FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NEED TO IMPROVE ALLOCATION OF INDIRECT COSTS
The Department did not maintain accurate cost allocation schedules for the
Professional Indirect Cost Fund.
The Professional Indirect Cost Fund is used by the Department to allocate indirect
costs to individual professions. During our audit we noted that the indirect cost
allocation schedules for both fiscal years 2000 and 2001 contained errors, resulting in
incorrect amounts being transferred from the individual profession funds. Underpayments to
the Professional Indirect Cost Fund totaled $1,171,646 in FY00 and $1,631,627 in FY01.
(Finding 1, Pages 13-14)
Department personnel stated that most of the errors noted were due to an inadequate
reconciliation and review process.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and indicated steps have been taken
to strengthen controls over the calculation of the amounts to be transferred into the
Professional Indirect Cost Fund. However, Department officials also stated that due to
timing of cash receipts into the Dental Profession Fund, the transfer made from this fund
to the Professional Indirect cost Fund in FY03 will most likely again be insufficient, and
the shortage will be corrected upon receipt of adequate revenues.
INADEQUATE STAFFING OF DESIGN PROFESSION DEDICATED EMPLOYEES
The Department did not staff the Design Profession Dedicated Employee positions in
accordance with statutory requirements.
State statute requires the Department to staff nine full-time employees who are
dedicated to the Design Profession, four of whom should be licensing clerks. During our
testing we noted the Department only employed three full-time licensing clerks. In
addition to lacking one full-time licensing clerk, we also noted that several other Design
Profession employees are not dedicated solely to the Design Profession.
Department officials stated that the statute represents an inefficient use of staff
given current budget constraints. (Finding 2, Page 15) This finding has been repeated
since 1993.
We recommended the Department either comply with the statute or seek legislative remedy
to the current statutory requirements. Department officials concurred with our
recommendation and indicated they intend to seek an amendment to the statute. (For
previous Department responses see Digest Footnote #1)
NEED TO IMPROVE DOCUMENTATION OF CASE ACTIVITY
The Division of Enforcement has not adequately maintained case activity in the
Regulatory Administration and Enforcement System (RAES). Each time an employee performs
significant work that relates to a specific case, the activity is to be documented on
RAES.
During our testing of 60 cases, we noted 13 instances in which the RAES was not
properly maintained. In 7 of the 13 instances case activity was not recorded on the RAES.
In the remaining 6 instances, activity was recorded on the RAES, but the activity that was
recorded was not consistent with or supported by the official case file. (Finding 5, Page
18) This finding has been repeated since 1991.
Department officials stated that RAES is a monitoring tool utilized by management
and that it is not the official case record. Department officials further stated that RAES
is intended to reflect significant case activity and is unable to adequately reflect all
case activity, as the official case file does.
We recommended the Department continue to utilize the system to its utmost capability
and ensure consistent and appropriate documentation is maintained in the official case
file.
Department officials concur that complete and accurate information to ensure
reliability is a valuable management tool. They state that entries on RAES, however, are
only one component utilized by the Department's management. The Department notes that they
are currently drafting the requirements for the Integrated Licensing and Enforcement
System that will replace RAES. (For previous Department responses see Digest Footnote #2)
NEED TO REDUCE BACKLOG OF CASES
The Department was unsuccessful in reducing the backlog of cases waiting for review
by the Medical Coordinators. We reviewed the weekly caseload reports for five months
during the audit period and noted the weekly caseload averaged over 400 cases.
There are currently three part-time Medical Coordinators and the Department contends
that their combined working hours are insufficient to reduce the backlog of cases.
(Finding 6, Page 19)
Department officials agreed with our recommendation to continue efforts to reduce the
backlog of cases. The Department states that discussions with the Medical Disciplinary
Board have taken place. As a result, a staffing solution is planned and should be
implemented early in FY03.
STAFFING OF DENTAL INVESTIGATOR POSITIONS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
The Department did not staff the Dental Investigator positions in accordance with
statutory requirements.
State law requires the Department to staff not less than one full-time investigator for
every 3,000 dentists and dental hygienists in the State. During FY01, the Department
licensed 14,190 dentists and dental hygienists, and therefore should have employed five
full-time dental investigators. However, at June 30, 2001 the Department only employed
three full-time dental investigators (Finding 8, Pages 21-22).
According to Department officials, they did not employ the required number of dental
investigators because of insufficient funds in the Dental Professional Fund.
The Department concurred with our recommendation to employ the required number of
dental investigators, and officials stated that the fee increase recently passed with PA
92-523 should assist in correcting this deficiency.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings are less significant and are reportedly being given
attention by the Department. We will review progress toward implementing the
recommendations during the Department’s next audit.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
The auditors state the Department’s financial statements as of June 30,
2001 and June 30, 2000 and for the years then ended are fairly presented in all material
respects.
___________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:KAL:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
FPT&W were our special assistant auditors for this audit.
DIGEST FOOTNOTES
#1 INDADEQUATE STAFFING OF DESIGN PROFESSION DEDICATED EMPLOYEES – previous
Department Responses
1999: We concur. The Illinois Society of Professional Engineers was successful in
advocating legislation, which required the Design Unit to be made up of specific numbers
of staff. This was apparently done in order to ensure the best use of dedicated dollars
and that no staff from the design fund would be used to do the work of other professions.
After lengthy discussion with the ISPE, it was agreed that the additional headcount
mandated by the act was not necessary at this time and would represent a waste to the
fund. The ISPE would not, however, agree to remove the headcount requirement from the act.
The result has been that the vacancy has remained open. There is no current allocation
of headcount to fill this vacancy.
1997: Concur. The Department will continue to work with the Legislature to remove this
statutory provision.
1995: Concur. Meetings have been held with the design profession, and they have
requested that the vacancy be filled, although previous audits have identified that the
workflow does not justify additional staffing in the Design Unit. The Department is
working with the legislature to remove this statutory provision.
1993: Concur. While statue requires a certain number of personnel be assigned to a
particular area, the agency is fortunate that the unit performs well given current
staffing levels.
We have experienced two layoffs in the last three years and staffing levels continue to
decline. Given the current budget considerations, it is unlikely that this trend will
change in the near future. Should the budget picture improve and staffing authorization
increase, it may be possible to make additions to existing headcount in the design unit.
#2 INADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION OF CASE ACTIVITY – Previous Department Responses
1999: We concur. Department admits that the RAES Tracking System could be
utilized in a more efficient manner. Enforcement and EDP personnel are formulating a new
programming method, which in conjunction with the guidelines task force should address
this issue.
1997: Concur. The Department currently has procedures setting forth the appropriate use
of the ECTS/RAES system and will enforce those procedures more rigidly. The Department
also will develop revisions to those procedures to correct the problems noted by the
auditors.
1995: Concur. The Enforcement Division has issued memoranda to investigative and
prosecutorial staff outlining their need to enter activities in a correct and timely
manner. In addition, case file reviews should point out activities not entered or
reported.
1993: Concur. The Deputy Director of Statewide Enforcement will review current policies
and revise to incorporate the use of the Enforcement Case Tracking System (ECTS).
The Deputy Director of Statewide Enforcement will issue a directive to all Enforcement
personnel indicating that activities are to be completed in a timely manner. The directive
will also require Enforcement supervisors to monitor investigative and prosecutorial
activities regarding ECTS. This will include entry activities as well as updates and
closures. Case loads will be reviewed by supervisors at least once every 30 days.
The ECTS program will be redesigned to include supervisor participation on data entry
for any case where no activity has been recorded for 120 days or more.
The Deputy Director of Statewide Enforcement will meet with the Chief of Prosecutions
to discuss the development of procedures regarding prosecutorial activities. These
procedures may include the establishment of a "double-file" system for
attorneys. This system would include creating two files; one central file and one personal
file per attorney.
Projected Date of Completion: December 31, 1994
1991: Concur. The Division concurs Policy Manual revisions should be completed and
reissued. All Enforcement Division Policy Manual revisions were completed in early 1991
and forwarded to the agency’s management support Bureau for approval in March, 1991.
When approved policies are received by the Division, proper orientation to familiarize
Enforcement Division employees with the extended time frame outlined in the Revised Policy
will be completed.
