INTRODUCTION
The Guardianship and Advocacy Commission was
established to protect the legal rights of adults
(including senior citizens) with mental illness,
developmental disabilities, or physical handicaps. The
Commission serves as guardian of last resort for adults
who are unable to make decisions concerning their own
welfare, care or estate. At June 30, 1997, the Commission
was responsible for 5,706 adult wards.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLUNTEER WORKER/PARAGUARDIAN PROGRAM
The Commission's decentralized volunteer
worker/paraguardian program lacked proper management
oversight and supervision, and the system had inadequate
safeguards to protect the privacy and confidentiality of
ward information.
During the audit period, there were eleven volunteer
workers/paraguardians at four regional offices. There was
little, if any, general oversight and supervision of this
program at the Commission level. Each regional office of
the Commission controlled all aspects of the program
without centralized coordination. There was even
inconsistency of administration within a regional office.
For example, some volunteer workers had contracts while
others did not. While the Commission's Human Resources
Department was aware of the volunteer worker/paraguardian
program, there was no further involvement after
completion of the "Volunteer Personnel Information
and General Waiver" form. Statewide coordination of
this program was nonexistent, and in one regional office
a contract was executed by an employee without authority
to contract and without the approval of chief legal
counsel. This failure to adequately monitor and control
the program could result in a loss of the wards'
confidentiality or a higher risk of liability for
volunteer/paraguardian actions. (Finding 97-1, pages 14 -
15)
We recommended the Commission develop a contract that
defines the limitations of authority of the volunteer
worker/paraguardian, that restricts the liability for
activities beyond the scope of the contract, that
restricts the right to contract on behalf of the
Commission, and that protects the confidentiality and
privacy of ward information. We also recommended the
Commission's chief legal counsel approve all contracts
with the volunteer/paraguardian before they are executed,
and the Commission monitor compliance with the provisions
of those contracts. The Commission also needs to
centralize control, oversight, and supervision of this
program, and assist the Commission's other regional
offices in utilizing this volunteer resource.
Commission officials accepted our recommendation and
stated they would undertake prompt corrective action.
PREPAID BURIAL TRUST RECORDS
The Commission's recording of the wards' prepaid
burial trusts data in the management computer system was
frequently incomplete and inaccurate. The poor condition
of these records could possibly lead to a needless
payment for a burial by the Illinois Department of Public
Aid. As a part of case management, the Commission
attempts to purchase a prepaid burial trust for a ward,
if the ward has enough assets to do so.
In the Commission's computer system called ACCESS
(Agency Centralized Computer Enhanced Service System)
they had entered approximately 780 burial trust records.
In our testing we found:
- prepaid burials were recorded in the ACCESS
system, but the amounts recorded did not agree
with the burial trust documents in the wards'
regional office files, or there were no
supporting burial documents in the wards'
regional office files,
- no burial information was entered into the ACCESS
system, but we found prepaid burial trusts in the
wards' regional office files,
- five deceased wards that appeared to have valid
burial trusts, but the deaths were recorded in
the ACCESS system only.
Good internal control procedures would ensure that the
data in the ACCESS system should be supported by the
documentation in the Wards' regional office files, and
that all burial documentation in the Wards' regional
office files should be recorded in the ACCESS system.
(Finding 97-3, pages 18 - 19)
We recommended management develop or enforce a system
of monitoring to make sure that the data in the ACCESS
system is supported by the documents in the ward files.
We also recommended the internal auditor frequently test
the system and the files.
Commission officials accepted the factual findings
presented, but stated they feel that sufficient controls
are in place to ensure that wards receive the contracted
burial services. They agreed to integrate the review of
burial information within the routine ward visit process,
focus on the issue at regular agency training sessions,
clarify the policy on valuation of assets, perform
another internal audit, and adopt a more developed system
of self-auditing.
FEES ASSESSED TO WARDS
By court order, the Commission's Office of State
Guardian (OSG) is allowed to assess fees to the wards for
estate and guardianship services, and in five out of the
17 case files we examined the OSG did not assess the
wards the correct amount. In two cases, the wards were
overassessed by $100 and $1,260, and in three cases the
wards were underassessed by $50, $85, and $400. (Finding
97-5, page 22)
We recommended the Commission's Office of State
Guardian have all fee assessments reviewed for accuracy
by someone not involved in the original computation
before a request for payment from the ward's account is
made.
Commission officials responded they believe that
existing controls are adequate, and that the errors noted
in the audit do not reflect on the integrity of the
system. The Commission will stress the need for accuracy
and thoroughness to staff in future training sessions,
and will strive to conduct routine internal audits in
this area.
PROPERTY CONTROL
The Commission did not devote sufficient resources to
the management of property and maintenance of accurate
inventory records. We noted the following discrepancies:
- The physical inventory of property was performed
in February, 1997 but was not reconciled to the
March 31, 1997 quarterly report of fixed assets
filed with the State Comptroller.
- The Commission failed to reconcile the quarterly
report of fixed assets to the Comptroller's
Expenditure Report 336.
- Our physical observation noted that three items
were excluded from the Commission's inventory
list, ten items were being cannibalized for parts
without written permission from the DCMS property
control division, three items had incorrect
property tags, two items could not be located,
and one item had two tags and neither agreed to
the inventory list.
- Our testing of property expenditures noted three
items were excluded from the inventory list, and
one item was recorded at an incorrect amount.
- A donated item was recorded on the inventory
list, but neither the date acquired nor value of
the item was indicated.
- The Commission's inventory list had 236 items
with no purchase date and 301 items with no
purchase price.
- The Commission did not have documentation to
support a deletion from inventory in the amount
of $13,877.
While the area of property control has improved, there
has been a continued inability to demonstrate full
accountability in property control. This finding has
been repeated since 1993. (Finding 97-8, pages 27 -
28)
We recommended the Commission reestablish
accountability for their fixed assets as required by
State statute and the Illinois Administrative Code.
Commission officials accepted our recommendation and
stated they would undertake prompt corrective action.
(For previous Commission responses, see Digest footnote
#1.)
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings and recommendations have been
given appropriate attention by the Commission. We will
review progress toward the implementation of our
recommendations in our next audit.
Mr. John B. Lower, Chief Legal Counsel, provided the
Commission's responses.
AUDITORS' OPINION
Our auditors stated the financial statements of the
Wards' Trust Funds at June 30, 1997 and 1996 are fairly
presented on the cash basis of accounting.
Also, our auditors stated the financial statements of
the Guardianship and Advocacy Fund-297 are fairly
presented as of June 30, 1997 and 1996.
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:KMA:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Parker & Meltzer were our special assistant
auditors for this engagement.
DIGEST FOOTNOTES
#1 PROPERTY CONTROL - Previous
Commission Responses
1995: "The Commission shall
undertake prompt correction of the finding, consistent
with the recommendation."
1993: "The Commission accepts the
recommendation.
The Guardianship and Advocacy
Commission is of the opinion this finding was due to the
unique circumstances of office moves and lay-off of
staff. This duty will be assumed by other staff and
adequate property control records will be
maintained."
|
