REPORT DIGEST SHERIDAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER LIMITED SCOPE COMPLIANCE ATTESTATION EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2008 Summary of Findings: Total this examination 3 Total last examination 2 Repeated from last examination 1 Release Date: August 6, 2009 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 maintain adequate control over personnel. ¨ The Center did not comply with Department of Corrections Administrative Directives in regards to employees accepting gifts. {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, 2008

EXPENDITURE STATISTICS	FY 2008	FY 2007	FY 2006
Total Expenditures (All Appropriated Funds).	$41,121,301	$37,177,405	$34,654,087
Personal Services.......................................... % of Total Expenditures........................... Average No. of Employees........................ Average Salary Per Employee.................... Inmate Compensation.................................... % of Total Expenditures...............................	$18,090,996 44.0% 277 $65,310 $170,629 0.4%	$16,504,031 44.4% 280 $58,943 $146,250 0.4%	$16,160,718 46.6% 291 $55,535 $169,070 0.5%
Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)........ % of Total Expenditures..........................	$4,343,798 10.6%	$3,127,633 8.4%	$2,667,851 7.7%
Contractual Services................................... % of Total Expenditures........................	$16,783,199 40.8%	$15,906,043 42.8%	$14,345,026 41.4%
All Other Items............................................ % of Total Expenditures........................	$1,732,679 4.2%	$1,493,448 4.0%	$1,311,422 3.8%
Cost of Property and Equipment.................	$59,588,772	$58,786,582	$58,409,926

SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES (Not Examined)	FY 2008	FY 2007	FY 2006
Average Number of Inmates	943	808	857
Ratio of Correctional Officers to Inmates	1 / 4.7	1 / 4.0	1 / 4.1
Cost Per Year Per Inmate	$43,579	$46,003	$40,417
Rated Inmate Capacity	1,304	1,304	974
Approximate Square Feet Per Inmate	67	65	57

CENTER WARDEN

During Audit Period: Michael Rothwell

Currently: Michael Rothwell

Employee paid $67,800 from Center’s appropriation; however, employee only spent approximately 5% of his time at the Center Department did not accept finding Auditor comment Center accepted donations totaling $4,000 from vendors doing business with the Department of Corrections

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INADEQUATE CONTROL OVER PERSONNEL The Center did not maintain adequate control over personnel. The Center paid an annual salary of $67,800 from the Center’s personal services appropriations to an employee who is a lieutenant and part of the Special Operations Response Team (SORT). However, the employee spent only approximately 5% of his time at the Center. The remaining 95% of time was for services performed for other Centers statewide. In addition, this employee’s time sheets were approved by Center personnel whom did not exercise direct supervision over the employee. The time sheets approved by Center personnel appeared to be blanket time sheets what are pre-set with corresponding days off. The immediate supervisor of the employee is located off-site and is not an employee of the Center. Lastly, we noted the Center approved overtime in nine instances in a seven month period to this employee on days he was working away from the Center. There was no documentation to support the overtime was approved in advance. (Finding 1, pages 10-11) We recommended the Center only pay those employees whose work is directly related to the Center a majority of the time. We also recommended the Center develop internal controls to adequately monitor employees’ use of State time in accordance with Administrative Directives. Lastly, we recommended the employee’s time sheets be approved by personnel who have adequate oversight of the employee and maintain documentation to support overtime is approved in advance. Center management did not accept the finding and stated the Department feels that it has exercised control over personnel and that the finding puts the Agency mission in jeopardy by limiting the Department’s ability to provide specialized high level security services. In an auditor’s comment we noted the Center is not complying with State law and its own Administrative Directives regarding use of State appropriations, approval and documentation of State paid working time and overtime, and detailing of SORT members. A lack of adequate control over personnel may also put the “Agency mission in jeopardy”. INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND The Center did not comply with Department of Corrections Administrative Directives in regards to employees accepting gifts. In our sample of 25 employee benefit fund receipts tested, we noted 4 receipts, totaling $4,000 from two different vendors that were labeled as donations. These two vendors both have business dealings with the Department of Corrections. One vendor received $16.6 million in FY07 and $18.2 million in FY08 from the Department of Corrections. The other vendor received $2.5 million in FY07 and $4.2 million in FY08 from the Department of Corrections. (Finding 3, page 14) We recommended the Center ensure compliance with the Departments’ Administrative Directives and not accept donations from vendors doing business with the Department. We also recommended the Center give the donations back to the respective vendors. Center management stated the recommendation has been implemented and the facility will follow the Department’s rules and directives. OTHER FINDING The remaining finding pertains to inadequate controls over voucher processing and expenditure records. We will review progress towards the implementation of our recommendations during the Center’s next examination. AUDITORS’ OPINION We conducted a compliance attestation examination of the Center as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. Financial statements for the entire Department will be presented in the Central Office report. ___________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General WGH:JSC:pp AUDITORS ASSIGNED The limited scope compliance examination was conducted by the Auditor General’s staff.