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.