Submit a Tip to the
California State Auditor

Re: Form 990 anomalies — [ORGANIZATION NAME], EIN [XX-XXXXXXX]

To the State Auditor:

I am submitting public-records analysis suggesting that [ORGANIZATION
NAME] (EIN [XX-XXXXXXX], based in [CITY, CA]) warrants review. The
organization received approximately $[STATE GRANT TOTAL] in California
state grants during fiscal year [YEAR] from [STATE AGENCY OR PROGRAM].

Public IRS Form 990 filings for the same period show patterns warranting
follow-up:

1. Officer compensation: $[OFFICER COMP TOTAL] paid to one officer at an
   organization reporting total expenses of $[TOTAL EXPENSES]. That ratio
   ([X]% of expenses to one officer) is substantially above the sector
   median of 8-10% reported by CharityNavigator and GuideStar.

2. Year-over-year change: Officer compensation grew [X]% from the prior
   fiscal year ($[PRIOR] -> $[CURRENT]) during the same period the
   organization received state grants.

3. State funding vs. reported revenue: The state's published grant award
   database shows $[STATE GRANT TOTAL] in CA grants during a year for
   which the organization reports total revenue of $[REPORTED REVENUE]
   on Form 990. The discrepancy may be explained by multi-year
   disbursement, fiscal sponsorship, or restricted-grant accounting —
   but it warrants confirmation.

Public records cited:
- Form 990 (Tax Year [YEAR]): projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/[EIN]
- CA Grants Portal: data.ca.gov/dataset/california-grants-portal
- Methodology and data: github.com/switzloco/realwork

I am not making a legal determination of fraud. I am surfacing a pattern
present in public records that I believe warrants review by an entity
with subpoena authority. I am happy to provide additional underlying
data on request.

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
[CONTACT]

Re: Repeated threshold-edge purchase orders — [VENDOR NAME] / [STATE AGENCY]

To the State Auditor:

I am submitting public-records analysis suggesting that a pattern of
state purchase orders to [VENDOR NAME] from [STATE AGENCY] warrants
review. The pattern was identified through automated analysis of the
DGS Purchase Order public dataset.

The pattern:
- [N] purchase orders to [VENDOR NAME] at amounts of exactly $[THRESHOLD-1]
  each (totaling $[TOTAL])
- [N] of those POs issued by a single procurement officer within a
  [N]-day window
- $[THRESHOLD-1] is exactly $[GAP] below the [STATE AGENCY]'s
  competitive-bidding threshold of $[THRESHOLD], above which formal
  bid solicitation is required under Public Contract Code §§ 10301-10340
- No subcontractors disclosed on any PO

Charitable explanations to rule out:
- Emergency procurement. [If applicable: "The window coincides with
  [EVENT, e.g., wildfire response]. Expedited procurement rules may
  apply. However, emergency procurement is expected to produce
  variable PO amounts sized to actual operational need, not identical-
  amount POs across a window when underlying need varied substantially."]
- Recurring supply relationship. A single ongoing vendor relationship
  typically produces POs at varied amounts reflecting actual purchase
  quantities, not identical sums repeating across multiple separate POs.

The factual pattern matches the bid-splitting signature documented in
the 2019 federal prosecution of three Caltrans procurement officials
(USA v. Yong, Miller, Opp — 49 to 78 month sentences, $3M restitution).

Public records cited:
- DGS Purchase Order data: data.ca.gov/dataset/purchase-order-data
- Specific PO numbers: [LIST]
- Methodology: github.com/switzloco/realwork

I am not alleging fraud. I am identifying a procurement pattern matching
documented fraud signatures and asking that your office determine
whether the underlying decisions complied with State Contracting Manual
provisions on threshold-edge purchasing.

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
[CONTACT]

Re: Systemic compliance gap — AB-132 post-award disbursement tracking

To the State Auditor:

I am writing to report a systemic data-integrity issue, not a specific
entity finding. The Grant Information Act of 2018 (AB-2252, codified at
Government Code §§ 8333-8334.1) and AB-132 require grantmaking state
agencies to track post-award disbursement of state grants. This data is
required to be published on the California Open Data Portal.

The finding: We pulled both available fiscal years (FY 2022-23 and FY
2023-24) from data.ca.gov's CKAN API. Of 26,907 grant records totaling
$36,585,412,711 in awards, the totalAwardUsed field is empty on 100% of
records. No grantmaker has reported post-award disbursement under the
statutorily-required schema.

The implication is that the state currently has no centralized record
of whether any of $36.5 billion in awarded grants was actually spent as
awarded. This affects oversight at every level — your office, the
legislature, journalists, and any qui tam attorney evaluating cases
under the California False Claims Act.

Public records / reproduction:
- CKAN resource (FY 22-23): 86870d5c-e9fa-46f5-8f86-2a9893662ce1
- CKAN resource (FY 23-24): 018f3523-652d-4197-a4a8-a055bfd1544f
- Pull script: github.com/switzloco/realwork/blob/main/src/audit/disbursement_audit.py

I would welcome any guidance on whether this gap is known to your
office, whether the responsible agencies have been issued findings, and
whether AB-132 compliance is on your current high-risk audit list.

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
[CONTACT]