| 
   
 
 REPORT DIGEST   
  GUARDIANSHIP AND
  ADVOCACY COMMISSION 
    COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2005   Summary of Findings:   Total this audit 1 Total last audit 0 Repeated from last audit 0     Release Date: 
  March 8, 2006      
   
 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 Commission made efficiency initiative payments from improper line item appropriations.                                                           {Expenditures and Activity
  Measures are summarized on the reverse page.}      | 
 
                                     GUARDIANSHIP AND ADVOCACY COMMISSION
                                                      COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
                                                     For
The Period Ended June 30, 2005
| 
   
  COMMISSION STATISTICS  | 
  
   FY 2005  | 
  
   FY 2004  | 
  
   FY 2003  | 
 
| 
   
  ·       
  
  Total
  Expenditures (All Appropriated Funds).........................................................   | 
  
   
    
  $7,975,078  | 
  
   
    
  $7,856,479  | 
  
   
    
  $8,520,411  | 
 
| 
   
       OPERATIONS TOTAL..................................  
           % of Total Expenditures.........................   | 
  
   
  $7,975,078 
  100%  | 
  
   
  $7,856,479 
  100%  | 
  
   
  $8,520,411 
  100%  | 
 
| 
   
           Personal Services...................................  
              % of Operations Expenditures...........  
              Average No. of Employees...............   | 
  
   
  $5,885,655 
  74% 
  109  | 
  
   
  $5,897,717 
  75% 
  112  | 
  
   
  $6,311,441 
  74% 
  123  | 
 
| 
   
           Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)...  
              % of Operations Expenditures...........   | 
  
   
  $1,367,704 
  17%  | 
  
   
  $1,126,233 
  14%  | 
  
   
  $1,368,776 
  16%  | 
 
| 
   
           Contractual Services...............................  
              % of Operations Expenditures...........   | 
  
   
  $142,003 
  2%  | 
  
   
  $230,821 
  3%  | 
  
   
  $276,187 
  3%  | 
 
| 
   
           Travel.............................................................  
              % of Operations Expenditures...........   | 
  
   
  $140,482 
  2%  | 
  
   
  $143,731 
  2%  | 
  
   
  $151,797 
  2%  | 
 
| 
   
           Telecommunications.........................................  
              % of Operations Expenditures...........   | 
  
   
  $244,714 
  3%  | 
  
   
  $277,635 
  4%  | 
  
   
  $257,983 
  3%  | 
 
| 
   
           All Other Operations Items......................  
              % of Operations Expenditures...........     | 
  
   
  $194,520 
  2%  | 
  
   
  $180,342 
  2%  | 
  
   
  $154,227 
  2%  | 
 
| 
   
  ·        
  
  Ward
  Trust Fund 
           Cash in banks.........................................     | 
  
   
    
  $1,356,778  | 
  
   
    
  $1,550,510  | 
  
   
    
  $2,168,252  | 
 
| 
   
  ·       
  
  Cost
  of Property and Equipment 
  (at
  June 30)..   | 
  
   $976,703  | 
  
   $977,504  | 
  
   $985,122  | 
 
| 
   
  ·       
  
  Total
  Receipts Deposited into State Treasury.   | 
  
   $74,110  | 
  
   $130,149  | 
  
   $117,152  | 
 
 
| 
   
  SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES 
  (Not examined)  | 
  
   
    
  FY
  2005  | 
  
   
    
  FY
  2004  | 
  
   
    
  FY
  2003  | 
 
| 
   
  ·        
  
  Office of State Guardian 
       - No. of Wards served.................................................  
       - Ave. No. of Assigned Cases per Worker...................   | 
  
   
    
  5,316 
  126  | 
  
   
    
  5,393 
  127  | 
  
   
    
  5,489 
  133  | 
 
| 
   
  ·        
  
  Legal Advocacy Service 
       - No. of Client Cases Handled.....................................   | 
  
   
    
  7,551  | 
  
   
    
  6,735  | 
  
   
    
  6,567  | 
 
| 
   
  ·        
  
  Human Rights Authority 
       - No. of Cases Handled...............................................   | 
  
   
    
  748  | 
  
   
    
  748  | 
  
   
    
  666  | 
 
 
| 
   
  AGENCY DIRECTOR(S)  | 
 
| 
   
  During Period:  John Wank, Acting (7/1/03 to 6/30/05) Currently: 
  Dr. Mary L. Milano    | 
 
 
| 
   
                                 Efficiency initiative payments totaled $83,012                     
 
 Commission did not receive guidance or documentation with the billings    | 
  
   
 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
  RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE
  PAYMENTS
    The Guardianship and Advocacy Commission (Commission) made payments for efficiency initiative billings from improper line item appropriations   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.”   Four billings to the Commission from CMS for savings from efficiency initiatives totaled $83,012. We found that the Commission made payments in FY04 for these billings not from line item appropriations where the cost savings were anticipated to have occurred but from line items that had available funds. The Commission paid the FY04 procurement billing from contractual services and telecommunication line items. However, without specific guidance from CMS regarding the nature and type of savings initiatives, it is unclear whether these were the appropriate lines from which to make procurement savings payments. (Finding 1, page 9)   The FY05 billing contained more detail and it appears the Commission paid this from proper appropriations.   The Commission reported it did not receive guidance or documentation with the FY04 billings from CMS detailing where savings were to occur nor did CMS provide evidence of savings for the amounts billed. Additionally, staff reported that any savings from the efficiency initiatives were limited.   We recommended that the Commission only make payments for efficiency initiative billings from line item appropriations where savings would be anticipated to occur. Further, the Commission 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 Commission’s budget.  | 
 
| 
      | 
  
     The Commission accepted the finding that it should seek an explanation from the DCMS as to how savings levels were calculated or otherwise arrived at, and how savings achieved or anticipated impact the Commission’s budget. For the transaction in question, the agency was unsuccessful in receiving support documentation from the Department of Central Management Services on the calculation for the projected Efficiency Initiative savings. The Commission will strive in the future to ask the questions suggested in this recommendation, citing this audit in support of the inquiry.   The Commission’s responses were provided by Ms. Carol Tipsord, the Director of Fiscal Operations. 
 AUDITORS’ OPINION
       We conducted a compliance
  examination of the Commission as required by the Illinois State Auditing
  Act.   We have not audited any
  financial statements of the Commission for the purpose of expressing an
  opinion because the Commission does not, nor is it required to, prepare
  financial statements.         ___________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General                                                           WGH:CML:pp     AUDITORS ASSIGNED   This examination was performed by the staff of the Office of the Auditor General.    |