Summary

Audit Scope

The scope of this audit included all three Offices of Capital Collateral Regional Counsels and focused on the implementation of the Regional Counsel structure and the extent to which administrative support functions facilitated case management accountability. Our audit did not include an evaluation of Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) decisions regarding the initiation and conduct of collateral proceedings as such decisions are the responsibility of CCRC management and the applicable case attorneys, subject to review of the courts. Our audit included examinations of various transactions (as well as events and conditions) occurring during the period October 1, 1997, through December 31, 1998, and selected actions taken through September 30, 1999. Our audit of the operations of the CCRCs relates to the various laws and rules in existence at the time of audit field work, which was prior to the changes made during the January 5 through 7, 2000, Special Session of the Legislature which met to discuss death penalty legislation.

Summary of Report on Compliance and Internal Control

We found that the Offices had generally complied with the significant provisions of laws, administrative rules, and other guidelines governing those operating units, programs, activities, functions, and classes of transactions within the scope of audit. Matters noted on audit relating to noncompliance with various guidelines and/or significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control for those operations audited are presented in the Summary of Audit Findings below:

Summary of Audit Findings

Implementation of the Regional Counsel Structure

The implementation of the Regional Counsel structure resulted in numerous administrative difficulties that continue to negatively impact day-to-day CCRC operations.

The CCRCs and the JAC did not, in implementing the Regional Counsel structure, effectively coordinate necessary administrative support.

Chapter 97-313, Laws of Florida, authorized the Florida Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) to provide administrative support and service to the three CCRCs. However, it appears that, during the initial implementation of the Regional Counsel structure, the CCRCs and the JAC did not effectively communicate and delineate administrative responsibilities to the extent contemplated by the Legislature.

Processes and records for operating within budgetary authority were not adequate.

The CCRCs’ budgetary processes and records were not adequate to ensure the CCRCs operated within the appropriations provided by the Legislature and/or the approved budgetary authority as amended by the Executive Office of the Governor.

The CCRCs did not have policies and procedures for some administrative functions essential to case management accountability.

Although implementation of the Regional Counsel structure resulted in each CCRC having separate administrative responsibilities, the CCRCs had not, during the audit period, adopted and/or effectively implemented policies and procedures for many of the administrative support functions essential to establishing case management accountability within their respective offices.

Procedures for estimating and obtaining Federal Criminal Justice Act reimbursements were not adequate.

Staff training and procedures for providing estimated Federal Criminal Justice Act receipts in support of the CCRCs Final Legislative Budget Requests and for requesting reimbursement of costs incurred in conducting collateral proceedings before the Federal courts were not adequate to assure that oversight entities received accurate information regarding the actual availability of funding sources and that reimbursement requests were timely filed.

Procedures and records were not adequate to properly account for and safeguard tangible personal property.

CCRC procedures and records relating to tangible personal property transferred as a result of the October 1997 implementation of the Regional Counsel structure and operating capital outlay expenditures subsequently made by each of the CCRCs were not adequate to properly demonstrate accountability for and ensure the safeguarding of State-owned assets.

Caseload Methodology

An appropriate caseload methodology or a fully implemented performance-based program budgeting process is needed to provide information for sound evaluations regarding the funding levels for CCRC operations.

The CCRCs have not developed a caseload methodology that establishes the staffing levels reasonably appropriate to the conduct of collateral proceedings pursuant to Chapter 27, Part IV, Florida Statutes. The CCRCs have, with the assistance of a contracted consultant, begun implementing performance-based program budgeting and the processes and records necessary to capture and report case-related activities relevant thereto. An appropriate caseload methodology, or an effectively implemented performance-based program budgeting process, is essential to providing oversight entities such as the Legislature and the courts the information necessary for making sound evaluations regarding the funding levels for CCRC operations.

Expenditure and workload data reported to the Commission on Capital Cases was not always consistent with CCRC accounting data.

The CCRCs had not consistently utilized the information capabilities of the FLAIR and QuickBooks Pro to account for and report required expenditure and workload data to the Commission on Capital Cases. As a result, the information shown in the quarterly reports was not always accurate or consistent with the underlying data on which the reports were based.

Case-Related Professional Services

Processes for documenting the planned use of professional services were not adequate.

The three CCRCs had not implemented formal processes to adequately document decisions regarding the use of private attorneys and/or expert witnesses that would ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the available budgetary authority and that the services are received in the quantity and quality contemplated by management’s authorization.

Procurement decisions relating to private attorneys were not always adequately documented.

The CCRCs did not always document in contracts or case files the reasons for obtaining private attorney services (rather than utilizing CCRC staff) or the methodology used in selecting private attorneys. In addition, the Middle Region CCRC had not timely requested JAC reimbursement for payments made to an attorney in private practice for representation of a client.

The Capital Collateral Regional Counsels' and the Florida Justice Administrative Comission's Executive Director's written responses to the audit findings and recommendations included in audit report No. 13589 are presented as Appendix C.