📋

Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

Sacramento County's Revenue Recovery: $658 Million in Uncollected Debt and Rising

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 27 findings

F1 Page 16

DRR fails to collect the hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding

F2 Page 16

DRR management rarely uses reports to manage collection activity and

F3 Page 16

DRR management fails to work together effectively to manage the

F4 Page 16

The Board and CEO have not exhibited any apparent concerns or

F5 Page 17

DRR did not use a competitive bid process to secure services on the County’s behalf. The Board of Supervisors approved and awarded a $4.4 million contract for the development of the DMACS.

F6 Page 19

DRR failed to monitor its revenue recovery system and adjust

F7 Page 19

DRR has failed to meet its proposed revenue recovery collection goals

F8 Page 20

DRR does not have an established method for monitoring agency client

F9 Page 20

DRR does not provide its agency clients with updates of debtor account

F10 Page 20

DRR’s established payment policy guidelines are not consistently

F11 Page 20

DRR does not review debtor account activity to assess collectibility or

F12 Page 22

Revenue collected by DRR with incomplete debtor account information

F13 Page 22

DRR does not have the tools or reports to verify daily payment

F14 Page 22

DRR rarely distributes funds held in the Unallocated Trust Account to

F15 Page 22

DRR does not reconcile the issues associated with the over 53,000

F16 Page 22

DRR does not have a policy or procedure for processing payments that

F17 Page 22

DRR has no plan to reconcile and close the Unallocated Trust Account.

F18 Page 23

The DMACS creates duplicate accounts and/or charges which DRR staff

F19 Page 23

Resolution of duplicate debtor accounts and/or charges does not

F20 Page 23

There is evidence of debtors’ payments to DRR on duplicate accounts.

F21 Page 24

Approximately 30,000 debtor accounts are due refunds in excess of

F22 Page 24

DRR does not consider processing refunds due on accounts established

F23 Page 25

Significant issues were identified during the DOF auditors’ initial

F24 Page 25

Issues regarding potential fraud and other irregularities were identified

F25 Page 25

DRR terminated any further action by the DOF auditors during both

F26 Page 26

There is inadequate monitoring of unlimited user access rights to the

F27 Page 26

There is no oversight of the individuals with unlimited user access

Recommendations 27

R1
Page 16

DRR should employ alternative solutions to recover the hundreds of
R2
Page 16

DRR should develop and use collection activity reports to effectively
R3
Page 16

DRR management should work together to manage and improve the
R4
Page 32

• Sacramento County Board of Supervisors-All
R5
Page 17

The Board of Supervisors should require County agencies to use a competitive bid process to contract for services over a specified dollar amount. SACRAMENTO COUNTY’S REVENUE RECOVERY: $658 MILLION IN UNCOLLECTED DEBT AND RISING 17 Sacramento County Grand Jury 2015-2016 Revenue Collection Trends and Escalating Debt A Chart Speaks Louder than Words! The DMACS is entering its seventh year of operations, and DRR’s revenue collections consistently fail to reach its annual projected goals. Revenue collections continue to be inadequate because the DRR lacks the essential collection improvement tools. Analyzing the DMACS statistical data and accompanying figures conveyed a low growth for revenue recovery and the resultant rapidly escalating delinquent debt. The DRR proposal explicitly indicated that DRR, and the DMACS, would proliferate the revenue recovery rate from 32% to 38% by 2011. Recovery is 6%, not anywhere near the target. Conversely, the chart below depicts the Debt Management and Collection System’s annual revenue recovery rates have, in fact, failed to achieve the 2008, pre-conversion value of $45 million. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RECOVERY ANNUAL REVENUE RECOVERED VERSUS NET UNCOLLECTED DEBT SACRAMENTO COUNTY’S REVENUE RECOVERY: $658 MILLION IN UNCOLLECTED DEBT AND RISING 18 Sacramento County Grand Jury 2015-2016
R6
Page 19

DRR should regularly monitor its revenue collection system and adjust
R7
Page 19

DRR should consider other cost-effective replacement alternatives for
R8
Page 20

DRR should establish a method for monitoring agency client accounts.
R9
Page 20

DRR should provide its agency clients with updates of debtor account
R10
Page 20

DRR should consistently follow their established guidelines for payment
R11
Page 20

DRR should review debtor account activity to determine collectibility
R12
Page 22

A debtor account should be identified and matched in the DMACS
R13
Page 22

DRR should develop and implement a daily transaction/exception
R14
Page 22

DRR should distribute the funds held in the Unallocated Account to its
R15
Page 22

DRR should reconcile the over 53,000 transactions in the Unallocated
R16
Page 22

DRR should implement a policy or procedure for processing payments
R17
Page 22

DRR should implement a plan to close the Unallocated Trust Account.
R18
Page 23

DRR should correct the reason(s) the DMACS is duplicating debtor
R19
Page 23

DRR should prioritize the resolution of the duplicate debtor accounts
R20
Page 23

DRR should refund all monies owed to debtors that have made
R21
Page 24

DRR should use the Refund Review Band effectively and issue refunds
R22
Page 24

DRR should elevate the department’s priority for the refund of all
R23
Page 26

DOF should submit the initial DRR system review report to the Board
R24
Page 26

DOF auditors should prepare a report for the subsequent DRR system
R25
Page 26

DOF should follow all County audit reporting standards when
R26
Page 26

DRR should monitor and control all user access to the DMACS debtor
R27
Page 26

DRR should provide oversight for the County IT and the contract