John Keel, CPA
State Auditor

An Audit Report on

Monitoring and Enforcement
Functions at the Juvenile
Probation Commission
August 2007
Report No. 07-047

An Audit Report on

Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at
the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007

Overall Conclusion
The Juvenile Probation Commission
(Commission) has taken corrective action
on 32 of 34 (94 percent) of the
recommendations related to monitoring
and enforcement identified in An Audit
Report on the Juvenile Probation
Commission (State Auditor's Office Report
No. 02-060, July 2002).

Background Information
The Juvenile Probation Commission
(Commission), created in 1981, allocates
nearly $200 million biennially to local juvenile
probation departments through multiple
contracts and grants to each of 169 local
juvenile boards.
The Commission monitors 52 secure facilities
for juveniles awaiting trial and 32 secure
facilities for juveniles convicted and
sentenced to a Juvenile Probation Commission
facility. During fiscal year 2006, 72,989
juveniles were on probation or resided in
these pre- and post-adjudication facilities.

The Commission has developed an
automated system to facilitate the
monitoring of standards and contracts with
The Commission conducts official
local juvenile boards. The Compliance
investigations of all allegations of child abuse,
Monitoring, Enforcement and Tracking
neglect, and exploitation in its secure juvenile
facilities and in any program operated by a
System (COMETS) has allowed the
probation department or under a contract
Commission to address the majority of
with a juvenile board.
weaknesses in its monitoring and
Source: Juvenile Probation Commission.
enforcement processes identified in the
previous audit report. COMETS also has
enabled the Commission to move from a
paper file environment to an almost completely computerized process.
Table 1 on page 2 of the Detailed Results section of this report summarizes the
status of the Commission’s implementation of prior audit recommendations, and
Table 2 on page 2 provides information on the status of the implementation of
specific recommendations.
Additionally, auditors visited four juvenile probation departments and determined
that all of them were conducting criminal history checks for employees in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. However, auditors identified
weaknesses in two departments’ processes for documenting grievances. At two
departments, auditors also identified weaknesses in the processes for reporting
and investigating allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

Summary of Management’s Response
The Commission agrees with the recommendations in this report.
This audit was conducted in accordance with Texas Government Code, Sections 321.0131 and 321.0132.
For more information regarding this report, please contact Kelly Linder, Audit Manager, or John Keel, State Auditor, at (512) 9369500.

An Audit Report on
Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047

Summary of Information Technology Review
Information technology audit work focused on COMETS; CASEWORKER, an
automated tracking and case management system provided by the Commission to
all juvenile probation departments; the Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (ANE)
Database; and the Automated Certification Information Tracking System (ACIS).
Auditors also reviewed the Commission’s disaster recovery plan.
The Commission has adequate controls to ensure that access to these systems is
limited to specific personnel whose responsibilities require use of these automated
systems. Auditors reviewed the list of staff who have access, and all of them were
still active employees with a need for this access. This significantly lowers the risk
that unauthorized individuals will view secure information. In addition, the
Commission has developed software applications that support its business functions
and protect the integrity of its data.
The Commission’s disaster recovery plan did not include all required elements, nor
was there any record of the plan having been recently tested. This could result in
the Commission losing vital information needed to carry out its functions in the
event of an emergency.

Summary of Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Commission has taken
corrective action on significant issues in monitoring and enforcement identified in
An Audit Report on the Juvenile Probation Commission (State Auditor’s Office
Report No. 02-060, July 2002).
The scope of this audit included COMETS data, ACIS data, and ANE data for fiscal
year 2006 and the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2007.
The audit methodology included collecting information; conducting interviews with
Commission staff, juvenile probation departments, and juvenile facility personnel;
performing selected tests and other procedures; and analyzing and evaluating the
results of the tests. Auditors also visited and tested files at four juvenile probation
departments for compliance with state-mandated standards for criminal history
checks, juvenile grievances, and investigations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation
allegations.

ii

Contents
Detailed Results
Chapter 1

The Commission Has Made Significant Progress in
Implementing Prior Audit Recommendations Regarding
Its Monitoring and Enforcement Functions ........................ 1
Chapter 2

Departments Are Conducting Comprehensive Criminal
History Checks on Employees, but the Commission
Should Enhance Its Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation
Investigation Processes .............................................. 16

Appendices
Appendix 1

Objective, Scope, and Methodology............................... 21
Appendix 2

Recent State Auditor’s Office Work ............................... 24

Detailed Results
Chapter 1

The Commission Has Made Significant Progress in Implementing Prior
Audit Recommendations Regarding Its Monitoring and Enforcement
Functions
The Juvenile Probation Commission (Commission) has taken corrective action
on 32 of 34 (94 percent) of the audit recommendations related to monitoring
and enforcement identified in An Audit Report on the Juvenile Probation
Commission (State Auditor’s Office Report No. 02-060, July 2002). Auditors
followed up on 34 of the 40 recommendations made in the prior audit report.
In addition, auditors visited four juvenile probation departments (departments)
to review compliance with state-mandated standards for criminal history
checks, juvenile grievances, and investigations of abuse, neglect, and
exploitation allegations (see Chapter 2).
The Commission has fully implemented 19 of 34 (56 percent)
recommendations related to monitoring and enforcement; it has substantially
implemented 8 others. The Commission has not implemented two
recommendations, and its implementation of five others remains incomplete
or ongoing.
The most significant improvement made by the Commission in response to
prior audit recommendations is the implementation of the Compliance
Monitoring, Enforcement and Tracking System (COMETS). This automated
system, which the Commission reported that it developed in-house and
without additional resources, has allowed the Commission to address the
majority of weaknesses in its monitoring and enforcement functions identified
in the previous audit report. The system also has enabled the Commission to
move from a paper-file environment to a monitoring and enforcement process
that is almost completely computerized. COMETS tracks all monitoring
reports issued to the departments. These reports list all standards reviewed
during a monitoring visit, the departments’ score, and the status of each
standard (compliant or noncompliant). The system also includes the
departments’ plans of action for noncompliant standards.
Full implementation of all the prior and new recommendations would correct
weaknesses in the Commission’s monitoring and enforcement functions.
Table 1 summarizes the status of the Commission’s implementation of
recommendations and defines the degrees of implementation.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 1

Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Related to the
Commission’s Monitoring and Enforcement Functions
The State Auditor’s Office followed up on the implementation status of 34 prior audit recommendations related to the
Commission’s monitoring and enforcement functions. The State Auditor’s Office originally made these recommendations in
An Audit Report on the Juvenile Probation Commission, (SAO Report No. 02-060, July 2002).
Table 1

Definition of Degrees of Implementation of Prior Audit Recommendations
Degree of
Implementation

Number of Prior Audit
Recommendations in
Category

Definition

Fully Implemented

Successful development and use of a process, system, or policy
to implement a prior recommendation.

19

Substantially
Implemented

Successful development but inconsistent use of a process,
system, or policy to implement a prior recommendation.

8

Incomplete/Ongoing

Ongoing development of a process, system, or policy to address
a prior recommendation.

5

Not Implemented

Lack of a formal process, system, or policy to address a prior
recommendation.

2

Table 2 provides information on the implementation status of specific
recommendations made in the State Auditor’s Office July 2002 report.
Table 2

Status of the Commission’s Implementation of Prior Audit Recommendations
Related to Monitoring and Enforcement
Recommendation

Implementation Status

Auditor Comments

Establish objective criteria for when to impose
sanctions for violations of state juvenile
probation standards. At a minimum, a
department's compliance history should be one
factor the Commission considers when
establishing criteria for imposing sanctions for
health and safety violations.

Incomplete/Ongoing

The Commission has established criteria for when to impose sanctions
for violations of state juvenile probation standards. However, the
criteria are still in draft form and have not been approved by
executive management or the board.

Amend the Texas Administrative Code to allow
the Commission to initiate revocation of
certification for all ethics violations involving
abuse and neglect.

Fully Implemented

The Commission amended Title 37, Texas Administrative Code, with
Section 349.22 effective September 1, 2003.

Formulate criteria for imposing sanctions for
departments that employ non-certified
individuals who are designated as a perpetrator
in a Commission abuse and neglect investigation.

Substantially Implemented

The Commission has not formulated criteria for imposing sanctions for
departments that employ non-certified individuals who are designated
as a perpetrator in a Commission abuse and neglect investigation.
However, the Commission has implemented one sanction, a contract
provision, that could be used if a department employs non-certified
individuals who are designated as a perpetrator.

Formulate formal procedures to require
appropriate Commission staff members to follow
up on the certification and employment status of
individuals who are designated as perpetrators in
a Commission abuse and neglect investigation.

Incomplete/Ongoing

The Commission has not formulated formal procedures to require
appropriate Commission staff members to follow up on the
certification and employment status of individuals who are designated
as perpetrators in a Commission abuse and neglect investigation. The
Commission does have processes for following up on individuals who

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 2

Status of the Commission’s Implementation of Prior Audit Recommendations
Related to Monitoring and Enforcement
Recommendation

Implementation Status

Auditor Comments
are designated as perpetrators, but the form and level of follow-up is
determined on a case-by-case basis. Without documented policies
and procedures for following up on the certification and employment
status of individuals who are designated as perpetrators, the
Commission could provide high-risk individuals the opportunity to
move to another county and continue to have interaction with
juveniles.

Monitor the timeliness of the abuse and neglect
function to determine whether additional
staffing measurably reduces the time required to
meet deadlines.

Not Implemented

The Commission does not track the length of time it takes to
complete investigations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation
allegations; review outstanding investigations; or conduct a
supervisory review of completed investigations with a disposition
other than “reason to believe.” Auditors reviewed 30 abuse, neglect,
and exploitation allegations and found:

ƒ 12 of 30 (40 percent) allegations were not reported to law

enforcement within 24 hours of receipt, as required by Title 37,
Texas Administrative Code, Section 349.46(a). The Commission
reported these 12 allegations to law enforcement from a few hours
to 41 days past the 24-hour requirement, with most of the 12 being
reported two to four days after receipt of the allegation.

ƒ 7 of 30 (23 percent) allegations were not investigated in a timely

manner. While there are no documented timelines for the
Commission’s investigation process, a review of case notes showed
significant delays in the performance of specific investigation
activities, such as reviewing the departments’ internal
investigation reports or notifying the departments of the outcomes
of investigations.

Dedicate sufficient resources to ensure that the
abuse and neglect database is updated in a
timely manner.

Incomplete/Ongoing

The Commission does not regularly update the Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation Database (database). Of 30 abuse, neglect, and
exploitation investigations reviewed by auditors:

ƒ The first case entries made in the database ranged from the day
the allegation was received to 89 days later.

ƒ The database was not regularly updated for 7 of 30 (23 percent)
investigations as new information was received or uncovered.

The Commission does not have documented timeframes for when and
how often the database should be updated. The database is the
primary tool used by the Commission to track the status of
investigations; therefore, it is critical that the database is regularly
updated to prevent the loss of investigation information.
The database also has a delete function that completely erases an
investigation file from the database and the file cannot be recovered.
The Commission does not track which files are deleted, and all users
have the ability to delete any file from the database.
Operationally define which juvenile probation
standards are related to health and safety.
Violations of health and safety standards should
be more heavily weighted when the Commission
considers imposition of sanctions and conducts
risk assessment for monitoring visits.

Fully Implemented

The Commission operationally defined which juvenile probation
standards are related to the health and safety of juveniles, and it
weights violations of health and safety standards more heavily when it
considers imposition of sanctions and conducts risk assessment for
monitoring visits.

Issue citations for and report all identified
instances of noncompliance to the chief
probation officer and local probation board
overseeing the department.

Substantially Implemented

The Commission's policies and procedures contain steps describing
how compliance and noncompliance should be documented in its
automated monitoring and reporting system. However, monitors do
not appear to consistently follow these policies and procedures.
The Commission does not consistently issue citations for and report all
identified instances of noncompliance to the chief probation officer
and local juvenile board overseeing the department. Of 33
monitoring reports reviewed by auditors:

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 3

Status of the Commission’s Implementation of Prior Audit Recommendations
Related to Monitoring and Enforcement
Recommendation

Implementation Status

Auditor Comments
ƒ 12 of 33 (36 percent) reports had instances of noncompliance in
the supporting documentation but not in the Commission’s
automated monitoring and reporting system (COMETS).

ƒ 12 of 33 (36 percent) reports had instances of noncompliance but
no citation was issued.

According to the Commission, changes are sometimes made during the
exit conference with a department. The reasons for the changes
were not consistently documented. The Commission does not perform
a supervisory review of monitoring reports or supporting
documentation.
Establish and enforce a reasonable standard for
the timeliness of issuing monitoring reports to
the departments.

Substantially Implemented

The Commission established a standard of issuing monitoring reports
to departments at the end of a monitoring visit and while the monitor
is still on site. However, this standard is not documented.

Examine and address any underlying systemic
reasons (for example, employee turnover,
workloads, and training) that cause delays in
completing and delivering monitoring reports to
the departments and local juvenile probation
boards.

Fully Implemented

The Commission addressed delays in completing and delivering
monitoring reports by creating COMETS, which enables monitors to
create a draft report while at a department. COMETS also allows the
monitors, while still on site, to discuss the noncompliance issues with
the departments, make any changes to the report, and upload it.

Consider providing the Commission board with
periodic reports regarding summary trends in
compliance with standards.

Fully Implemented

The Commission provides high-level summaries to the board.

Use a database to compile the results of
monitoring efforts. At a minimum, the database
should track the elements on the Commission's
citation tracking form. The database should be
designed to capture the current status of any
corrective action agreed to by the departments.
It should also be able to provide aggregate and
department level statistics on the number, type,
and disposition of instances of noncompliance,
regardless of whether a citation was issued.
Design of the database should also consider
information needs related to the Commission's
risk assessment process. The Commission should
also consider tracking the results of
unannounced monitoring visits, findings related
to abuse and neglect investigations, and
suspension or revocation of officer certification.

Fully Implemented

The Commission created COMETS to include a database that compiles
results of its monitoring efforts. Aggregate and department-level
statistics on the number, type, and disposition of instances of
noncompliance can be generated. The risk assessment is also
included in the system, and different risk assessment reports can be
generated based on the area to be monitored (for example, pre- or
post-adjudication facilities and probation administration). The
system tracks the results of unannounced monitoring visits; however,
it does not track findings related to abuse, neglect, and exploitation
investigations, or suspension or revocation of officer certifications
because other databases and systems are used to track those findings.

Clearly assign responsibility for tracking the
status of citations, waivers, corrective action
plans, and contested citations. The
Commission's follow-up efforts should factor into
the design of a database for the monitoring
function described in the previous
recommendation.

Fully Implemented

The Commission clearly assigns responsibility for and tracks the status
of citations, waivers, corrective action plans, and contested citations
through COMETS and by designating specific staff. Twenty of 21 (95
percent) closed reports reviewed by auditors had supporting
documentation indicating that the corrective action plans were
completed by the departments and approved by the Commission.
However, there were no policies and procedures for the corrective
action process at the department and Commission levels.

Specify in its procedures how standards should
be verified. The Commission should use the
most reliable method for verifying departments'
compliance. For example, cost per day could be
verified by analyzing department billing records,
and staffing ratios could be verified using payroll
records.

Fully Implemented

The Commission developed procedures that specify how each standard
should be verified using the most reliable method for verifying
departments' compliance

Reevaluate the risk assessment methodology and
incorporate operational risk factors such as
compliance history.

Substantially Implemented

The Commission used a risk assessment process to determine which
counties and areas within the counties to monitor and at which to
conduct on-site visits in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. However, the risk
assessment uses only one risk factor—compliance history—and does

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 4

Status of the Commission’s Implementation of Prior Audit Recommendations
Related to Monitoring and Enforcement
Recommendation

Implementation Status

Auditor Comments
not consider other factors, such as the amount of time since the
previous visit. Currently the Commission is required to visit every
pre- and post-adjudication facility in Texas once a biennium.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Commission will be required to visit
every pre- and post-adjudication facility in Texas every year. The
increase in required monitoring visits and limited resources will make
it even more important for the Commission to use more risk factors in
determining which departments and areas to monitor in addition to
the pre- and post-adjudication facilities.

Use a risk assessment process to determine
which departments and which areas within each
department represent the highest risk.

Fully Implemented

The Commission uses a risk assessment process to determine which
departments and areas within the departments to monitor and at
which to conduct on-site monitoring visits.

Ensure that the Field Service division verifies
whether the departments actively monitor their
service providers.

Fully Implemented

The Commission verifies whether departments actively monitor their
service providers. Its Fiscal Division monitors review documentation
during their on-site visits of departments to ensure that the
departments are monitoring service providers at least twice each
year.

Provide the departments with training on
developing measurable, quantifiable contract
terms and performance measures.

Substantially Implemented

The Commission highlights and discusses problems that it detects from
monitoring and communication with departments during its annual
budget workshop. However, the Commission does not provide
departments with specific training on developing measurable,
quantifiable contract terms and performance measure. Without
sufficient training, the departments may not be creating contracts
with measurable, quantifiable contract terms and performance
measures and, therefore, they may not be able to hold their
contractors accountable when they receive insufficient services or
inferior goods.

Develop comprehensive written policies and
procedures for each area of its fiscal division, as
well as for any other division within the
Commission that has weaknesses similar to those
of the fiscal division. The policies and
procedures should provide an overall
understanding of the purpose of each area's
function, as well as detailed descriptions of
critical steps necessary to properly carry out
each function. The written procedures should
also include action plans for situations that may
arise when departments do not comply with the
Commission's procedures and rules.

Substantially Implemented

The Commission developed written policies and procedures for each
division. However, for four of the six divisions, policies and
procedures were not comprehensive and did not contain an overall
understanding of the purpose of each area's function, detailed
descriptions of critical steps necessary to properly carry out each
function, and actions plans for situations when departments do not
comply with the Commission's procedures and rules. The policies and
procedures for two divisions were comprehensive and contained all
the elements previously discussed.

Establish formal procedures to ensure that all
units and divisions regularly share information
essential to departments' compliance with the
State's juvenile probation standards.

Incomplete/Ongoing

The Commission has not established formal procedures to ensure that
all units and divisions regularly share information essential to the
departments’ compliance with the State's juvenile probation
standards. The Commission created an automated system, the
Contact Activity Tracking System (CATS), to ensure that all divisions
share information. However, not all agency staff use this system and
the Commission has not established formal policies and procedures
that require staff to use the system.

Institute procedures to provide greater
assurance that information submitted by the
departments for certification purposes is
accurate.

Substantially Implemented

While the Commission has established some procedures,
improvements can still be made to ensure that information submitted
by the departments for certification purposes is accurate. For
example, there are no documented policies and procedures for the
certification/recertification processes performed by the Commission.
The Commission has a Certification Guidelines Manual, however, the
manual does not describe the steps taken at the Commission to
approve or deny certification/recertification.

Instead of requiring departments to provide
documentation of compliance with certification
standards, the Commission should require the

Fully Implemented

The Field Service division monitors are required to select a random,
statistically representative sample of personnel files to test
compliance with certification standards. The Commission's

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 5

Status of the Commission’s Implementation of Prior Audit Recommendations
Related to Monitoring and Enforcement
Recommendation

Implementation Status

Field Service division monitors to select a
random, statistically representative sample of
personnel files to test compliance with
certification standards.

Auditor Comments
Compliance Resource Manual requires monitors to select a sample size
based on the county size, number of certified officers, and an "nth" (a
randomly generated number).

Instead of requiring departments to provide
documentation of compliance with certification
standards, the Commission should institute
procedures to administratively suspend or revoke
the certification of officers who fail to meet
minimum certification standards required by the
State.

Fully Implemented

The Commission implemented Title 37, Texas Administrative Code,
Section 349.22, which instituted procedures to administratively
suspend or revoke the certification of officers who fail to meet
minimum certification standards required by the State.

Instead of requiring departments to provide
documentation of compliance with certification
standards, the Commission should consider
imposing other administrative requirements if a
department repeatedly submits for certification
officers who lack minimum qualifications. For
example, the Commission could require
departments with poor certification compliance
records to submit supporting documentation
when they apply for certification or recertification of staff.

Substantially Implemented

Departments that repeatedly submit certification applications for
officers who do not meet the minimum requirements are placed on a
probationary status, which revokes their ability to submit certification
and re-certification applications solely through the automated
system. Departments on probationary status are required to submit
paper documents of all certification requirements to the Commission's
Certification Officer for a minimum of one year. While the
Commission has this practice in place, the process is not documented.

Establish a comprehensive strategy for testing
the integrity of data that departments submit.
This strategy should include a clear objective
that specifies whether the Commission's goal is
to gather information on a statewide level, or
whether the goal is to gather information on a
departmental level. Once the objective is
determined, the Commission should establish its
acceptable level of accuracy. Both elements
should be incorporated into the Commission's
sampling methodology in order to select a
statistically significant sample size that will
allow the Commission to project the results of
its testing to the entire population of data.

Fully Implemented

The Commission established a comprehensive strategy—Chapter 341
Data of the Compliance Resource Manual—for testing the integrity of
data that departments submit. The strategy has clear objectives and
the acceptable levels of accuracy for each standard (if applicable to
the testing of the standard). The sampling methodology is also
detailed in the Compliance Resource Manual, and the Commission
uses a software application to select a random sample that is
significant in size.

Include the Program Type data field in data
testing at the departments.

Fully Implemented

The Program Type data field is included in Chapter 341 of the
Compliance Resource Manual, which covers data integrity testing at
the departments.

Focus efforts on identifying the systemic
problems that lead to the data errors identified
during field monitor on-site testing, and
dedicate resources to solving those problems to
prevent future errors.

Fully Implemented

Field Services’ monitors visited all 169 juvenile probation
departments in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and tested the
departments’ juvenile data. Based on this, the Commission’s
executive management decided to stop data integrity testing during
field visits and instead rely on edit checks completed at the
Commission. According to the Commission, the edit checks have been
more beneficial in discovering data errors than the field visits.

Determine a way to provide accurate
information for the Average Cost per Day for
Intensive Supervision Programs performance
measure.

Fully Implemented

The Commission changed its methodology for calculating the Average
Cost per Day for Intensive Supervision Programs performance
measure. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Commission calculated
the performance measure using data from all counties and provided
more accurate information for the performance measure.

Regularly report the results of data integrity
testing during Board meetings. Also consider
posting the results of this testing on the
Commission's Web site in an effort to hold the
departments more accountable for data
integrity.

Incomplete/Ongoing

The Commission is not consistently providing information to the Board
concerning data integrity. The Commission stopped conducting data
integrity testing after fiscal year 2005, and has added new edit and
reasonableness checks. The results of the edit and reasonableness
checks are not consistently reported to the Board.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 6

Status of the Commission’s Implementation of Prior Audit Recommendations
Related to Monitoring and Enforcement
Recommendation

Implementation Status

Develop written procedures to formalize system
development processes. At a minimum, written
procedures should include:

Auditor Comments

Fully Implemented

The Commission developed and documented formal software
development project management guidelines. Individual project
documentation for systems (Caseworker and COMETS) is also
available. Subsequent software development projects have followed
recommended methodologies.

Retain system design documentation (in addition
to program source code) to assist programmers
in gaining an understanding of the Commission's
automated systems. The Commission should
develop written guidelines identifying the types
of documentation programmers should retain,
and these guidelines should be included into the
Management Information Systems division's
policies and procedures manual.

Fully Implemented

The Commission's policy and procedures include this requirement.
The documentation of the systems (Caseworker and COMETS) contains
the required elements. Subsequent software development projects
retained recommended documentation.

Prevent programmers from moving programs
from the test environment to production. To
reduce the risk that programmers could
introduce flawed programs into the production
environment, an independent staff member in
the Management Information Systems division
should be responsible for moving all programs to
the production environment. This requirement
should be added to the existing policy for
application development standards.

Fully Implemented

The Commission implemented a formal change control process.
However, some minor changes are still performed ad hoc directly to
production applications. The changes are limited to spelling errors
and other minor mistakes.

Restrict programmers' access to production data.

Not Implemented

Due to the small size of the Commission’s information technology
shop, this is still an issue. One technician is a programmer, database
administrator, and network administrator.

Involve the Commission's internal auditor in the
system design process. The internal auditor
should participate in reviewing major system
development projects and general system
controls.

Fully Implemented

Development of the COMETS application used a formal process that
involved the internal auditor's and end-users' input. The application
has audit trails.

ƒ Detailed system development procedures

requiring sign-off from the responsible parties
throughout the course of the development
project.

ƒ The development of a master plan prior to
the start of a project to identify system
interdependencies.

Recommendations

The Commission should develop, document, or implement:
ƒ

Criteria for objectively imposing sanctions for violations of state juvenile
probation standards.

ƒ

Criteria, as well as written policies and procedures, for imposing sanctions
on departments that employ noncertified individuals who are designated as
a perpetrator in a Commission abuse, neglect, and exploitation
investigation.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 7

ƒ

Written policies and procedures that require appropriate Commission staff
members to follow up on the certification and employment status of
individuals who are designated as perpetrators in a Commission abuse,
neglect, and exploitation investigation.

ƒ

Timelines for when and how often information should be entered into the
Commission’s Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Database.

ƒ

Written policies and procedures that describe (1) when a compliance or
non-compliance should be issued and (2) when and how to issue
monitoring reports to the departments.

ƒ

Additional risk factors, such as the amount of time since the previous visit
or number of certified officers, in the risk assessment process for local
probation departments and certification/recertification.

ƒ

Comprehensive written policies and procedures, covering all divisions,
that provide an overall understanding of the purpose of each area's
function, as well as detailed descriptions of critical steps necessary to
properly carry out each function. The written procedures also should
include action plans for situations that may arise when departments do not
comply with the Commission's procedures and rules.

ƒ

Written policies and procedures requiring staff to communicate
information that is essential to the probation departments' compliance with
standards between all divisions (using the Contact Activity Tracking
System, CATS). Specifically, the Commission should emphasize the
importance of communication between the Field Services Division
(specifically, the Compliance Monitoring Unit and the Abuse, Neglect,
and Exploitation Unit) and the Training and Certification Division.

ƒ

Written policies and procedures for the certification/recertification
processes performed by the Commission, including placing a department
on probationary status.

Additionally, the Commission should:
ƒ

Track the length of time that it takes to complete investigations, review
outstanding investigations, and conduct a supervisory review of completed
investigations to monitor the timeliness and quality of abuse, neglect, and
exploitation investigations and data entry in the Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation Database.

ƒ

Report all allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation to local law
enforcement within the 24-hour period as defined in Title 37, Texas
Administrative Code, Section 349.46(a), or amend the code to allow the
Commission to report allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation to

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 8

local law enforcement by the next business day after the receipt of the
allegation.
ƒ

Dedicate sufficient resources to ensure that the Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation Database is updated in a timely manner.

ƒ

Maintain a log and documentation of the cases deleted from the Abuse,
Neglect, and Exploitation Database.

ƒ

Implement a supervisory review (prior to the closing of monitoring
reports) of the compliance and non-compliance in the COMETS
monitoring reports, reviewer workbooks, and the supporting
documentation for the Performance Improvement Plan process to ensure
that documentation is complete and that all compliances and
noncompliances are documented.

ƒ

Develop and provide formal training for Field Services’ monitors
regarding the documentation for monitoring visits. The training should
specifically address how to document compliance, non-compliance, and
start and end dates in COMETS and the reviewer workbook, as well as the
process for providing monitoring reports to departments.

ƒ

Provide the departments with more in-depth training during the
Commission’s annual budget workshop on (1) how to develop measurable,
quantifiable contract terms and performance measures for service provider
contracts and (2) how to effectively monitor service provider contracts.

ƒ

Consider reporting information regarding the results of its information
technology systems’ automated edit and reasonableness checks to the
Board.

ƒ

Institute the use of a mitigating control for excessive access, such as
programmers’ access to production code. This control could be an audit
trail and supervisory monitoring of the audit trail.

ƒ

Segregate job duties within the Management Information Systems
division. If this is not possible, the Commission should implement a
supervisory review process of automated system audit trails.

Management’s Response

The Commission should develop, document, or implement:
Criteria for objectively imposing sanctions for violations of state juvenile
probation standards.
Concur. Although the Commission has developed a comprehensive set of
sanctions, formal approval by the Commission’s board is lacking. The due
An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 9

process measures afforded in the Commission’s Compliance Improvement
System (e.g., corrective actions, adverse actions, board actions and financial
actions) will be formalized in policy and procedure. In addition, approval by
the board will be requested.
Criteria, as well as written policies and procedures, for imposing sanctions on
departments that employ non-certified individuals who are designated as a
perpetrator in a Commission abuse, neglect, and exploitation investigation.
Concur. Currently, every designated perpetrator (certified or not) is entered
into the database. If a designated perpetrator subsequently applies for
certification or recertification, the name and other identifying information is
flagged within the database. The certification officer can then confirm and
verify that the applicant for certification is in fact a previously designated
perpetrator. It is important to note that a prior designation as perpetrator of
abuse, neglect, or exploitation does not automatically prohibit that person's
future employment or certification as a juvenile probation officer or a
detention officer. The Commission employs various disciplinary sanctions
less severe than a life-time revocation or prohibition from future certification.
In the case of a local jurisdiction employee that serves in non-certifiable
capacity (i.e., JPO or JDO) and who also happens to be a designated
perpetrator, the Commission may elect to execute existing contract sanctions.
The applicable FY 08 State Financial Assistance Contract provisions are as
follows:
ƒ

Article V, Section 5.7. Health and Safety of Youth. Grantee shall
provide juvenile probation programs and services to serve the youth under
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or courts within the Grantee’s
jurisdiction and shall ensure all programs, services and facilities provide
adequate health and safety protections, procedures, and policies for all
youth being served. The Commission may issue a Non-Compliance
Citation Report (NCCR), cease or suspend funding or impose any other
sanctions available under administrative rules or other applicable laws
for failure to protect the health and safety of youth.

ƒ

Article VII, Section 7.6.1.3. Termination for Cause. This Contract may
be terminated immediately by the Commission, when the life, health,
welfare or safety of individuals served by or under the authority of the
Grantee is endangered or could be endangered either directly or
indirectly through the Grantee’s intentional, willful or negligent discharge
of its duties under this Contract. For purposes of this Contract, willful or
negligent discharge of duties includes, but is not limited to, a finding or
pattern of findings by the Commission of “Reason to Believe” in an abuse,
neglect or exploitation investigation occurring in connection with a
juvenile justice facility, juvenile justice program, or the provision of
juvenile probation services.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 10

Written policies and procedures that require appropriate Commission staff
members to follow up on the certification and employment status of
individuals who are designated as perpetrators in a Commission abuse,
neglect, and exploitation investigation.
Concur. Currently, investigators inquire regarding employment status at the
conclusion of the internal investigation. The Abuse Neglect and Exploitation
(ANE) draft standards under Section 358.810 (10) will require that the
internal investigation report include the employment status of the individual
who was the subject of the investigation. The Commission has proposed
changes to the ANE database which will allow ANE investigators to track the
status of the certification or disciplinary process. Additionally, follow up
procedures will be incorporated into the unit’s policy and procedure manual.
Timelines for when and how often information should be entered into the
Commission’s Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Database.
Concur. This recommendation has been addressed, at least partially, through
the revision of the division’s policy and procedure manual which was updated
in March 2007. The policy and procedure gives specific guidelines for data
entry under Section 11.03. Ticklers will be added to remind an investigator of
an open case that has had no entries for a certain number of days. In addition,
a review process will be implemented for completed cases.
Written policies and procedures that describe (1) when a compliance or noncompliance should be issued and (2) when and how to issue monitoring
reports to the departments.
Concur. The Commission’s Compliance Monitoring Unit will adopt
formalized policies and procedures to ensure that all Compliance Resource
Specialists are consistent in their identification and formal citation of all
standards non-compliances. Policy and procedure will clarify that absent
very limited formalized exemptions such as those requiring supervisory or
executive level approval, all standards non-compliances will be cited within a
COMETS-based report. In addition to policy and procedure requirements,
additional accountability measures for this recommendation will be
incorporated into a formalized training program for Compliance Resource
Specialists, and into individual and unit level performance evaluations.
Additional risk factors, such as the amount of time since the previous visit or
number of certified officers, in the risk assessment process for local probation
departments and certification/recertification.
Concur. The Commission’s Compliance Monitoring Unit will modify its
single variant “risk-assessment” formula to a multi-variant formula in order
to establish enhanced monitoring frequency and scope determinations for the
Unit’s monitoring of the State’s probation departments’ compliance with TAC
341 and 349 requirements.
An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 11

Comprehensive written policies and procedures, covering all divisions that
provide an overall understanding of the purpose of each area's function, as
well as detailed descriptions of critical steps necessary to properly carry out
each function. The written procedures also should include action plans for
situations that may arise when departments do not comply with the
Commission's procedures and rules.
Concur. Comprehensive policy and procedure manuals detailing each unit’s
functions were updated and became effective in March 2007. Every function
of the Commission, including the critical steps to properly carry out each
function, is contained in the each unit/division’s manual. However,
procedures do not include action plans for situations that may arise when
departments do not comply with the Commission’s rules. In addition,
emphasis will be placed on the development of policies specific to unit
involvement in the initiation (e.g., verification and recommendation practices)
of corrective or adverse actions for department’s or facilities that demonstrate
significant or repeated non-compliant practices. These procedures will be
added specific to each unit.
Written policies and procedures requiring staff to communicate information
that is essential to the probation departments' compliance with standards
between all divisions (using the Contact Activity Tracking System, CATS).
Specifically, the Commission should emphasize the importance of
communication between the Field Services Division (specifically, the
Compliance Monitoring Unit and the Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Unit)
and the Training and Certification Division.
Concur. The CATS system was designed as an internal agency
communication system and therefore information contained in the system is
viewed by all staff. Due to the confidential nature of ANE records, it was
decided that use of the system by ANE would not be prudent. The Commission
plans to add a module for instance that can flag the certification unit and/or
the field services unit of a potential problem with an officer or department.
Written policies and procedures requiring staff to communicate information
on department’s standards compliance using the CATS system will be added
to each unit/division manual.
Written policies and procedures for the certification/recertification processes
performed by the Commission, including placing a department on
probationary status.
Concur. Although the Commission has some policies and procedures in place
specific to certification/recertification, there are no policies and
procedures that describe the steps needed to be taken to approve or deny
certification. These steps will be added to the Certification Guidelines
Manual.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 12

Track the length of time that it takes to complete investigations, review
outstanding investigations, and conduct a supervisory review of completed
investigations to monitor the timeliness and quality of abuse, neglect, and
exploitation investigations and data entry in the Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation Database.
Concur. Section 11.07 of the ANE Unit’s policy and procedure manual
addresses this recommendation to some degree in that an investigator is
required to complete the preliminary investigation within 10 days of the
receipt of the internal investigation. However, no current time requirement
for the completion of the comprehensive investigation exists. Based on history,
the completion of a comprehensive investigation is reliant on so many
variables and therefore difficult to assign a realistic timeframe for
completion. For example, the Commission cannot move forward with its
investigation until local law enforcement completes their investigation. In
spite of these uncontrollable circumstances, the Commission will improve its
efforts to track the length of time it takes to complete investigations.
Currently, internal policy requires that all cases resulting in a “Reason to
Believe” finding must be staffed with the unit supervisor. In the future, a
sample of completed cases from each investigator will be reviewed by the unit
supervisor to ensure quality and timeliness of the investigations.
Report all allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation to local law
enforcement within the 24-hour period as defined in Title 37, Texas
Administrative Code, Section 349.46(a), or amend the code to allow the
Commission to report allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation to local
law enforcement by the next business day after the receipt of the allegation.
Concur. The Commission is in the process of developing and implementing
procedures for investigators to be placed on an “on call status” during
weekends. Another option under consideration is amending the Texas
Administrative Code to mirror the Texas Family Code which allows for a 48hour reporting period.
Dedicate sufficient resources to ensure that the Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation Database is updated in a timely manner.
Concur. The ANE unit/division receives referrals from 87 juvenile facilities
and 168 juvenile probation departments and consists of only four
investigators for the entire state. The unit’s ability to enter information into
the database in a timely manner is sometimes difficult. Prescriptive policies
and procedures revised in March 2007 have helped improve with timeliness
as has electronic alerts added to the database that remind the assigned
investigator of certain deadlines. Additional improvements to the ANE
database are in the planning phase.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 13

Maintain a log and documentation of the cases deleted from the Abuse,
Neglect, and Exploitation Database.
Concur. The Management Information System’s (MIS) division will
coordinate with the ANE division to incorporate a “flag as deleted” approach
for case records in the ANE system. This will remove the records from the
logical view, but will leave the data intact within the system itself accessible
only with proper security clearance.
Implement a supervisory review (prior to the closing of monitoring reports) of
the compliance and non-compliance in the COMETS monitoring reports,
reviewer workbooks, and the supporting Documentation for the Performance
Improvement Plan process to ensure that documentation is complete and that
all compliances and noncompliances are documented.
Concur. The Commission’s Compliance Monitoring Unit will establish a
limited review process which may consist of multiple levels of review and
accountability to insure the accuracy of unit’s monitoring documentation and
final formal reports. The new accountability measures will likely incorporate
self-assessment, peer, and supervisory level reviews. Additional
accountability measures for this recommendation will be incorporated into a
formalized training program for Compliance Resource Specialists and into
individual and unit level performance evaluations.
Develop and provide formal training for Field Services’ monitors regarding
the documentation for monitoring visits. The training should specifically
address how to document compliance, non-compliance, and start and end
dates in COMETS and the reviewer workbook, as well as the process for
providing monitoring reports to departments.
Concur. The Commission’s Compliance Monitoring Unit (Field Services) will
develop a formal training program for all new (hired after September 2007)
Compliance Resource Specialists. The training program will include specific
curriculum, competency, field work, and mentoring components. Existing
(those hired before September 2007) Compliance Resource Specialists will be
receive formal training if it is determined they lack expected proficiency in
any of their required responsibilities.
Provide the departments with more in-depth training during the Commission’s
annual budget workshop on (1) how to develop measurable, quantifiable
contract terms and performance measures for service provider contracts and
(2) how to effectively monitor service provider contracts.
Concur. During the Commission’s annual budget workshop, the Fiscal Unit
will train juvenile probation staff on how to develop measurable, quantifiable
contract terms and performance measures for the service provider contract.
The presentation will emphasize that each contract should contain a provision
regarding the evaluation criteria process, specific performance goals, output
An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 14

measures and outcome measures based on the type of service to achieve
performance targets. The presentation will include evaluation criteria
examples for non-residential and residential contracts. In addition, juvenile
probation staff will be trained on how to effectively monitor service provider
contracts.
Consider reporting information regarding the results of its information
technology systems’ automated edit and reasonableness checks to the Board.
Concur. The results of the edit and reasonableness checks are meant to
improve the accuracy of the data being provided by the local juvenile
probation department to the agency. As such, this information is
communicated back to the local juvenile department initially upon processing
the submitted data each month and then again in a quarterly statistical report
to help departments adjust any erroneous entries. The Commission will
develop a process of reporting this information to the Board on an annual
basis.
Institute the use of a mitigating control for excessive access, such as
programmers’ access to production code. This control could be an audit trail
and supervisory monitoring of the audit trail.
Concur. The MIS Unit will institute a log and audit trail process to record
programmer access to production code and modification of it. This audit trail
will be reviewed by management personnel.
Segregate job duties within the Management Information Systems division. If
this is not possible, the Commission should implement a supervisory review
process of automated system audit trails.
Concur. The MIS Director will implement a periodic review of the automated
system audit trails to insure no improper activity has occurred and validate
the accuracy and effectiveness of security controls. At the same time, the MIS
Unit will further investigate other options for streamlining this process while
maintaining the overall integrity.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 15

Chapter 2

Departments Are Conducting Comprehensive Criminal History Checks
on Employees, but the Commission Should Enhance Its Abuse, Neglect,
and Exploitation Investigation Processes
In addition to the follow-up work noted in Chapter 1, auditors reviewed
employee personnel files; juvenile grievances; and investigations of abuse,
neglect, and exploitation allegations at the juvenile probation departments
(departments) in Bexar, Harris, Hays, and McLennan counties.
All four departments were conducting criminal history checks of employees in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Two of the four
departments processed and reviewed juvenile grievances in a timely and
appropriate manner. However, one department did not consistently have a
supervisory review, while the other did not always process
grievances in a timely manner.
Criminal History Check
Requirements
Criminal history checks must be
conducted prior to submitting a
certification or recertification
application for juvenile probation or
detention officers. The criminal
history checks include:

Also, two departments appropriately classified and investigated
allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. However, the other
two departments were not consistently reporting and investigating
allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

ƒ A Texas criminal history

Chapter 2-A

background search.

ƒ A local law enforcement sex

offender registration records check
in the city or county where the
applicant resides.

ƒ A Federal Bureau of Investigation

fingerprint based criminal history
background search.

ƒ A state criminal history

background search and state sex
offender registration check if the
applicant currently or previously
resided in any of 11 specific
states.

The criminal history background
search may not be more than 90
calendar days old.

Departments Are Properly Performing Criminal History
Checks of Employees
Auditors reviewed criminal history checks for 111 certified juvenile
probation and detention officers at four departments –Bexar, Harris,
Hays, and McLennan counties—and found that the departments had
conducted criminal history checks (including sex offender checks)
for all 111 officers (100 percent) prior to certification/recertification.
Specifically:
ƒ

For 108 of 108 (100 percent) certified juvenile probation and
detention officers reviewed by auditors, the departments
performed criminal history checks no more than 90 days before
receiving certification or recertification. Three of the officers
did not complete the certification/recertification process.

ƒ

For 63 of 63 (100 percent) recertification applications reviewed
by auditors, the departments performed criminal history checks
less than 60 days after the certification expiration date.

The recertification applications shall
not be sent more than 60 calendar
days after the certification expiration
date.
Source: Title 37, Texas Administrative
Code, Sections 349.8(a)(1),
349.8(a)(3), 349.11(a)(1),
349.11(a)(3), and 349.11(c)(1).

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 16

Chapter 2-B

Two of Four Departments Reviewed Are Not Consistently
Reporting Investigations and Allegations of Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation
Auditors reviewed allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation received by
the four departments between September 1, 2005, and February 28, 2007 to
ensure that allegations were appropriately classified, investigated by the
departments, and for compliance with requirements established
Abuse, Neglect, and
in Texas Administrative Code (TAC) (see text box) for:

Exploitation Requirements

Title 37, Texas Administrative Code,
Section 343.3(b), requires the
following:

ƒ Any employee, volunteer or intern

of a facility shall report to the
Commission and local law
enforcement any allegation of
abuse, exploitation or neglect of a
resident.

ƒ A report of alleged abuse,

exploitation, or neglect shall be
made within 24 hours from the
time the allegation is made.

ƒ

Reporting to the Commission.

ƒ

Reporting to local law enforcement.

ƒ

Providing a copy of the departments’ Internal Investigation
Reports to the Commission.

All allegations reviewed at Harris and Hays counties were
appropriately classified, investigated by the departments, and
reported in accordance with requirements in TAC.

ƒ The facility administrator or

designee shall submit a copy of the
internal investigation to the
Commission within five calendar
days following the completion of
the internal investigation.

At Bexar County, three of 51 (6 percent) allegations logged by
the local juvenile probation department were not reported to the
Commission. For two of these allegations, the Department
provided auditors documented Internal Investigation Reports,
which had not been submitted to the Commission as required by
TAC. For one allegation, the department could not provide any
documentation that it had investigated the allegation.
Additionally, at Bexar County:
ƒ

Eighteen of 19 (95 percent) allegations were appropriately classified and
investigated by the department. No documentation was provided for the
remaining allegation.

ƒ

Four of 19 (21 percent) allegations were not reported to law enforcement
within 24 hours.

ƒ

Five of 19 (26 percent) allegations were not reported to the Commission
within 24 hours.

ƒ

Thirteen of 19 (68 percent) allegations did not have an Internal
Investigation Report submitted to the Commission within five days of
completion.

McLennan County received nine allegations of abuse, neglect, and
exploitation between September 1, 2005, and February 28, 2007. Of these:
An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 17

ƒ

All nine allegations were reviewed, appropriately classified, and
investigated by the department.

ƒ

Two of 9 (22 percent) allegations were not reported to law enforcement
within 24 hours.

ƒ

One of 9 (11 percent) allegations was not reported to the Commission
within 24 hours.

ƒ

Four of 9 (44 percent) allegations did not have an Internal Investigation
Report submitted to the Commission within five days of completion.

The Commission does not currently perform any reconciliation between the
allegations logged by the Commission and the allegations logged by the
departments. The Commission provides training to the departments regarding
the reporting requirements for abuse, neglect, and exploitation allegations and
investigations. However, the Commission does not review the departments’
records for compliance with these reporting requirements. If allegations are
not reported to the Commission in a timely manner, this increases the risk that
a witness, alleged victim, or alleged perpetrator could be moved from the
facility, released, or not able to recall the details of the reported event.
Recommendations

The Commission should:
ƒ

Perform regular monitoring of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation
reporting requirements at departments as part of its regular Field Services
Division monitoring visits.

ƒ

Amend the Texas Administrative Code to require departments to have
detailed policies and procedures regarding the reporting of abuse, neglect,
and exploitation allegations to the Commission and local law enforcement.

ƒ

Perform a periodic reconciliation between the allegations and serious
incidents logged by the departments and the allegations and serious
incidents received from the departments and logged by the Commission to
ensure that all allegations and serious incidents are documented and, if
needed, investigated. This reconciliation should be performed at least
annually.

Management’s Response

Perform regular monitoring of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation reporting
requirements at departments as part of its regular Field Services Division
monitoring visits.
An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 18

Concur. The Commission’s Field Services Division will monitor the
department’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation’s reporting requirements as
part of its regular monitoring visits. Due to the Commission’s inadequate
staff resources, only a small sample will be monitored.
Amend the Texas Administrative Code to require departments to have detailed
policies and procedures regarding the reporting of abuse, neglect, and
exploitation allegations to the Commission and local law enforcement.
Concur. The Commission’s Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Investigations
Unit will amend the draft of Chapter 358 of the Texas Administrative Code to
include this recommendation. All departments, programs and facilities will be
required to implement detailed policies and procedures regarding the
reporting of abuse, neglect and exploitation allegations.
Perform a periodic reconciliation between the allegations and serious
incidents logged by the departments and the allegations and serious incidents
received from the departments and logged by the Commission to ensure that
all allegations and serious incidents are documented and, if needed,
investigated. This reconciliation should be performed at least annually.
Concur. The Commission’s Research and Statistics Division will reconcile
the allegations and serious incidents reported to the Commission with the
number of allegations and serious incidents maintained through their data
management mechanism.

Chapter 2-C

Juvenile Grievances Received by Departments Are Not
Consistently Processed in a Timely and Appropriate Manner
Auditors reviewed a sample of juvenile grievances at departments in Bexar,
Harris, Hays, and McLennan counties for timeliness of review and resolution;
supervisory review; sufficiency of available documentation; and whether the
grievances contained allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation.
Departments in Bexar and Harris counties processed and reviewed grievances
in a timely manner consistent with their policies and procedures. The
department in Hays County responded to all grievances in accordance with its
policies and procedures. However, these policies and procedures did not
contain a time requirement for responding to grievances. The facility
administrator stated that the standard used was that grievances should be
responded to no later than three days after receipt. However, auditors found
14 of 30 (47 percent) grievances reviewed at Hays County were not responded
to within three days. McLennan County processed and reviewed grievances
in a timely manner; however, 10 of 36 (28 percent) grievances reviewed did

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 19

not have a supervisory review as required by the McLennan County
department’s policies and procedures.
In the grievances tested, no allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation
were found. The four departments’ policies and procedures include all
required elements outlined in Title 37, Texas Administrative Code, Section
343.12(h), which states “the facility shall have a written grievance procedure
with at least one level of appeal.” All four departments also had a third party
or supervisory review of all grievances.
Additionally, the Commission’s Field Services Division’s Compliance
Monitoring Unit reviews the departments’ grievance policy and procedures
and interviews 5 percent of the residents detained in the facility on the day of
the monitoring visit. The Texas Administrative Code currently lacks detailed
requirements related to the timeliness and appropriateness of facility
personnel reviewing youth grievances, as well as guidelines for the specific
elements of grievance policies and procedures.
Recommendation

The Commission should consider amending the Texas Administrative Code to
establish detailed requirements for departments in responding to juvenile
grievances to ensure that the response is timely and appropriate.
Management’s Response

Concur. The Commission will amend the Texas Administrative Code to
establish detailed requirements for departments to respond to juvenile
grievances and to ensure that the response is timely and appropriate.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 20

Appendices
Appendix 1

Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Objective
The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Juvenile Probation
Commission (Commission) has taken corrective action on significant issues
related to monitoring and enforcement identified in An Audit Report on the
Juvenile Probation Commission (State Auditor’s Office Report No. 02-060,
July 2002).
Scope
The scope of this audit included reviewing data in the Compliance
Monitoring, Enforcement and Tracking System (COMETS); Automated
Certification Information System (ACIS); and Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation Database (ANE) for fiscal year 2006 and the first and second
quarters of fiscal year 2007.
Methodology
The audit methodology included collecting information, conducting
interviews with Commission, juvenile probation departments, and juvenile
facility personnel; performing selected tests and other procedures; and
analyzing and evaluating the results of the tests.
Information collected and reviewed included the following:
ƒ

Information from interviews with Commission executive management and
staff.

ƒ

Information from interviews with juvenile probation department and preand post-adjudication facility personnel at four counties.

ƒ

Data in COMETS.

ƒ

Data in ANE.

ƒ

Data in ACIS.

ƒ

Commission policies and procedures.

ƒ

Juvenile probation department and pre- and post-adjudication facility
policies and procedures at four counties.

ƒ

Commission monitoring reports and supporting documentation.

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 21

ƒ

Commission Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation investigations’ supporting
documentation.

ƒ

Juvenile probation departments’ personnel files for those individuals
certified by the Commission as juvenile probation officers or juvenile
detention officers.

ƒ

Youth grievances received at department facilities at four counties.

ƒ

The Commission’s Board meeting minutes.

ƒ

The Commission’s COMETS risk-assessment process.

Procedures and testing conducted include the following:
ƒ

Reviewed supporting documentation for monitoring reports.

ƒ

Reviewed supporting documentation for abuse, neglect, and exploitation
investigations.

ƒ

Reviewed supporting documentation for criminal history checks for
certified officers.

ƒ

Reviewed supporting documentation for youth grievances.

Criteria used included the following:
ƒ

Texas Family Code, Chapter 51.

ƒ

Texas Human Resources Code, Chapter 141.

ƒ

Title 37, Texas Administrative Code, Chapters 341, 343, 347-349, 351.

Project Information
Audit fieldwork was conducted from April 2007 through July 2007. This
audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
The following members of the State Auditor’s staff performed the audit:
ƒ

Cesar Saldivar, CGAP (Project Manager)

ƒ

Brianna Lehman (Assistant Project Manager)

ƒ

Katrina M. Schlue

ƒ

Joe Kozak, CPA, CISA (Information Systems Audit Team Member)

ƒ

Worth Ferguson, CPA (Quality Control Reviewer)

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 22

ƒ

Kelly Linder, MSCRP, CGAP (Audit Manager)

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 23

Appendix 2

Recent State Auditor’s Office Work
Recent SAO Work
Number

Product Name

Release Date

02-060

An Audit Report on the Juvenile Probation Commission

July 2002

An Audit Report on Monitoring and Enforcement Functions at the Juvenile Probation Commission
SAO Report No. 07-047
August 2007
Page 24

Copies of this report have been distributed to the following:

Legislative Audit Committee
The Honorable David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor, Joint Chair
The Honorable Tom Craddick, Speaker of the House, Joint Chair
The Honorable Steve Ogden, Senate Finance Committee
The Honorable Thomas “Tommy” Williams, Member, Texas Senate
The Honorable Warren Chisum, House Appropriations Committee
The Honorable Jim Keffer, House Ways and Means Committee

Office of the Governor
The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor

Juvenile Probation Commission
Judge Cheryl Lee Shannon, Chair
Judge Jean Boyd, Vice-chair
Mr. Ed Culver, Commissioner
Mr. Keith H. Kuttler, Commissioner
Ms. Rene Ordonez, Commissioner
Dr. Barbara J. Punch, Commissioner
Mr. Ray West, Commissioner
Ms. Lea R. Wright, Commissioner
Ms. Vicki Spriggs, Executive Director

This document is not copyrighted. Readers may make additional copies of this report as
needed. In addition, most State Auditor’s Office reports may be downloaded from our Web
site: www.sao.state.tx.us.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may also be requested
in alternative formats. To do so, contact our report request line at (512) 936-9880 (Voice),
(512) 936-9400 (FAX), 1-800-RELAY-TX (TDD), or visit the Robert E. Johnson Building, 1501
North Congress Avenue, Suite 4.224, Austin, Texas 78701.
The State Auditor’s Office is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability in employment or in the
provision of services, programs, or activities.
To report waste, fraud, or abuse in state government call the SAO Hotline: 1-800-TX-AUDIT.