The Legislative Audit Commission
adopted Resolution Number 130 directing the Office of the Auditor General to
develop an inventory of State programs by surveying State agencies and identify
programs that may be duplicative. To address
this Resolution, the Office of the Auditor General first examined various
existing listings of State programs.
Our study concluded that the State
of Illinois
does not have a comprehensive, consistent inventory of State programs. State agencies submit some program
information in the budget forms and to the Office of the Comptroller for the
Public Accountability Report but the information varies in the number of
programs reported.
·
Given the lack of a detailed inventory of State
programs, the Office of the Auditor General sent a survey questionnaire to
State agencies requesting information on their programs. This study focused on programs that could be
duplicative between two or more agencies.
Since there is no statewide definition of “program,” we provided
agencies with a working definition to help ensure consistent reporting. However, the responses submitted by the
agencies varied considerably. Some
agencies provided an extensive listing of programs while others reported the
same number of programs that they reported for the Comptroller’s Public
Accountability Report (PAR). The PAR is
intended to focus more on reporting categories
of programs.
·
The Comptroller’s PAR reported 252 programs from
69 agencies while our survey reported approximately 1,750 programs from 100
agencies. The actual number of programs
is likely higher than 1,750 given that some agencies reported programs at an
aggregate level.
·
We selected approximately 50 programs to perform
additional testing for potential duplication.
In general, agencies reported that significant differences existed
between their programs, thereby minimizing the possibility of
consolidation. The types of differences
identified by the agencies included:
-
Different groups were served (private companies
v. government agencies) or different segments of similar groups were served
(agribusiness v. general economic development).
-
Program purpose was different (regulatory v.
consultative, or economic growth v. social service).
-
Different methods were used to provide
assistance (technical assistance v. funding).
·
In three instances, one of the agencies that
administered a program indicated that possible duplication or an opportunity
for consolidation may exist, but the other agency administering a similar
program did not conclude similarly.
Over the past decade, the structure
of State government in Illinois
has been reorganized to form larger agencies, such as the Department of Human
Services and the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. While these reorganizations may have brought
similar programs together under one agency, this study did not focus on the
degree to which programs were consolidated from these reorganizations.
Rather, as directed by the Resolution, we focused
our efforts on identifying programs that may be duplicative across two or more
agencies. Since we found no centralized
listing of programs, we examined various existing lists of State programs. These included reviewing agency budget
submissions to the Office of Management and Budget and the Comptroller’s Public
Accountability Report.
·
The budget forms submitted by agencies varied in
the level of programmatic detail. Some
provided very detailed program breakouts while others were more general.
·
Agency submissions for the Comptroller’s Public
Accountability Report also varied in the level of detail. The 2006 PAR organizes agencies into
categories (e.g., human services, education, and public safety) and shows a
broad list of 252 programs for 69 agencies.
It is a Service Efforts and Accomplishments report prepared for a
different purpose than to catalog all State programs, and categorizes groups of programs (e.g., divisions
of agencies are reported as programs).
Given the
need to collect more consistent and detailed program information, the Office of
the Auditor General mailed a survey questionnaire to nearly 100 agencies. The survey requested the agencies to provide
an inventory of their programs, such as the program name, description,
authority, beneficiaries, funding, and number of full-time employees. To help facilitate consistent responses from
agencies, we provided a working definition of “program,” based on input from
State agencies.
Agencies responded to our survey by
identifying approximately 1,750 programs.
This total is understated because some agencies provided a general
listing, and not a detailed listing, of their programs. The responses provided by the agencies are
shown in the Supplement to this study.
The information provided by the
agencies had limitations:
·
Some agencies reported to us only their
operating divisions (e.g., Department of Financial and Professional Regulation,
Department of Children and Family Services), although these divisions may have
operated multiple programs.
·
Some agencies reported programs that had a
counterpart in other agencies but the other agency did not include the same
program in its survey response -- e.g., Illinois State Police listed the
Department of Transportation (DOT) as having similar programs, including its
AMBER Alert program, but DOT did not list any such program; DOT said its
response to our survey listed only the programs that received a line-item
appropriation.
Many of the approximately 1,750
programs reported by State agencies dealt with similar subjects, such as
economic development, employment, crime, and the environment.
As directed by LAC Resolution Number
130, we selected programs for analysis where duplication could exist. The
approximately 50 programs selected, administered by 20 agencies, appeared to
have similarities based on the program descriptions provided by the
agencies. In some cases, the agencies
noted that another State agency may have a similar program or have involvement
in their program. Given the large number
of programs reported by State agencies, there were other programs that could
have been selected for in-depth review.
These 50 programs were selected to provide some perspective as to the
extent that duplication might exist.
The 20 State agencies responding to
our follow-up survey generally concluded that their program(s) were not
duplicative with another State agency for the following types of reasons:
·
Funding v. Technical Assistance. Some programs share a common goal but
accomplish it in a different manner.
·
Differing Federal v. State Requirements. Some programs share common goals but operate
under differing legal requirements.
·
Differing Target Population. Some programs offer similar services but
to different groups.
For the most part, agencies
identified differences between the programs and concluded that there was little
opportunity for consolidation. In three
instances, one of the agencies that administered a program indicated that
possible duplication or an opportunity for consolidation may exist, but the
other agency administering a similar program did not conclude similarly.
The report
contains the results of our review of over 50 programs and the Supplement contains the detailed
information on individual programs provided by State agencies.
______________________________
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND
Auditor
General
WGH:AD
