REPORT DIGEST

 

DEPARTMENT

ON AGING

 

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION

 

For the Two Years Ended:

June 30, 2006

 

Summary of Findings:

Total this audit                        15

Total last audit                        12

Repeated from last audit           5

 

Release Date:

May 10, 2007

 

 

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 and Full Report are also available on

the worldwide web at

http://www.auditor.illinois.gov

 

SYNOPSIS

 

¨      The Department did not exercise adequate internal controls over payroll vouchers.  We noted several occurrences in our testing where terminated or retired employees remained on the payroll after they had separated from the Department.

¨      The Department failed to implement the provisions of the Community Senior Services and Resources Act.

¨      The Department failed to adopt policies, priorities and guidelines to carry out the purposes of the Illinois Act on Aging in regards to the establishment of specialized Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Centers.

¨      The Department failed to determine the need of an emergency home responsive system program (EHR) for every applicant of its community care program.  During the two years ended June 30, 2006, the EHR was not in place and applicants and recipients were not being assessed for their need of such a program.

¨      The Department failed to establish a family caregiver training and support demonstration project as required by the Family Caregiver Act.

¨      The Department did not maintain sufficient controls over the accuracy and reporting of its fixed assets.  Equipment costing $152,043 purchased in 2003 were not added to the property records until 2006.

¨      The Department did not have adequate controls over the accounts receivable reporting process.  At July 1, 2004, the Department became responsible for the Circuit Breaker Program that was previously administered by the Department of Revenue.  At that time, accounts receivable totaled $309,000 and the estimated uncollectible amount was $248,000.  Quarterly reports filed with the Office of the State Comptroller in FY05 and FY06 never reflected an amount for uncollectibles.  Further, the Department never performed an analysis during FY05 or FY06 to determine an allowance for uncollectible accounts.  Gross Accounts Receivable at June 30, 2006 was approximately $340,000.

        {Expenditures and Activity Measures are summarized on the reverse page.}

 

 


DEPARTMENT ON AGING

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION

For The Two Years Ended June 30, 2006

 

EXPENDITURE STATISTICS

FY 2006

FY 2005

FY 2004

 Total Expenditures (All Funds)....................

$420,742,254

$402,976,464

$314,301,410

      OPERATIONS TOTAL..............................

             % of Total Expenditures.......................

       Personal Services.....................................

             % of Operations Expenditures............

       Average No. of Employees.....................

       Average Salary Per Employee.................

$62,691,022

14.90%

$4,206,354

6.71%

145.5

$28,910

 

$64,787,638

16.08%

$4,470,446

6.90%

155.5

$28,749

$14,436,246

4.59%

$4,319,852

29.92%

108

$39,999

 

       Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)....

             % of Operations Expenditures............

$1,039,513

1.66%

$1,415,941

2.19%

$1,095,896

7.59%

       Contractual Services................................

             % of Operations Expenditures............

$403,064

0.64%

$255,840

0.39%

$308,098

2.14%

       Circuit Breaker and Prescription Drug Assistance

             % of Operations Expenditures...........

       All Other Items.......................................

             % of Operations Expenditures...........

$41,579,381

66.32%

$15,462,710

24.67%

$48,351,444

74.63%

$10,293,967

15.89%

 

0

0%

$8,712,400

60.35%

     UNAPPROPRIATED EXPENDITURES &

     REFUNDS.................................................

             % Of Total Expenditures.....................

 

 

$902,357

0.21%

 

$5,425,449

1.34%

 

$854,402

0.27%

      GRANTS TOTAL.....................................

             % of Total Expenditures......................

$357,148,875

84.89%

$332,763,377

82.58%

$299,010,762

95.14%

Cost of Property and Equipment................

$2,363,658

$1,520,436

$1,115,660

 

COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM (Not Examined)

FY 2006

FY 2005

FY 2004

     CCP Average Monthly Caseload (clients)..........

42,964

40,578

39,321

     Prospective Nursing Home Cases Prescreened.

91,782

87,750

78,206

     Clients Over 75 Living Alone...........................

63%

65%

60%

     Average Cost Per Client Per Month.................

$541

$517

$482

 

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

Currently:  Mr. Charles D. Johnson

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Department continued to pay terminated or retired employees after employment separation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Failure to promulgate rules, regulations, guidelines or directives


Alternative funding efforts unsuccessful

 

Grants have not been made

 

Bonds have not been issued

 

 


Technical assistance has not been provided to centers

 


Results of survey not compiled

 


Report has not been made to Governor or General Assembly

 

 

 

 


Department states they do not know how much funding is needed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Revenue Funding being sought by Department in FY 08

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


No policies, priorities or guidelines were adopted as required by the Act

 

 

 

 


Department states $500,000 has been requested in FY 08

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The Department failed to implement the determination of need for the emergency home responsive system program as required

 


Although $1.8 million was appropriated for program implementation in FY06, the Department stated that due to budgetary constraints the program was not implemented in FY06

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Law required Department seek federal funding

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department states it will seek legislative remedy to repeal certain provisions of the law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$152,043 of equipment purchased in 2003 was not added to the Property Control System until 2006

 

 

7 of 40 (17.5%) of deletions tested were reported as “lost”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department had inadequate controls over accounts receivable reporting process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The Department did not display a balance for uncollectible accounts for the Circuit Breaker program and did not perform an analysis to determine the allowance for uncollectible accounts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

    INADEQUATE INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER   PAYROLL PROCESSING

 

     The Department did not exercise adequate internal controls over payroll vouchers.

 

       During our testing, we noted the following:

§         Five occurrences of terminated/retired employees who received compensation for up to three pay periods after the employee separated from the Department.  The Department failed to detect these overpayments which resulted in total accumulated overpayments of approximately $18,000.  The Department did seek restitution and recovered the full amount from the former employees.

§         The Department does not have a formal procedure for balancing output reports from the Central Payroll System (CPS) to the transactions entered. (Finding 1, Page 8)

     

     We recommended that the Department implement the necessary controls to ensure a review of payroll journals and output from the CPS is performed in accordance with the State Comptroller Act and applicable Statewide Accounting Management System procedures.

 

      Department officials agreed with our finding and recommendation.

 

 

FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY SENIOR SERVICES AND RESOURCES ACT

 

      The Department failed to implement the provisions of the Community Senior Services and Resources Act (the Act).

 

The Department did establish a Community Senior Services and Resource Center Advisory Committee.  The membership was appointed by the Governor in July 2004.  However, the committee has not met since October 2005.  The Department did not promulgate any rules, regulations, guidelines or directives necessary to implement the Act.  Efforts by the Department to pursue alternative funding from those sources outlined in the legislation to administer the provisions of the Act have been unsuccessful; therefore, no grants have been made, no government bonds have been issued, and technical assistance has not been provided to centers.

 

The Department did develop a survey to gather information from the centers concerning the lack or inadequacy of senior services and to identify service demand trends and unique needs of older Illinoisans and their families.  This survey was distributed to the centers through three separate mailings in early 2006; however, the results of the survey had not been compiled at June 30, 2006.  Although there are various listings of the centers available on the Department’s website that offer certain services, a comprehensive list of centers and the services they provide has not been compiled for distribution through other promotional opportunities.  No report regarding the program has been made to the Governor or the General Assembly.

 

Department officials stated they have been unable to obtain funding to implement the Act due to the fact that funding for this program was tied to several funding sources, including the Secretary of State, State Treasurer’s Office, Attorney General’s Office, and State’s Attorney Association, which had the discretion to fund this initiative, and all of them chose not to fund this initiative.  Therefore, there were no funds to award and no specific dollar amount of funding required by the Department.  Department officials also stated that they have not determined the amount of funding necessary to implement the Act due to the expected large cost of surveying all of the Area Agencies on Aging and the Senior Centers.  (Finding 4, pages 14-15)

 

We recommended the Department fully implement the Community Senior Services and Resources Advisory Act by seeking and obtaining funding to administer the provisions of the Act, including promulgating rules, regulations, guidelines, and directives necessary to implement the Act, making grants and facilitating access to government-issued bonds as called for under the Act, and providing technical assistance to centers.  Further, the Department should develop a comprehensive list of centers and the senior services they offer for publication and distribution through other promotional opportunities as well as report annually in conjunction with the Advisory Committee to the Governor and the General Assembly as called for under the Act.  If the aforementioned recommendations are found to be unattainable by the Department, we recommend the Department seek legislative remedy to the statutory requirement.

 

Department officials stated they first sought a legislative remedy and then a general revenue fund appropriation its FY 08 budget submission. 

 

 

FAILURE TO ADOPT POLICIES, PRIORITIES AND GUIDELINES

 

The Department failed to adopt policies, priorities and guidelines to carry out the purposes of the Illinois Act on Aging in regards to the establishment of specialized Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Centers.

 

      The Illinois Act on Aging (20 ILCS 105/8.05(b)) requires the Department to establish at least one urban and one rural specialized Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Center, to develop a training module for the specialized Alzheimer’s Day Care Centers and to adopt policies, priorities and guidelines to carry out the purposes of this section of the Act.

 

      The Department has established two Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Centers that aid in the training of specialized Alzheimer’s Day Care Centers and has developed a module to aid in that training.  However, no policies, priorities or guidelines have been adopted in order to carry out the purposes of this section of the Act.

 

      Department officials stated that without additional appropriations for this purpose, the state's two "resource centers" have evolved into training centers, which the Department supports through continuing training contracts with the Illinois Adult Day Service Association without specific rules or policies. Although Department Officials stated $500,000 of funding for this has been requested in its FY08 budget request, the Department did not request any specific funding for this purpose in FY05 and FY06 (Finding 6, page 18)

 

We recommended the Department adopt the policies, priorities and guidelines needed in order to adequately carry out this section of the Act.

 

Department officials agreed with our finding and recommendation and indicated they will seek the necessary funding and develop and implement policies and procedures to adequately carry out the Act.

 

 

FAILURE TO DETERMINE NEED FOR EMERGENCY HOME RESPONSIVE SYSTEM PROGRAM

 

The Department failed to determine the need of an emergency home responsive system program for every applicant of its community care program.

 

The Illinois Act on Aging (20 ILCS 105/8.07) requires the Department make a determination of need as to whether the applicant or recipient of services is in need of an emergency home response system upon initial determination or any redetermination for eligibility for community care program services provided by the Department.

 

During the two years ended June 30, 2006, the emergency home responsive system program was not in place.  Therefore, applicants and recipients were not being assessed for their need of such a program during the fiscal years in question.

 

Department officials stated that funding had not been available to establish an emergency home responsive system program until very recently and that the program was established in October 2006.  The Department did not request any specific funding for this program in FY 2005 as no funding for new initiatives was being granted in FY 2005.  In FY 2006, the Department was appropriated $1.8 million for its implementation on April 1, 2006, but due to State-wide budgetary constraints, its implementation was delayed six months until October 1, 2006 (FY 2007).  The FY 2007 budget, effective July 1, 2006, includes funding of $2 million for this program. (Finding 8, page 20)

 

We recommended that the Department make the appropriate determination of need of its community care program service applicants or recipients for the emergency home response system as required by this statute.

 

Department officials agreed with our finding and recommendation.

 

 

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A FAMILY CAREGIVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

 

      The Department failed to establish a Family Caregiver Training and Support Demonstration Project as required by the Family Caregiver Act (320 ILCS 65/16).

 

      Effective August 5, 2004, the Family Caregiver Act required the Department to seek federal funding in order to establish a Family Caregiver Training and Support Demonstration Project under which two sites would be funded.  The Act requires the Department to adopt rules to govern participation and oversight of the program and to seek technical assistance from Department of Healthcare and Family Services (formerly the Department of Public Aid) and the Department of Human Services.  Finally, the Act requires the Department to assess the program and to advise the Governor and the General Assembly regarding the effectiveness of the program within six months after the conclusion of the demonstration period.

 

      During the two years ended June 30, 2006, the Department did not establish a Family Caregiver Training and Support Demonstration Project as set forth in this statute.  Additionally, no rules were adopted to govern the participation and oversight of the program.

 

      Department officials stated there were no federal funds available for this particular type of project due to shifts in priorities at the federal level, but that the federal funding received for the current Caregiver Support Program is through Title III (e) of the Older Americans Act, also known as the “National Family Caregiver Support Program,” under which the Department provides a variety of caregiver support services through the various Area Agencies on Aging throughout the State.  (Finding 9, page 21)

 

      We recommended the Department comply with the requirements as set forth in the Family Caregiver Act or seek legislative remedy.

 

      Department officials stated they would seek legislative remedy during the current legislative session to amend the Family Caregiver Act to repeal the provision concerning a Family Caregiver Training and Support Demonstration Project.

 

      INADEQUATE INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER         FIXED ASSETS

 

The Department did not maintain sufficient controls over the accuracy and reporting of its fixed assets.  Some of the items noted during our testing follow:

 

§            $152,043 of equipment purchased during fiscal year 2003 was not added to the Property Control System until the first quarter of fiscal year 2006.

 

§            Seven of 40 (17.5%) deletions tested were reported as “lost” on the “Request for Deletion from Inventory” form.  These seven items had an original cost totaling $11,633.

 

§            Three of 60 (5.0%) assets physically inspected were not in the correct location per the fixed asset records.

 

§            One of 20 (5.0%) assets physically inspected and selected from our tour of the facility was not reported on the fixed asset records. (Finding 14, Page 27)

 

We recommended the Department comply with the State Property Control Act and the Illinois Administrative Code by ensuring all equipment under its jurisdiction is recorded accurately and timely on its property records. 

 

 Department officials concurred with our finding and stated they are currently in the process of reviewing practices for the purpose of revising and implementing new written procedures. 

 

 

      NEED TO IMPROVE INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

 

The Department did not have adequate controls over the accounts receivable reporting process which leads to inadequate documentation, late filing with the Office of the Comptroller, and potential inaccurate reporting.

 

With respect to the accounts receivable reporting and reconciliations performed during fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we noted the following:

§         For one out of eight quarters, the ending balance of accounts receivable on the Comptroller’s accounts receivable report did not agree to the amount on the Department’s records.

§         For three out of eight quarters, the information related to the aging of accounts receivable did not agree to the Department’s records.

§         For all eight quarters, the Department could not provide the information required on the Comptroller’s accounts receivable report to present the billings, collections, and accounts written off as separately stated items.  The accounting system would only provide the net change in receivables for a given quarter.

§         The accounts receivable quarterly reports were not timely filed with the Comptroller’s Office for 2 of 8 (25%) quarters.

§         The Department became responsible for the Circuit Breaker program effective July 1, 2004.  At June 30, 2004, the Illinois Department of Revenue reported $248,000 of the total program’s receivables of $309,000 as uncollectible by the Illinois Department of Revenue.  However, for all eight quarters, the Department never displayed a balance for uncollectible accounts on the quarterly accounts receivable reports and never performed an analysis during this period to determine an allowance for uncollectible accounts.  Accounts receivable approximated $340,000 and $321,000 at June 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. (Finding 15, Page 29)

 

We recommended the Department implement the necessary internal controls to: (1) improve the documentation of the receivable balances at each quarter end; (2) improve the valuation and accuracy of the receivables reported; and (3) ensure prompt submission of the quarterly reports to the Comptroller.

 

Department officials stated they are in the process of reviewing, modifying and implementing new written procedures.  Further, additional reporting from the Bureau of Information Systems related to the Circuit Breaker  Accounts Receivables will be requested and developed as part of this process in order to better support the quarterly reports. 

 

           

 

OTHER FINDINGS

 

   The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention by the Department.  We will review the Department’s progress towards the implementation of our recommendations in our next examination.

 

 

AUDITORS’ OPINION

 

      We conducted a compliance examination of the Department as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act.   We have not audited any financial statements of the Department for the purpose of expressing an opinion because the Department does not, nor is it required to, prepare financial statements.

 

 

 

_____________________________________

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General

 

WGH:CML:pp

 

SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS

 

      Our Special Assistant Auditors were Doehring, Winders & Co. LLP.