|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE
BILLINGS FROM IMPROPER LINE ITEM APPROPRIATIONS
The
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.
The Act further requires State agencies to pay these amounts from line
item appropriations where 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. Department staff reported that
the Department has not experienced any savings from the initiatives. The only guidance received was the amount
of payments that should be taken from General Revenue Funds versus other
funds for the September 2003 billings.
However, the Department paid all the billings from General Revenue
Fund appropriations.
The
Department made payments for these billings not from line item appropriations
where the cost savings were anticipated to have occurred but from the line
items that could afford the payments.
The Department used:
-
$2,887,191 from personal services appropriations from the
Child Welfare-Downstate Regions Division.
-
$2,500,000 from personal services appropriations from the
Child Welfare-Cook Region Division.
-
$1,150,000 from personal services appropriations from the
Child Protection-Cook Region Division.
The Department paid a
total of $6,537,191 for the efficiency initiatives. (Finding 1, pages 12-13)
We recommended the
Department only make payments for efficiency initiative billings from line
item appropriations where savings would be anticipated to occur. Further, the Department should seek an
explanation from the Department of Central Management Services as to how
savings levels were calculated, or otherwise arrived at, and how savings
achieved or anticipated impact the Department's budget.
Department officials responded
that some of the savings were expected to be in the payroll appropriations as
a result of potential consolidation of staff but other appropriation line
items would have also been impacted.
Further, the Department intended to make appropriate expenditure
transfers to the lines that savings actually occurred once they were
realized. Also, they stated CMS will
provide information to the Department on the method by which savings
estimates were derived.
INCOMPLETE
AND UNTIMELY CHILD WELFARE AND FOSTER CARE FILES
The
Department's Child Welfare and Foster Care files lacked required
documentation. During our review of
60 case files, we noted: 6 initial
case plans were not maintained in the file and 14 initial case plans were not
prepared on a timely basis; 1 case file could not be located; 19
administrative case reviews were not prepared timely; and 3 medical and
dental consent forms were not maintained in the file. Also, six files out of 30 tested did not
contain current photos of the child.
Department procedures and State law (705 ILCS 405/2-10.1, Juvenile
Court Act of 1987) prescribe deadlines and documentation requirements for
file maintenance. The failure to
follow Department procedures and State law or maintain documentation of such
is not in the best interest of the children being served. (Finding 2, pages 14-15) This
finding was first reported in 1998.
Department
officials stated they will continue to stress the importance of timely
preparation and retention of documentation in child welfare files. They stated they have been implementing
revised practices for providing childcare using the new practices in
designing and implementing a new information system. They intend to include controls for much
of the required documentation in the new system. (For the previous agency response, see Digest Footnote #1.)
OVERDUE CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS
Reports of child abuse and neglect were not always determined
within 60 days as required by the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting
Act. The Act states the Department
shall determine, within 60 days, whether a report is "unfounded" or
"indicated" and provides that the Department may extend the period
up to an additional 30 days for good cause.
Department statistics indicate the following noncompliance:
Fiscal
Total Reports Not Percent of Reports
Year Reports In Compliance Not In Compliance
2004 62,069 1,294 2.08%
2003 58,956 952 1.61%
2002 59,080 492 0.83%
2001 59,003 226 0.38%
2000 61,787 187 0.30%
1999 62,054 1,502 2.42%
1998 65,877 2,125 3.23%
1997 68,124 1,223 1.80%
Failure to make a determination of a report within 60 days is
a violation of the Act, could delay the implementation of a service plan, and
could result in further endangerment of the child. (Finding 5, pages 18-19)
This finding was first reported
in 1998.
We recommended the Department determine reports of child
abuse or neglect within 60 days as mandated by State law.
Department officials stated they will continue in their efforts
to achieve 100% compliance in the future.
(For the previous agency response, see Digest Footnote #2.)
NEED TO INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF RECEIPT
The Department did not initiate an investigation of every
child abuse and neglect case within 24 hours of receipt of the report as
required by the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act. Department statistics indicate the
following noncompliance:
Fiscal Total
Reports Not Percent of Reports
Year Reports In Compliance Not In Compliance
2004 62,311 268 0.43%
2003 59,397 220 0.37%
2002 59,241 517 0.87%
2001 60,054 141 0.23%
2000 61,787 219 0.35%
1999 62,618 250 0.40%
1998 65,862 461 0.70%
1997 67,657 426 0.63%
Failure to respond to a report of abuse or neglect within 24
hours is a violation of the Act and could result in further endangerment of
the child. (Finding 6, pages
20-21) This finding was first reported in 1998.
We recommended the Department continue to strive to initiate
investigations of all child abuse and neglect reports within 24 hours of
receiving the report as mandated by State law.
Department officials responded they will continue efforts to
try to achieve 100% compliance in the future. (For the previous agency response, see Digest Footnote #3.)
UNTIMELY APPROVAL OF
CONTRACTS
The Department did not have an adequate system in place to
ensure that contracts are reviewed and signed on a timely basis. During our review of 36 contracts, we
noted that 18 contracts, totaling $61,938,877, were signed after the
beginning of the contract period. All
contracts must be approved prior to services being performed. Sound internal control requires contracts
be reviewed and signed prior to their inception to be binding and enforceable. Department personnel indicated they are
unable to sign contracts until the amount has been appropriated which occurs
after the start of the fiscal year.
(Finding 7, page 22) This
finding was first reported in 2002.
We recommended the Department process and approve the
contracts before the beginning of the contract period. A contractual clause can be used to make
the contracts effective subsequent to the appropriation being signed into
law.
Department officials responded they have reviewed procedures
and contract language to develop processes that will allow compliance with
applicable rules and statutes and a number of changes have been made. They stated a new tracking mechanism has
been implemented which has increased accountability over each contract and
enhanced efficiencies in processing contract information. (For the previous agency response, see
Digest Footnote #4.)
NEED TO VERIFY INTERSTATE
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
The Department does not annually verify that adoption
assistance agreements for children who are subject to agreements with another
state are still in force or have been renewed. The Interstate Compact on Adoption Act requires the Department
to at least annually establish that the agreement is still in force or has been
renewed. According to the Department,
the Department of Human Services (DHS) tracks the children's status, has a
database to monitor the day-to-day activities, and annually verifies that the
adoption assistance agreements are still in force for each child. (Finding 8, page 23) This finding was first reported in
2003.
We recommended the Department establish a tracking system and
annually verify that adoption assistance agreements are still in force or
have been renewed or seek a legislative change to the Act to allow DHS to
perform this function.
Department officials agreed that they are not currently
tracking each of the approximately 600 agreements and that DHS has been
performing this function for the last several years. (For the previous agency response, see
Digest Footnote #5.)
ECONOMIC INTEREST STATEMENTS
FILED LATE
Economic interest statements were not all filed with the
Secretary of State on a timely basis.
During our review of 53 employee economic interest statements, we
noted 16 were filed late ranging from 4 to 20 days. The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act requires certain persons
file a statement by May 1st of each year or be subject to
penalties. Failure to file by May 31st
shall result in forfeiture of position of employment. (Finding 9, page 24)
Department officials agreed with our recommendation to
continue to monitor employees and send reminders about the requirement to
file the statements and the consequences of not doing so.
PERSONAL USE OF STATE
VEHICLES NOT REPORTED AND INCLUDED IN EMPLOYEE'S INCOME
Taxable fringe benefits relating to the personal use of State
vehicles were not properly added to employee's income. We noted eight employees had personal use
of State vehicles for commuting to and from the office. According to the Internal Revenue Service
requirements, the Department should treat the fair value of employee personal
use of a State vehicle as a taxable fringe benefit to be included in the
employee's income. Commuting to and
from the office in a State vehicle is considered personal use of the
vehicle. (Finding 11, page 27)
We recommended the Department implement a procedure to add
the required amount to each employee's income who is provided a State vehicle
which is used for commuting.
Department officials responded they will review procedures to
track personal use of State vehicles and add required amounts to each
employee's income for tax reporting purposes.
EMPLOYEES WORKED OVERTIME
WITHOUT PROPER PRIOR APPROVAL
Department employees worked overtime without proper prior
approval. Department policy requires
that overtime be approved before it is worked. We selected a sample of 73 daily staff attendance reports where
overtime was charged and reviewed the related overtime approval sheets. We noted:
-
2 overtime request forms were missing,
-
1 approval sheet was not approved by a supervisor,
-
14 approval sheets were approved after the overtime was
worked,
-
4 employees' timesheets and overtime approval sheets were
missing, and
-
4 overtime approval sheets were not dated by the supervisor.
Failure to obtain proper prior
approval for overtime may result in an employee being compensated for
overtime not actually performed or necessary. During fiscal year 2004, $3,083,262 was paid to 2,045 employees
for overtime. (Finding 12, page
28) This finding was first
reported in 2002.
We recommended the Department enforce its policies
regarding prior approval of overtime.
Department officials responded they will review the
detailed procedures followed to prepare and maintain the completed forms and
revise or re-issue the procedures and instructions for staff and supervisors
as necessary. (For the previous
agency response, see Digest Footnote #6.)
INADEQUATE CONTRACT MONITORING
The Department had not performed effective monitoring of its
residential and group home service providers. The Department contracts with approximately 100 institutions to
provide residential, group home, emergency shelter services, and other
services. The total paid to these
providers during fiscal year 2004 was in excess of $218 million. Many of the institutions have multiple
contracts covering the same annual period with each contract covering a
separate service.
Some of the problems noted relating to these contracts
include:
¨
Service provided before the contract was signed and
approved;
¨
No on-site monitoring for most providers;
¨
No specific measurable criteria within the contracts;
and
¨
Insufficient fiscal monitoring of contract payments.
As currently
described in the service provider contracts, residential providers are to be
monitored predominately through annual licensure reviews, the submission of
annual independent certified audits and interagency financial reports,
reviews of behavioral management plans, monthly reviews of treatment plans,
and following up on incidents reported at the institutions. Although these are the activities that are
supposed to take place, certain of them are either not being performed or are
not sufficient to provide for effective monitoring.
Department
officials indicated that the causes for the lack of regular on-site
monitoring were limited resources to maintain the program, track information,
report on monitoring activities and a lack of specific identifiable
measurable criteria within the service provider contracts. The Department also indicated that
services were provided prior to the approval of contracts due to ongoing
placement at these particular facilities.
There were instances where the Department requested detailed
accounting records from service providers and the Department has not received
them. The Department's inability to
perform effective monitoring does not provide reasonable assurance that the
program is achieving the desired results and that funds are being spent
appropriately. (Finding 14, pages
30-31) This finding was first
reported in 2003.
Department
officials agreed that there was a need for additional monitoring of
residential and group home service providers. Creation of this function was included in their FY 05 budget and
they state the Residential Performance Monitoring Unit is fully functional as
of January 2005. (For the previous
agency response, see Digest Footnote #7.)
INSUFFICIENT MONITORING OF SUBRECIPIENT PROVIDERS
The Department does not perform sufficient monitoring of its
contractors providing services to children.
While the Department has taken some actions, other areas still need to
be addressed.
During a previous audit, we selected three providers that had
contracts with the Department and performed onsite audit procedures in the
areas of expenditures, payroll/personnel, and inventory. The results of this testing indicated that
the Department's monitoring activities were not reasonably designed to detect
instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations by purchase of service
providers. In the last audit we
recommended that the Department:
¨
complete the decision-making process for a provider
with disallowed costs and refer its findings, if appropriate, to the Attorney
General;
¨
devote sufficient resources to the field audit
function; and,
¨
develop more rigorous self-reporting requirements for
providers.
The Department agreed with our
conclusions and accepted the recommendation.
In November 2003, the Department did refer one of the
providers from our original testing to the Attorney General for investigation
or other court action for disallowed costs totaling over $373,000.
At the end of FY 03, the Department did consider the
resources allocated to provider oversight functions in the Office of Field
Audits. However, no action was taken
until May 2004 to increase the headcount of auditing staff. The Office of Field Audits conducts onsite
fiscal audits of provider agencies and is responsible for desk reviews of
provider annual audit reports.
The Department previously responded it would
"consider" implementing additional requirements on provider
reporting. The Department has not
implemented additional requirements on provider reporting, nor were any
documents provided during this audit illustrating any ideas for additional
self-reporting requirements for providers.
(Finding 15, pages 32-33) This
finding was first reported in 2000.
We recommended the Department devote sufficient resources to
the field audit function that allows for sufficient monitoring of provider
organizations. Further, the
Department should develop more rigorous self-reporting requirements for
providers.
Department officials concurred and stated that staffing
levels were increased during FY 04 and the number of audits and desk reviews
has increased as the staff was added.
Additionally, they continue to review the reporting and record keeping
requirements for providers. (For the
previous agency response, see Digest Footnote #8.)
OTHER FINDINGS
The
remaining findings are less significant and are reportedly being given
attention by the Department. We will
review progress toward the implementation of our recommendations during the
next examination.
Mr. Bryan Samuels, Director, provided the Department’s
responses.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
Our
auditors stated the Department's June 30, 2004 financial statements are
fairly presented in all material respects.
____________________________________
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:KMA:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Our special assistant auditors were McGladrey & Pullen,
LLP.
DIGEST
FOOTNOTES
#1: INCOMPLETE AND UNTIMELY CHILD WELFARE AND FOSTER CARE FILES -
Previous Agency Response
2003: The Department continues to stress the
importance of adequate and timely documentation for child and family
cases. As noted in the chart shown in
the finding, many of the cases selected in the sample have been open for more
than three years. For these cases, we
cannot correct past failures, however we strive to ensure current
requirements are met.
Additionally, the
Department has been implementing Best Practices for Child Welfare and using
the new practices in designing and implementing the Statewide Automated Child
Welfare Information System. It is our
intention to automate much of the documentation required to be included in
the child/family case file.
#2: OVERDUE CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS - Previous Agency
Response
2003: The Department will continue its efforts
to achieve 100% compliance. As the
new SACWIS system is implemented statewide, adjustments are made to work
procedures in the use of the system, and as additional training on procedures
and use of the tools provided by automation take place it is expected
compliance will improve.
Management of the Division
of Child Protection meets regularly to discuss investigations that were not
completed within 60 days and where no extension was requested or
granted. The responsible manager must
explain the failure to meet the 60 day requirement and, if warranted, disciplinary
action is initiated against the investigator and their supervisor.
#3: NEED TO INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN 24
HOURS OF RECEIPT - Previous Agency Response
2003: The Department continues to strive to
initiate investigations of all child abuse and neglect reports within 24
hours of receiving reports and achieve 100% compliance. Weekly reports of missed dates are
prepared and analyzed by Quality Assurance/Monitoring personnel and by Child
Protection managers. Child Protection
management meets regularly to identify the cause for any investigation not
meeting the 24-hour investigation initiation. If warranted, disciplinary action is initiated against the
investigator and their supervisor.
#4: UNTIMELY APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS - Previous Agency Response
2003: The Department agrees with the
finding. We are reviewing procedures
and contract language in order to develop a process that will allow
compliance with the applicable rules including filing of late filing
affidavit forms, where required. We
do not believe any improper or unauthorized payments were made during the
fiscal year.
A number of changes have been
made to procedures for developing and administering contracts for
services. A new tracking mechanism
has been implemented which has increased accountability over each contract
and enhanced efficiencies in processing contract information in the
Department's information systems.
#5: NEED TO VERIFY INTERSTATE ADOPTION ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS -
Previous Agency Response
2003: The Department agrees that the DCFS
Interstate Compact office is not currently tracking each of the approximately
600 agreements. However, we believe
the state is in compliance with the spirit of the Interstate Compact on
Adoption Act (45 ILCS 17/5-35). While
DCFS is not currently tracking the agreements, and never has, the Department
of Human Services (DHS) has been performing this function for the last
several years.
DHS, through its Division of
Human Capital Development, is inquiring of adoptive parents, annually, if the
adoption subsidy is still in place.
DHS is also the agency that issues the medical card, administers
payments, and performs the inquiry function by either contacting the IL
caregiver directly or by contacting the sending state. It would be duplicative and costly to have
DCFS develop the staff and mechanisms for handling this function. Therefore, the Department intends to seek
a revision to the Interstate Compact on Adoption Act (45 ILCS 17/5-35) to
allow DHS to perform this function.
#6: OVERTIME WITHOUT PROPER PRIOR APPROVAL - Previous Agency
Response
2003: The Department agrees that no employee
should be compensated for overtime unless it was worked and authorized. The Department will be reviewing the
detailed procedures followed to prepare and maintain the completed forms and
will revise the procedures and instructions for staff and supervisors as
necessary.
#7: INADEQUATE CONTRACT MONITORING - Previous Agency Response
2003: The Department agrees that there is a need
for additional monitoring of residential and group home service
providers. We are currently in the
process of establishing a residential monitoring unit with a target
implementation date of July 2004. The
unit will be responsible for conducting consistent on-site monitoring of
residential and group home facilities that provide treatment for our
children. This unit will establish
measurable criteria for performance and process outcomes that will lead to
quality services and life domain outcomes for our children. The results of the monitoring function
will become an integral part of the contract negotiations with each provider.
In the interim, we will continue
to evaluate resource needs, identify guidelines and criteria for measuring
performance and timely information reporting, and identify ways to enforce
the guidelines not met.
#8: INSUFFICIENT MONITORING OF SUBRECIPIENT PROVIDERS - Previous
Agency Response
2003: The Department concurs. Information identified in the
investigation of the provider has been referred to the Office of the Attorney
General. Additionally, we have
evaluated staffing levels and, as resources permit, plan to add positions in
the field audits unit to help us to do a better job with fiscal monitoring of
contracts.
We are also, as discussed in our
response to Finding #03-10, evaluating reporting criteria and requirements
for these residential subrecipient service providers.
|
