REPORT DIGEST SHERIDAN
CORRECTIONAL
CENTER
LIMITED SCOPE COMPLIANCE ATTESTATION EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2006 Summary of Findings: Total this examination 2 Total last examination 0 Repeated from last examination 0 Release Date: June 20, 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 the
Full Report are also available on the worldwide web at |
SYNOPSIS
¨ The Center did not comply with Department of Corrections Administrative Directives in regards to personal services. ¨ The Center did not exercise adequate controls over voucher processing and expenditure records.
{Expenditures and Activity Measures are summarized on the reverse page.} |
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
SHERIDAN CORRECTIONAL
CENTER
LIMITED SCOPE COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For The Two Years Ended
June 30, 2006
EXPENDITURE STATISTICS |
FY 2006 |
FY 2005 |
FY 2004 |
Total Expenditures (All Appropriated Funds) |
$34,654,087 |
$34,666,847 |
$18,030,463 |
Personal
Services...................................................
% of Total Expenditures................................
Average No. of Employees............................
Average Salary Per Employee.......................
Inmate
Compensation..................................................
% of Total
Expenditures............................................ |
$16,160,718
46.6%
291
$55,535
$169,070
0.5% |
$16,096,910
46.5%
299
$53,836
$178,437
0.5% |
$9,150,678
50.8%
307
$29,807
$44,584
0.2% |
Other Payroll
Costs (FICA, Retirement)..................
% of Total Expenditures................................ |
$2,667,851
7.70% |
$3,688,529
10.6% |
$1,451,233
8.0% |
Contractual
Services..............................................
% of Total Expenditures................................ |
$14,345,026
41.4% |
$12,868,858
37.1% |
$5,094,455
28.3% |
All Other
Items......................................................
% of Total Expenditures................................ |
$1,311,422
3.8% |
$1,834,113
5.3% |
$2,289,513
12.7% |
Cost of
Property and Equipment........................ |
$58,409,928 |
$49,776,474 |
$49,395,288 |
SELECTED ACTIVITY
MEASURES (Not Examined) |
FY 2006 |
FY 2005 |
FY 2004 |
Average Number of Inmates |
857 |
925 |
530 |
Ratio of Correctional Officers to Inmates |
1 / 4.1 |
1 / 4.3 |
1 / 2.4 |
Cost Per Year Per Inmate |
$40,417 |
$37,478 |
$33,581 |
Rated Inmate Capacity |
974 |
974 |
974 |
Approximate
Square Feet Per Inmate |
57 |
55 |
62 |
CENTER WARDEN |
During Audit Period: Michael Rothwell
Currently: Michael Rothwell |
Employee allowed
to leave work whenever necessary Carryover of overtime hours
Failure to approve overtime earned and failed to report
overtime on timesheet
Pre-approval of overtime Lack of advance approval of compensatory time Secondary employment form not completed properly
Incorrect calculation of compensatory time Timesheets did not always agree with sign out sheets Late approval of vouchers Interest not paid
Items prepaid
Vouchers not located |
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER PERSONAL SERVICES
·
The Center
allowed the employee to carryover all overtime hours earned on the property
control function to the next fiscal year.
This employee used approximately 126 hours of compensatory time in
FY06 that was accrued in FY05.
·
The Center did
not approve overtime earned on the property control function by the employee
and did not require the overtime to be reported on the employee’s timesheet.
·
The Center did
not always pre-approve the overtime earned by the employee on work for the
locally held fund function. The
employee reported overtime in 29 instances, and the overtime was approved the
same day in seven (24%) instances, approved the next day in 9 (31%)
instances, and approved from two to four days after the work was completed in
12 (41%) instances.
·
The Center did
not approve, in advance, compensatory time taken by the employee during the
examination period.
·
The Center was
aware the employee performed volunteer work at the local ambulance/fire
department, however, the Center did not ensure the employee properly
completed the secondary employment form as required.
·
The Center did
not correctly calculate the amount to be paid to the employee for the
compensatory time earned for work on the locally held fund function but not
used for the employee. The Center
overpaid the employee $83 dollars in FY05 and underpaid the employee $69 in
FY06 for compensatory time earned but not used by June 30.
·
The Center did
not ensure the employee’s timesheets agreed to the sign out sheets. We noted on numerous occasions where the
sign out sheet stated the employee worked more than the regular 7.5 hours but
the timesheet only showed the employee to have worked the regular 7.5
hours. (Finding 1, pages 10-12) We
recommended the Center ensure employee attendance records are accurate,
complete, reconcile with leave requests and comply with DOC Administrative
Directives. In addition, accumulation
and use of compensation time should comply with DOC Administrative
Directives, and amounts paid out for compensatory time should be checked for
accuracy. Lastly, we recommended the
Center require all employees to properly report secondary employment to the
Director as required. Center management stated the
recommendation has been implemented. INADEQUATE
CONTROLS OVER VOUCHER PROCESSING AND EXPENDITURE RECORDS The Center did not exercise adequate
controls over voucher processing and expenditure records. We noted the following:
·
Ten of 98 (10%)
vouchers tested totaling $619,126 were approved for payment from 2 to 95 days
late.
·
The required
interest of $2,649 was not paid on 3 of 98 (3%) vouchers tested.
·
The Center
prepaid vocational training services totaling $32,111 although the contract
did not include an advance payment clause.
·
The Center could
not locate 2 of 98 (2%) vouchers selected for testing, totaling
$531,723. Payments were for medical
services. (Finding 2, pages 13-14) We
recommended the Center comply with the Illinois Administrative Code
procedures and implement controls to ensure vouchers are approved within the
required time frame. In addition, the
Center should only make payment for services rendered unless otherwise
stipulated in the contract. We
further recommended the Center comply with the Illinois State Records Act and
ensure it maintains an adequate system of recordkeeping. Center management accepted our recommendation.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
We conducted a compliance attestation examination of the Center as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. This was a limited scope compliance attestation examination that also included performing certain agreed-upon procedures with respect to the accounting records of the Center to assist our examination of the entire Department. Financial statements for the entire Department will be presented in that report.
__________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General WGH:JSC:pp AUDITORS ASSIGNED
The limited scope compliance
examination was conducted by the Auditor General’s staff. |