REPORT DIGEST
GUARDIANSHIP AND
ADVOCACY COMMISSION
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2005 Summary of Findings: Total this audit 1 Total last audit 0 Repeated from last audit 0 Release Date:
March 8, 2006
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 is also
available on the worldwide web at http://www.state.il.us/auditor |
SYNOPSIS
· The Commission made efficiency initiative payments from improper line item appropriations. {Expenditures and Activity
Measures are summarized on the reverse page.} |
GUARDIANSHIP AND ADVOCACY COMMISSION
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For
The Period Ended June 30, 2005
COMMISSION STATISTICS |
FY 2005 |
FY 2004 |
FY 2003 |
·
Total
Expenditures (All Appropriated Funds)......................................................... |
$7,975,078 |
$7,856,479 |
$8,520,411 |
OPERATIONS TOTAL..................................
% of Total Expenditures......................... |
$7,975,078
100% |
$7,856,479
100% |
$8,520,411
100% |
Personal Services...................................
% of Operations Expenditures...........
Average No. of Employees............... |
$5,885,655
74%
109 |
$5,897,717
75%
112 |
$6,311,441
74%
123 |
Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)...
% of Operations Expenditures........... |
$1,367,704
17% |
$1,126,233
14% |
$1,368,776
16% |
Contractual Services...............................
% of Operations Expenditures........... |
$142,003
2% |
$230,821
3% |
$276,187
3% |
Travel.............................................................
% of Operations Expenditures........... |
$140,482
2% |
$143,731
2% |
$151,797
2% |
Telecommunications.........................................
% of Operations Expenditures........... |
$244,714
3% |
$277,635
4% |
$257,983
3% |
All Other Operations Items......................
% of Operations Expenditures........... |
$194,520
2% |
$180,342
2% |
$154,227
2% |
·
Ward
Trust Fund
Cash in banks......................................... |
$1,356,778 |
$1,550,510 |
$2,168,252 |
·
Cost
of Property and Equipment
(at
June 30).. |
$976,703 |
$977,504 |
$985,122 |
·
Total
Receipts Deposited into State Treasury. |
$74,110 |
$130,149 |
$117,152 |
SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES
(Not examined) |
FY
2005 |
FY
2004 |
FY
2003 |
·
Office of State Guardian
- No. of Wards served.................................................
- Ave. No. of Assigned Cases per Worker................... |
5,316
126 |
5,393
127 |
5,489
133 |
·
Legal Advocacy Service
- No. of Client Cases Handled..................................... |
7,551 |
6,735 |
6,567 |
·
Human Rights Authority
- No. of Cases Handled............................................... |
748 |
748 |
666 |
AGENCY DIRECTOR(S) |
During Period: John Wank, Acting (7/1/03 to 6/30/05) Currently:
Dr. Mary L. Milano |
Efficiency initiative payments totaled $83,012
Commission did not receive guidance or documentation with the billings |
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE
PAYMENTS
The Guardianship and Advocacy Commission (Commission) made payments for efficiency initiative billings from improper line item appropriations The State Finance Act details that the amount designated as savings from efficiency initiatives implemented by the Department of Central Management Services (CMS) shall be paid into the Efficiency Initiatives Revolving Fund. “State agencies shall pay these amounts…from the line item appropriations where the cost savings are anticipated to occur.” Four billings to the Commission from CMS for savings from efficiency initiatives totaled $83,012. We found that the Commission made payments in FY04 for these billings not from line item appropriations where the cost savings were anticipated to have occurred but from line items that had available funds. The Commission paid the FY04 procurement billing from contractual services and telecommunication line items. However, without specific guidance from CMS regarding the nature and type of savings initiatives, it is unclear whether these were the appropriate lines from which to make procurement savings payments. (Finding 1, page 9) The FY05 billing contained more detail and it appears the Commission paid this from proper appropriations. The Commission reported it did not receive guidance or documentation with the FY04 billings from CMS detailing where savings were to occur nor did CMS provide evidence of savings for the amounts billed. Additionally, staff reported that any savings from the efficiency initiatives were limited. We recommended that the Commission only make payments for efficiency initiative billings from line item appropriations where savings would be anticipated to occur. Further, the Commission should seek an explanation from the Department of Central Management Services as to how savings levels were calculated, or otherwise arrived at, and how savings achieved or anticipated impact the Commission’s budget. |
|
The Commission accepted the finding that it should seek an explanation from the DCMS as to how savings levels were calculated or otherwise arrived at, and how savings achieved or anticipated impact the Commission’s budget. For the transaction in question, the agency was unsuccessful in receiving support documentation from the Department of Central Management Services on the calculation for the projected Efficiency Initiative savings. The Commission will strive in the future to ask the questions suggested in this recommendation, citing this audit in support of the inquiry. The Commission’s responses were provided by Ms. Carol Tipsord, the Director of Fiscal Operations.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
We conducted a compliance
examination of the Commission as required by the Illinois State Auditing
Act. We have not audited any
financial statements of the Commission for the purpose of expressing an
opinion because the Commission does not, nor is it required to, prepare
financial statements. ___________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General WGH:CML:pp AUDITORS ASSIGNED This examination was performed by the staff of the Office of the Auditor General. |