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

http://www.auditor.illinois.gov

 

 

 

 

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 did not comply with Department of Corrections (DOC) Administrative Directives. 

 

      The Center allowed one employee to leave work whenever needed to respond to emergency calls for the local ambulance/fire department.  Due to this arrangement, the Center maintained two separate logbooks of compensatory time.  One logbook was maintained for overtime worked on property control functions, and these hours were not included on the employee’s timesheet, and the employee was not reimbursed for the hours earned but not used at fiscal year end.  These hours were then used as compensated time by the employee when the employee left to respond to an emergency.  The other logbook was maintained for overtime worked on locally held fund functions, and these hours were annotated on the employee’s timesheet, and the employee was paid for the hours earned but not used at fiscal year end.  We noted the following due to this arrangement between the Center and the employee:

 

·        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.