Responses to report 2605

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F1; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Partially disagrees while saying the form is being updated to cite Section 1203.017(g)(2) and will go to Board.

Audit analysis

Formal F2 cites 1203.018(g)(2); response cites 1203.017(g)(2). Future revision does not explain which part of the present omission is disputed.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F3; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F4; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Disagrees but says attorneys are not notified by Sheriff and a long-standing court agreement provides for court notification.

Audit analysis

Explains an alternative notification route, yet does not clearly identify a disputed portion of the finding that CAF does not send notice to the last attorney.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F6; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Disagrees, citing participant notice and written/Inmate Request appeal routes under Section 1203.016(d)(2).

Audit analysis

Concrete appeal mechanisms do not squarely answer the effect of missing attorney notice on effective representation. Reasons for rejecting that proposition are incomplete.

Response says

Partially disagrees: maintains race information since 2025, but not age, gender or residential address.

Audit analysis

Separates collected and uncollected fields but does not establish public reporting of demographic information, which is the formal finding’s proposition.

Response says

Partially disagrees, citing internal tracking of disqualifications and reasons since 2017 for operational/oversight purposes.

Audit analysis

Internal maintenance does not squarely resolve whether who is denied is reported; disputed reporting scope remains incomplete.

Response says

Partially disagrees, citing internal tracking of denial reasons since 2017.

Audit analysis

Tracking is concrete but differs from reporting reasons; no identified public report or explicit reporting scope is supplied.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F11; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees: most personnel and overhead costs are shared; separate program accounting would need new methods and time tracking.

Audit analysis

Explains the disaggregation gap through finding-specific cost-allocation constraints, without identifying a cost study or dataset.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F13; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F14; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Will revise appeals policy and notices to state denial reasons, appeal rights and review procedures.

Audit analysis

Response names Policy 2.19.02 while report discusses 2.19.03. Preserve discrepancy; no completion date stated.

Response says

Declines duplicate attorney notices, citing access to counsel, staffing burden and possible end of representation.

Audit analysis

Explains refusal; does not independently establish adequacy of counsel access or legal compliance.

Response says

Will publish aggregate denial/disqualification demographics through Transparency Portal while protecting privacy.

Audit analysis

Future publication is explicit, but neither full demographic field scope nor completion date is given.

Response says

Declines publishing denial reasons because records may contain criminal-justice, medical or protected information.

Audit analysis

Explains privacy rationale and continued aggregate program reporting; not an independent disclosure-law ruling.

Response says

Declines recidivism reporting because necessary cross-jurisdiction arrest, conviction and incarceration data are not maintained.

Audit analysis

Concrete data-access rationale for refusal.

Response says

Declines separate program cost accounting because new allocation systems would consume resources without sufficient benefit.

Audit analysis

Explains resource and accounting objections; no independent cost-benefit verification.

Response says

Is developing iPad forms in English, Spanish and Mandarin with text-to-speech and electronic signatures.

Audit analysis

Specific delivery mechanism, but no completion date or independently verified rollout.