|
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.
|
