Santa Clara County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
2005-2006 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report City of San Jose Community Action and Pride Grants – Even a Good
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
The San Jose Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services has a well-defined front-end process for the review and approval of CAP Grant applications. It appears that the Acting Superintendent, who was recently assigned to this position, is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Grant award and administration process.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Reports from four of nine files from Cycle 18 examined by the Grand Jury in late October were past their August 31, 2005 due date. No documented extensions had been requested or approved for these late reports. Evidence exists that an effort was made by PRNS staff to follow up on these delinquencies by the time the Grant files were examined by the Grand Jury during the meeting on October 26.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
A clarification or revision of existing policies and procedures should be established immediately to document specific actions enforcing submission of delinquent Grant final reports and financial information. Procedures should include documented telephone and written contacts with the responsible NCAs. Sanctions for non-compliance should be defined. These could include returning awarded Grant funds or forfeiting eligibility for subsequent Grants.
F3a
Existing Grant schedules overlap the end of one year’s cycle with the start of the next year’s cycle. During this overlap a new Grant may be awarded while a previous Grant is being completed. This overlap does not allow an NCA to receive Grants in successive years without violating the policy requiring submission of all reporting information prior to approving a new CAP Grant (see Figure 1).
No recommendations for this finding
F3b
While examining the seven Cycle 18 files, the Grand Jury found that two awards were issued for Cycle 19, even though required Cycle 18 reporting information was incomplete. In addition, one Grant was issued in Cycle 18, even though required reporting information from Cycle 15 was still missing. Established PRNS policies and procedures for CAP Grants make it clear that all required documentation for a given award must be submitted prior to the issuance of a new award in any subsequent CAP Grant cycle.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 5
-
CL1 Page 6The San Jose Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services has a well-defined front-end process for the review and approval of CAP Grant applications. It appears that the Acting Superintendent, who was recently assigned to this position, is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Grant award and administration process.
-
CL2 Page 6Reports from four of nine files from Cycle 18 examined by the Grand Jury in late October were past their August 31, 2005 due date. No documented extensions had been requested or approved for these late reports. Evidence exists that an effort was made by PRNS staff to follow up on these delinquencies by the time the Grant files were examined by the Grand Jury during the meeting on October 26.
-
CL3 Page 8Community Action and Pride Grant Application – Cycle 19, provided by PRNS. The application for Cycle 20 will be available on the PRNS web site prior to the start of the application period for this cycle.
-
CL4 Page 8Community Action and Pride Grant Notice of Understanding (NOU) example. The NOU is provided by PRNS and is specific to each Grant.
-
CL5 Page 8CAP Grant Cycle 19 Frequently Asked Questions from CAP Grant Website: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/prns/nsinfo.htm#cap Interviews