Skip to main content
Skip to list of reports Filters

Date Range

Report Category

Submitting Agency

State (State and Local Reports)

Reports

Search reports, investigative results, and agency plansShowing 11 - 15 of 15 results
California State Auditor

Judicial Branch Procurement: Courts Generally Met Procurement Requirements, but Some Need to Improve their Payment Practices

This report concludes that the five courts we reviewed for this audit—the superior courts in Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Orange, and San Bernardino counties—adhered to most of the required and recommended procurement and contracting practices that we evaluated, but they could improve in certain areas.
California State Auditor

Employment Development Department: Significant Weaknesses in EDD's Approach to Fraud Prevention Have Led to Billions of Dollars in Improper Benefits Payments

Since the surge in pandemic‑related California unemployment claims began in March 2020, individuals, news organizations, and law enforcement officials have reported many cases of potential and actual UI fraud. Not surprisingly, the pandemic conditions increased EDD’s UI workloads and also resulted in changes to federal UI benefit programs, both of which have created a greater risk of fraud.
North Carolina, City of Charlotte Internal Audit Department

Emergency Procurement Controls

This audit was conducted to determine whether adequate controls have been established to ensure compliance with purchasing requirements, including the appropriate use of emergency purchase exceptions.
North Carolina, City of Charlotte Internal Audit Department

City-wide Procurement Card Monitoring Controls FY 2020

This audit was conducted to determine whether City Procurement’s monitoring controls for PCards are adequate, with a focus on COVID-19 related purchases.
California State Auditor

State High Risk State Management of Federal COVID-19 Funding

This letter report identifies 18 state agencies that will each be responsible for managing a portion of the federal COVID‑19 funds. Before finalizing our determination to add this issue to the state high risk list, we notified the 18 responsible state agencies about our preliminary determination and invited them to provide their perspective on the issue. We received responses from 12 of the 18 state agencies, and we summarize those responses at the end of this letter.