|
REPORT DIGEST DEPARTMENT ON AGING COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2004 Summary of Findings: Total this audit 12 Total last audit 2 Repeated from last audit 2 Release Date: March 31, 2005
State of Illinois Office of the Auditor General WILLIAM G. HOLLAND AUDITOR GENERAL To obtain a copy of the
Report contact: Office of the Auditor
General Iles Park Plaza 740 E. Ash Street Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 782-6046 or TTY (888) 261-2887 This Report Digest is also
available on the worldwide web at http://www.state.il.us/auditor
|
SYNOPSIS ¨ The Department made payments for efficiency initiative billings from improper line item appropriations. Efficiency initiative payments totaled $184,216 in fiscal year 2004. ¨ The Department had not established adequate comprehensive security-related policies and procedures for its information systems, nor had it formally assigned a Security Administrator. ¨ The Department did not file certain accounting reports with the Office of the State Comptroller on a timely basis. ¨ The Department did not implement a senior benefit advocacy program statewide through area agencies. ¨ The Department did not implement the provisions of the Community Senior Services and Resources Act. ¨ The Department did not establish specialized Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Centers and develop training modules for the Centers.
{Expenditures and Activity Measures are summarized on the reverse page.} |
DEPARTMENT ON AGING
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For The Two Years Ended
June 30, 2004
|
EXPENDITURE STATISTICS |
FY 2004 |
FY 2003 |
FY 2002 |
|
! Total Expenditures (All Funds)...................... |
$314,301,410 |
$304,434,583 |
$297,869,884 |
|
OPERATIONS TOTAL................................ % of Total Expenditures.......................... Personal
Services.................................... %
of Operations Expenditures.............. Average
No. of Employees.................. Average
Salary Per Employee............. |
$14,436,246 4.59% $4,319,852 29.92% 108 $39,999 |
$14,953,086 4.91% $4,827,994 32.29% 116 $41,621 |
$14,725,610 4.94% $4,812,005 32.68% 125 $38,496 |
|
Other Payroll Costs (FICA,
Retirement).... %
of Operations Expenditures............. |
$1,095,896 7.59% |
$1,268,585 8.48% |
$1,275,233 8.66% |
|
Contractual
Services................................ %
of Operations Expenditures............. |
$308,098 2.13% |
$334,678 2.24% |
$348,927 2.37% |
|
All
Other Items....................................... %
of Operations Expenditures............. |
$8,712,400 60.36% |
$8,521,829 56.99% |
$8,289,445 56.29% |
|
UNAPPROPRIATED
EXPENDITURES & REFUNDS........................................................ %
Of Total Expenditures............................. |
$854,402 .27% |
$1,213,312 .40% |
$314,379 .11% |
|
GRANTS
TOTAL............................................. % of Total Expenditures......................... |
$299,010,762 95.14% |
$288,268,185 94.69% |
$282,829,895 94.95% |
|
! Cost of Property and
Equipment................... |
$1,115,660 |
$1,108,536 |
$1,095,344 |
|
COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM
(Not Examined) |
FY 2004 |
FY 2003 |
FY 2002 |
|
! CCP Average Monthly Caseload (clients)............ |
39,321 |
38,950 |
39,354 |
|
! Prospective Nursing Home Cases Prescreened.... |
78,206 |
73,448 |
69,660 |
|
! Clients Over 75 Living Alone.............................. |
60% |
61% |
61% |
|
! Average Cost Per Client Per Month......................... |
$482 |
$456 |
$445 |
|
The Community Care Program (CCP) provides in-home
homemaker and senior companion services, adult day care and case management
services to persons aged 60 years and older.
Services are designed to prevent inappropriate or premature
institutionalization. |
|||
|
AGENCY DIRECTOR |
|
During Audit Period: Mr. Charles D. Johnson (effective 3-1-03);
Ms. Margo E. Schreiber (through 2-28-03) |
|
Currently: Mr. Charles D. Johnson |
|
Department did not receive guidance or documentation with efficiency initiative billings from CMS Auditors question whether the appropriate appropriations were used to pay the anticipated savings
Payments were made from line items that had available monies
Department paid a total of $184,216 for the
efficiency initiative Comprehensive information systems policies and procedures had not been developed
Accounting reports were submitted to the Office of the State Comptroller late - in one instance 70 days late
Senior benefits advocacy program was not implemented
Officials state the program is unfunded
Estimated cost $1.92 million
Community Senior Services and Resource Act was not implemented No rules, regulations, guidelines or directives have been promulgated
Department has not determined the amount of funding to implement the State law
Corrective action being taken by the Department
Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Centers were not established
Training module not developed
Department officials stated funding to open the centers was not provided |
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE BILLINGS
FROM IMPROPER LINE APPROPRIATIONS The Department on Aging (Department) made payments for efficiency
initiative billings from improper line item appropriations. Public Act
93-0025, in part, outlines a program for efficiency initiatives to
reorganize, restructure and reengineer the business processes of the
State. The State Finance Act details
that the amount designated as savings from efficiency initiatives implemented
by the Department of Central Management Services (CMS) shall be paid into the
Efficiency Initiatives Revolving Fund.
“State agencies shall pay these amounts…from the line item
appropriations where the cost savings are anticipated to occur.” The Department did not receive guidance or
documentation with the billings from CMS detailing from which line item
appropriations savings were anticipated to occur. According to Department staff, they received no documentation
or information from CMS detailing the nature and/or type of savings that CMS
anticipated. The only guidance
received was the amount of payments that should be taken from General Revenue
Funds ($181,751) versus Other Funds ($2,465) for the September 2003 billings. Based
on our review, we question whether the appropriate appropriations, as
required by the State Finance Act, were used to pay for the anticipated
savings. For example, the Vehicle
Fleet Management Initiative billing was not paid from the Department’s
Operation of Auto Equipment appropriation. We found that the Department made
payments for these billings not from line item appropriations where
the cost savings were anticipated to have occurred but from a line item that
simply had available monies to make payments from. The Department used: |