Audit Reports

Audit reports are posted on this website after the Advisory Committee on Audits and Financial Accountability (Audit Committee) meeting at which they are presented and accepted. The reports are in Adobe Acrobat format and are reported by Audit Committee meeting date.

In addition to audit reports prepared by the Judicial Council’s Office of Audit Services, other state or private auditing entities, as noted below, periodically audit the judicial branch pursuant to either state law, ongoing grant agreements, or contract.

Audit Services


June 26, 2015 Judicial Council Meeting

February 19, 2015 Judicial Council Meeting

January 22, 2015 Judicial Council Meeting

August 22, 2014 Judicial Council Meeting

July 29, 2014 Judicial Council Meeting

June 27, 2014 Judicial Council Meeting

April 25, 2014 Judicial Council Meeting

December 13, 2013 Judicial Council Meeting

August 23, 2013 Judicial Council Meeting

July 25, 2013 Judicial Council Meeting

Other Audit Reports on the Judicial Branch by External Auditors


January 2024 – Report 2023-302
Judicial Council of California: Review of the Judicial Council’s contracting and procurement practices

October 2022 – Report 2021-113
Batterer Intervention Programs: State Guidance and Oversight Are Needed to Effectively Reduce Domestic Violence

January 2022 – Report 2021-302
Judicial Council of California: Review of the Judicial Council’s contracting and procurement practices

January 2021 – Report 2020-301
Judicial Branch Procurement: Courts Generally Met Procurement Requirements, but Some Need to Improve Their Payment Practices

December 2019 – Report 2010-302
Judicial Council of California: Review of the Judicial Council’s contracting and procurement practices

January 2019 – Report 2018-301
Judicial Branch Procurement: Some Superior Courts Generally Followed Requirements but Could Improve Their Procurement Practices

December 2017 - Report 2017-302
Judicial Council of California: It Needs to Follow Competitive Bidding Processes More Consistently and Establish Clear Guidance for Invoice Processing

November 2016 – Report 2016-301
Judicial Branch Procurement: The Five Superior Courts We Reviewed Mostly Adhered to Required and Recommended Practices, but Some Improvements Are Needed

February 2016 – Report 2015-115
Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems

December 2015 – Report 2015-302               
Judicial Branch Procurement:  Although the Judicial Council Needs to Strengthen Controls Over Its Information Systems, Its Procurement Practices Generally Comply With Applicable Requirements

January 2015 – Report 2014-107
Judicial Branch of California:  Because of Questionable Decisions, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts Have Not Maximized the Funds Available for the Courts

November 2014 – Report 2014-301
Judicial Branch Procurement:  Five Superior Courts Did Not Consistency Follow Judicial Branch Contracting Practices

March 2014 – Report 2013-302.1
Administrative Office of the Courts Supplemental Letter Report

December 2013 – Report 2013-302 & 2013-303
Judicial Branch Procurement:  Semiannual Reports to the Legislature Are of Limited Usefulness, Information Systems Have Weak Controls, and Certain Improvements in Procurement Practices Are Needed

March 2013 – Report 2012-301
Judicial Branch Procurement:  Six Superior Courts Generally Complied With the Judicial Branch Contracting Law, but They Could Improve Some Policies and Practices

September 2012 – Report 2011-121
Probationers’ Domestic Violence Payments:  Improved Processes for Managing and Distributing These Payments Could Increase Support for Local Shelters

February 2011 – Report 2010-102
Administrative Office of the Courts:  The Statewide Case Management Project Faces Significant Challenges Due to Poor Project Management

January 2011 – Report 2009-109
Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts:  Both Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules

November 2007 – Report 2007-109              
DNA Identification Fund: Improvements Are Needed in Reporting Fund Revenues and Assessing and Distributing DNA Penalties, but Counties and Courts We Reviewed Have Properly Collected Penalties and Transferred Revenues to the State

August 2006 – Report 2005-131
Judicial Council of California:  Its Governing Committee on Education Has Recently Proposed Minimum Education Requirements for Judicial Officers

February 2002 – Report 2001-117
Superior Courts:  The Courts Are Moving Toward a More Unified Administration; However, Diverse Service, Collection, and Accounting Systems Impede the Accurate4 Estimation and Equitable Distribution of Undesignated Fee Revenue

 

Superior Court of Fresno County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2020-21)

Superior Court of Humboldt County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2020-21)

Superior Court of San Bernardino County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2020-21)

Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2020-21)

Superior Court of Colusa County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2019-20)

Superior Court of Madera County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2019-20)

Superior Court of Tulare County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2019-20)

Superior Court of Ventura County – Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2019-20)

Superior Court of Yuba County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2019-20)

Judicial Council of California – Fiscal Compliance Audit (FY 2019-20)

Superior Court of Kern County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2018-19)

Superior Court of Merced County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2018-19)

Superior Court of Placer County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2017-18)

Superior Court of Stanislaus County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2018-19)

Superior Court of Solano County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2018-19)

Superior Court of El Dorado County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2017-18)

Superior Court of San Joaquin County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2017-18)

Superior Court of Sutter County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2017-18)

Judicial Council of California – Fiscal Compliance Audit (FY 2017-18)

Superior Court of Sonoma County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2016-17)

Superior Court of San Mateo County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2016-17)

Superior Court of Tehama County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2016-17)

Superior Court of Amador County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY2016-17)

Superior Court of Sacramento County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2016-17)

Superior Court of Yolo County - Validity of Recorded Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances (FY 2016-17)

Judicial Council of California – Fiscal Compliance Audit (FY 2015-16)

Court revenue audits of the superior courts are located by year.