusion of these defendants in the case count could increase the number of Probation Officers with an active caseload in excess of 200 defendants. Through our discussions with JCS, it was determined that JCS was using the indigent classification for the nonactive cases of defendants with more than one probation case running concurrently. This classification is used to prevent the collection of costs of supervision fees for more than one case. A review of JCS s Florida Training Manual indicates the Probation Officer is instructed the oldest case is generally the case that is classified as active while all other cases that are ordered by the sentencing judge to run concurrently should be placed in a hold or indigent status so fees will not accumulate on those concurrent cases. As part of the review and evaluation of defendant status classifications recommended in Issue #2 above, we suggest the hold status be used for concurrent cases rather than the indigent status classification. By limiting the use of the indigent status for defendants for whom fees for costs of supervision has been waived and are actively supervised, system-generated case count reports will more clearly present active case count data. We suggest, further, that if it is the intent of the County to establish a maximum threshold of 200 cases for caseload to be managed by a probation officer, the County should amend the Agreement for Services to specify this requirement. Shaunna Heffernan, Community Corrections Manager Housing and Human Services Department Estimated completion date: March 1, 2014 Next testing date: September

23 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response Moderate 4 Drug Screenings Unless otherwise specified by the sentencing judge, JCS s standard practice is to use a 5-panel drug screening. An expanded, 6-panel drug screening can also be performed if deemed necessary by the Probation Officer. Neither Florida Statutes nor Section 3(c) of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services specify which drug panel should be used. We recommend the County review Section 3(c) of Exhibit A to the Agreement for Services in consideration of illicit drug use that is prevalent in current, active cases to consider whether a modification to the requirements in the Agreement for Services is needed related to drug screenings. Response: The County agrees with the audit recommendations and will amend the agreement accordingly. Input from the Medical Examiner s Office and/or Brevard County s Drug Court Program as to prevalent drug usage or abuse will be provided to the County as a determinant for which drugs should be tested. The 5-panel drug screening may not test for the controlled substance at issue with the defendant s case, i.e., the 5-panel test does not test for oxycodone or oxicotin. Responsible party: Shaunna Heffernan, Community Corrections Manager Housing and Human Services Department Estimated completion date: June 1, 2014 Next testing date: September

24 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response Moderate 5 Electronic Monitoring The Agreement for Services includes a fee schedule for electronic monitoring of defendants. JCS does not currently provide electronic monitoring services to the County. These services are provided by another contractor unrelated to JCS. In some cases, the defendant is given a period of time to report to the electronic monitoring contractor to be outfitted with a monitoring device rather than having the device affixed at the courthouse. In these cases, the Probation Officer may have to rely on the electronic monitoring contractor to notify them if a defendant fails to obtain the monitoring device timely, as the required timeframe may lapse prior to the defendant s scheduled appointment with the assigned Probation Officer. Currently, there is no formal process in place requiring the electronic monitoring contractor to notify the Probation Officer within a certain timeframe once the electronic monitoring device has been affixed. We recommend the County establish parameters for providing coordination of information related to required electronic monitoring to help ensure all requirements of probation set forth by the sentencing judge are addressed timely. These parameters should be included in an amendment to the Agreement for Services (contract). Response: The County agrees with the audit recommendations in that communication needs to be fluid between the contractor and electronic monitoring companies. The County will work with the contractor in devising a form for electronic monitoring companies to notify the contractor when a device has been affixed to a defendant. Responsible party: Shaunna Heffernan, Community Corrections Manager Housing and Human Services Department Estimated completion date: June 1, 2014 Next testing date: September

25 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response Low 6 Benchmarking 6a. Lost Jurisdiction We recommend the contract provision outlining Response: The County agrees with the A misdemeanor probation case terminates as a result of performance measures to be presented to the audit recommendations and will require lost jurisdiction if a warrant is not issued on a timely basis. If a defendant has not completed all the County on an annual basis be updated to include separate reporting of data for cases terminating in the addition of separate reporting of data for cases terminating in lost requirements of his probation, a warrant for violation of lost jurisdiction. jurisdiction, early successful probation must be signed by the judge on or before the last day of the probation period. Probation Officers terminations and recidivism data on an annual basis. receive notification of all active cases that are approaching the end of their probation period (within 30 Responsible party: days). The Probation Officer must allow sufficient time for the warrant to be reviewed by his or her supervisor Shaunna Heffernan, Community and signed by the judge prior to expiration of the probation term. Corrections Manager Housing and Human Services Department Since February 1, 2011, when JCS assumed responsibility for misdemeanor probation services, 35 cases have been terminated as a result of lost jurisdiction. Most of these cases (24) occurred in 2011, during the transition of misdemeanor probation services from the County to JCS. It was noted that one of those 24 cases was considered lost jurisdiction due to a clerical error, not untimely paperwork by the Probation Officer. There were six (6) cases for which jurisdiction was lost in 2012, and there have been five (5) cases noted to date in Estimated completion date: June 1, 2014 Next testing date: September 2014 JCS currently classifies cases terminating in lost jurisdiction as unsuccessful terminations. Trend data such as cases terminating in lost jurisdiction would be a beneficial component in evaluating the success of the misdemeanor probation services being provided. The Agreement for Services between the County and JCS does not currently require JCS to report lost jurisdictions as a separate performance benchmark. 19

26 JCS CONTRACT FOR PRE-TRIAL AND MISDEMEANOR PROBATION SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rating Issues Recommendation Management Response Low 6 Benchmarking (continued) 6b. Recidivism and Other Trend Data Trend data such as recidivism information would be a beneficial component in evaluating the success of the We also suggest the contract provision outlining performance measures to be presented to the County on an annual basis be updated to include misdemeanor probation services being provided. The additional benchmarks for misdemeanor Agreement for Services between the County and JCS does not currently require JCS to report recidivism as a probation services such as recidivism data and early successful terminations. performance benchmark. Another performance benchmark that may be an indicator of the success of the misdemeanor probation services program is successful completion of probation requirements in advance of the end of the probation period. The Agreement for Services between the County and JCS does not currently require JCS to separately report early successful terminations as a performance benchmark. 20