A n n u a l R e p o r t

S T A T E O F I L L I N O I SO F F I C E O F T H E A U D I T O R G E N E R A L

Will iam G. HollandA u d i t o r G e n e r a l

1998

March 1, 1999

Honorable Members of the General AssemblyThe Legislative Audit CommissionThe Honorable George Ryan, GovernorCitizens of Illinois

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In compliance with Section 3-15 of the Illinois State Auditing Act, I submit the AnnualReport of the Office of the Auditor General for the year ended December 31, 1998.

I have always believed the audit process cannot have value unless it is fair. With this in mind,my goal has been to present objective, balanced and unbiased audits. I believe this annualreport reflects the success of my office in meeting that goal during 1998. It will continue to bemy goal during the coming year.

I thank all those who made possible the results reported including, in particular, members ofthe General Assembly, members and staff of the Legislative Audit Commission, and the staff ofthis office.

Yours truly,

WILLIAM G. HOLLANDAuditor General

SPRINGFIELD OFFICE:

ILES PARK PLAZA 740 EAST ASH • 62703-3154

PHONE: 217/782-6046FAX: 217/785-8222TDD: 217/524-4646

INTERNET ADDRESS: AUDITOR@POP.STATE.IL.US

RECYCLED PAPER: SOYBEAN INKS

CHICAGO OFFICE:

JAMES R.THOMPSON CENTER • SUITE 4-100100 WEST RANDOLPH STREET • 60601

PHONE: 312/814-4000FAX: 312/814-4006

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND

OVERVIEW 1

PUBLIC INFORMATION 2

COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM 3

Accountability 4Federal Auditing & Other Audit Responsibilities 8

PERFORMANCE AUDIT PROGRAM 9

Audits Completed in 1998 10Audits in Progress 14

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AUDIT PROGRAM 16

ISA FINDINGS 17

Y2K 17

CONTINUING EDUCATION 18

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 19

CLAIMS DUE THE STATE AND METHODS OF COLLECTION 20

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES 20

COMPLIANCE AUDITS COMPLETED IN 1998 21

PERFORMANCE AUDITS 1980-1998 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW

1

Since August 1992, William G. Holland hasserved as Auditor General of the State ofIllinois. He was appointed by the GeneralAssembly to a ten-year term on July 2, 1992.

As a constitutional officer, the Auditor Generalaudits public funds of the State and reports findingsand recommendations to the General Assemblyand to the Governor. The establishment of theAuditor General under the Legislature is important.It ensures that the Legislature, which grantsfunds and sets program goals, will ultimatelyreview program expenditures and results. Thus,agencies are accountable to the people throughtheir elected representatives.

The Auditor General’s office performs severaltypes of audits to review State agencies.Financial and Compliance audits are mandatedby law. They disclose the obligation, expenditure,receipt, and use of public funds. They also provideagencies with specific recommendations toensure full compliance with State and federalstatutes, rules, and regulations.

Performance audits are conducted at the requestof legislators to assist them in overseeing gov-ernment. Programs, functions, and activities arereviewed according to the direction of the auditresolution or law directing the audit. TheGeneral Assembly may then use the audit rec-ommendations to develop legislation for theimprovement of government.

Information Systems audits are performed on theState’s computer networks. They determinewhether appropriate controls and recovery pro-cedures exist to manage and protect the State’sfinancial and confidential information.

Copies of all audits are made available to membersof the Legislature, the Governor, the media, andthe public. Findings include areas such asaccounts receivable, contracts, expenditure control,leases, misappropriation of funds, personnel andpayroll, property control, purchasing, reimburse-ments, computer security, telecommunications,and travel.

Audit reports are reviewed by the LegislativeAudit Commission in a public hearing whichincludes the agency’s officials. Testimony istaken from the agency regarding the audit findingsand the plans the agency has for correctiveaction. In some cases, the Commission maydecide to sponsor legislation to correct troublesomefiscal problems brought to light by the audit. Alloutstanding recommendations are reviewed duringthe next regularly scheduled audit of the agency;or, if the Commission requests, a special interimaudit may be conducted.•

An audit and its supporting workpapers, unlessconfidential by, or pursuant to, law or regulation,are public documents once the report has beenofficially released to the Legislature, the public,and the press. These documents are available forreview in our Springfield and Chicago offices.

The following information is also available byrequest:

• Late Filing Affidavits

• Emergency Purchase Affidavits

• Professional or Artistic ServicesAffidavits

• Contractual Services Certifications

Public Information is available by writing:

Records Manager/FOIA Officer Office of the Auditor General

Iles Park Plaza 740 E. Ash St.

Springfield, IL 62703-3154

Phone: 217/782-1055312/814-4000

Fax: 217/785-8222312/814-4006

TDD: 217/524-4646

E-Mail Address: auditor@pop.state.il.us

2

AUDITOR GENERAL’S HOME PAGE

Information about the Auditor General is nowavailable on a Home Page on the Internet.

This information includes current digests offinancial/compliance audits and the year eachIllinois state agency is audited. Also available isinformation on our performance and informationsystems audits.

We believe a presence on the "InformationSuper Highway" enhances the public’s access toour audits.

In order to reach our Home Page, please use thefollowing Internet address:

http://www.state.il.us/auditor/audhome.html

PUBLIC INFORMATION

3

The Auditor General is required by the IllinoisState Auditing Act to conduct a financial andcompliance audit of every State agency at leastonce every two years. These audits inform thepublic, the Legislature, and State officers aboutthe obligation, expenditure, receipt, and use ofpublic funds and provide State agencies withspecific recommendations to ensure full compli-ance with State and federal statutes, rules, andregulations.

The Compliance Audit Division conducted 145compliance, financial, federal, and special auditsin 1998. Staff auditors conducted 11 of theseaudits. The remainder were performed by publicaccounting firms under the general direction andmanagement of the Auditor General’s auditmanagers.

The Illinois Constitution of 1970 revised andexpanded the traditional financial audits conductedof State agencies to focus on compliance withlegislative intent and proper performance ofgovernmental operations, as well as financialaccountability.

The compliance audit program has a positiveimpact on the operations of State governmentbecause agencies implement many of the recom-mendations made in these audits. Complianceaudits are also reviewed by the LegislativeAudit Commission where legislators questionagency directors about audit findings and thecorrective action they plan to take. Legislatorsand their staffs also use compliance audits duringappropriation hearings in the spring legislativesession. To maximize the usefulness of auditinformation, the Office attempts to deliver auditsas early as possible in the legislative session. •

THE COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM

4

A number of compliance audits issued in 1998had findings which were critically importantfrom and accountability standpoint.

SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED TO

INELIGIBLE STUDENTS

Chicago State University Foundation awardedscholarships to six students who were ineligible.Further, the Foundation did not have adequatedocumentation to support the award of onescholarship, and, on another occasion theFoundation made an inappropriate payment to astudent for room and board. Specifically:

• A recipient of the Advocate HealthCarescholarship was awarded $3,261 but wasnot enrolled in the required program.

• Five recipients of the RooseveltRichards Scholarship were awarded$500 each but did not meet minimumacademic achievement requirements.

• In 1 out of 25 scholarship recipients’ filesreviewed, documents were not availableto determine eligibility for the award.

• The Foundation paid $2,495 for theroom and board of a student. TheFoundation could not provide documen-tation to substantiate the reason for thepayment.

We recommended the Foundation verify andmaintain documentation that all students meeteligibility requirements prior to awarding ascholarship. Also, the Foundation should establishprocedures to substantiate scholarship disburse-ments to eligible recipients and should requiresupporting documents and evidence of Boardapproval for all disbursements to students.

The Foundation responded that it concurred withour recommendation. The Foundation also said itwould take the necessary steps to ensure that allscholarship recipients meet eligibility requirements.

QUESTIONED COSTS

The Department of Alcoholism and SubstanceAbuse did not resolve discrepancies identifiedbetween subrecipient audit reports and theDepartment’s grant tracking system.

The Department attempted to reconcile 22 subre-cipient audit reports to the Department’s granttracking systems for Fiscal Year 1996. For theserecords, 18 either traced exactly to theDepartment’s grant tracking system or were ade-quately followed up on by the Department. Theremaining four instances were yet to be resolved.The unresolved discrepancies amounted to$2,019,549 in Department funds that were unac-counted for. This amount is considered a questionedcost.

The Department advised a provider that a financialand single audit report would not be required forFiscal Year 1996. This is a violation of theSingle Audit Act. The total contract amount dis-bursed to the provider by the Department was$25,000, which meets the minimum amountrequiring an annual audit report filing with theDepartment. At this point, we consider the dis-bursed amount of $25,000 as a questioned cost.

We recommended the Department resolve dis-crepancies identified in subrecipient audit reportsto determine whether correcting adjustments needto be completed or whether these differencesconstituted questioned costs. Also, we recom-mended the Department fully comply with theSingle Audit Act to ensure all required provideraudit reports are submitted.

The Department of Human Services respondedit will implement a system to ensure year endaudits and reconciliations of overpayments arecompleted. Adjustments for questioned costs, ifany, will be completed as necessary. Further theywill ensure all audits are filed as required by theSingle Audit Act.

ACCOUNTABILITY

5

ENFORCEMENT PROCESS DEFICIENCIES

The Department of Professional Regulationhad deficiencies in its enforcement processincluding untimely activity in the investigationand prosecution functions.

In testing the investigation of pharmacy anddental cases, we found:

• 4 of 25 cases reflected time delays, rangingfrom 51 to 102 days, between receipt ofthe complaint and the date of the firstfollow-up or investigative activity.

• 6 of 25 cases referred for investigationreflected time delays, ranging from 37 to80 days, between the date of the lastrecorded investigative activity and thedate the case was either closed orreferred to prosecutions.

• 7 of 25 cases referred for investigationreflected periods, ranging from 61 to 89days, during which no substantive inves-tigative activities were performed.

In testing the prosecution of pharmacy and dentalcases, we found:

• 12 of 25 cases reflected time delays,ranging from 32 to 291 days, betweenthe date referred to the Legal Unit andthe date of the first prosecutorial activity.

• 2 of 25 cases referred for prosecutionreflected periods, ranging from 91 to 211days, during which no substantive prose-cutorial activities were performed.

• 2 of 25 cases referred for prosecutionreflected time delays for a period of 47days between the date of the last recordedprosecutorial activity and the date thecase was signed by the director.

We recommended the Department establish ade-quate procedures over investigative and prosecu-torial duties.

The Department concurred with our recommen-dation, stating that management changes havebeen implemented to improve timeliness in bothdental and pharmacy cases.

OVERPAYMENT TO LONG TERM PROVIDERS

The Department of Public Aid failed to ade-quately monitor payments made to nursinghomes.

We examined two open provider audits andfound that $645,000 had been paid by theDepartment to nursing homes for recipients nolonger residing in the facilities. We also noted$1,398,448 had been paid to nursing homes forrecipients no longer residing at the audited facilitiesfor audits closed for year ended June 30, 1996and another $69,142 for the year ending June30, 1997. The Department’s local offices haveresponsibility to monitor nursing homes andtheir patients. Department policies and procedures,however, do not require the local offices to verifythe accuracy of information submitted by nursinghomes.

We recommended the Department create a systemwhich would require nursing homes to providethe local offices with a recipient list each monthin order to receive a payment for their claims.

Department officials agreed with our recommen-dation and stated that they and the Departmentof Human Services are jointly planning theimplementation of electronic data collection ofinformation regarding status changes forMedicaid patients residing in long term carefacilities. When implemented the process willelectronically update Department paymentrecords and forward the patient status informationto the local Human Service office for otheractivities.

6

EXPENDITURES CHARGED TO INCORRECT

LINE ITEMS

The Department of Agriculture was not followingappropriate methodology for charging Fair costsamong Illinois Department of Agriculture lineitems or to the Illinois State Fair Fund.

The Department incorrectly charged approximately$483,255 of fair related expenditures to otherline items for the 1996 Fair and approximately$296,302 for the 1997 Fair. If Fair expenses hadbeen properly charged, the Fair deficit for the1996 year would have been reported as$569,971 instead of $86,716 and the 1997 Fairwould have reported a deficit of $68,052 insteadof a surplus of $228,250. In addition, theDepartment charged $21,376 of administrativerelated costs to the “non-fair” portion of the FairFund.

We recommended the Department develop amethodology for charging fair costs to theIllinois State Fair Fund, and that the Departmentidentify, quantify, and define the costs necessaryto operate the Fair. If the Department concludesthe Fair cannot be self-sufficient, then it shouldseek additional funding from the GeneralAssembly.

The Department did not agree with this finding,stating expenditures were properly charged andthat the General Assembly never intended revenuesfrom previous fairs to serve as the only financialsupport of the State Fair. In an Auditor’sComment, we pointed out that in the past theDepartment has acknowledged that the StateFair was intended to be “self supporting” andfurther, while the Department may believe someFair costs are properly expendable from otherappropriations, they have not identified thesecosts, have not developed a methodology forapportioning them, and have not been consistentin charging them from year to year.

INCORRECT INVESTMENT MANAGER FEES

The Teachers’ Retirement System failed toensure investment manager fees were properlycalculated in accordance with contractual terms.The System contracts with investment managementcompanies for portfolio management services.We reviewed 15 investment manager quarterlyfee calculations totaling $6,371,012, noting onequarterly fee was incorrectly calculated, resultingin an overpayment of $11,489.

In addition, the System’s internal auditor examined35 additional management fee calculations duringthe fiscal year and noted three fees were incorrectlycalculated. These three incorrectly calculatedfees resulted in cumulative overpayments of$713,604.

Sound internal controls require that payments bemade according to contractual terms and shouldonly be for services received and benefitsderived. The System’s current process puts it atrisk of making overpayments when compensatingits investment managers.

We recommended the System:

• Calculate all fees in accordance with theterms and conditions of the investmentmanagement agreements;

• Standardize the manager fee paymentprocess;

• Design spreadsheets to facilitate thereview and recalculation process;

• Show all the necessary calculations onthe face of the spreadsheet;

• Document reviews, recalculations andbenchmark confirmations to ensure theyare proper and timely.

The System responded it has implemented addi-tional controls to assure that fees are calculatedin accordance with the investment managementagreement. It has established a multi-step calcula-

7

tion and review process which requires two sep-arate calculations and review approval by theappropriate Director of Investment.

NEED TO PROPERLY REVIEW

UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS

The University of Illinois’ failure to developadequate controls over the review of unemploymentbenefit claims and payments resulted in severalproblems, including unemployment benefitsbeing paid by the State to employees who werestill receiving a paycheck from the University.During the audit period, the Illinois Departmentof Employment Security (IDES) paid unemploy-ment benefits of almost $1.9 million to 805 for-mer/current employees of the University. Someof the problems included:

• Questionable unemployment benefitpayments of approximately $9,600 for69 weeks of unemployment were paid to12 employees while they were workingat the University.

• The University failed to protest that fourindividuals who resigned from theiremployment were subsequently paid$21,887 for 95 weeks of unemployment.Individuals are ineligible for unemploy-ment benefits in weeks in which theyhave voluntarily left work.

• The University failed to testify at IDESReferees Hearings after a local IDESoffice had denied benefits to three indi-viduals (based on a claim protested bythe University). At these three hearingsthe Referee set aside the local officedecision and granted unemploymentbenefits. The three individuals were paid$14,946 in benefits for 55 weeks ofunemployment.

We recommended the University develop adequatepolicies and procedures for the review of unem-ployment benefit claims, investigate the caseswhere questionable benefits were paid, and workwith the Illinois Department of EmploymentSecurity to see if any funds should be recovered.

University officials concurred with the findingand stated they will establish systemwide guidelinesand procedures for reviewing, monitoring andresponding to unemployment claims by March1, 1998. Also, effective September 1, 1997, theUniversity reorganized the management andoperations of the Human Resource Offices inorder to improve the control and coordination ofthese functions across all three campuses. Theystate they are working with the IllinoisDepartment of Employment Security to recoverfunds where questionable benefits were paid toemployees. •

In 1998, our Office distributed 30 audits whichwere designed to meet both federal and Statecompliance audit requirements. Such combinedpurpose audits are mandated by the federalSingle Audit Act. Reimbursements to the State’sGeneral Revenue Fund for the federal share ofthese audits released by our Office in 1998should exceed $825,000.

Audits for federal compliance purposes discloseda number of questioned costs in federal programswhich could result in the need for repayment tothe federal government. •

The Auditor General is required by law to annuallyreview the Comptroller’s Statewide accountingsystem. This review is accomplished through theOffice’s audit of the State Comptroller, and byensuring that all agency audits are performed inaccordance with the Auditor General’s AuditGuide.

In addition, the Auditor General annuallyreviews the State Comptroller’s pre-audit functionwhich is required by law. Pre-audit is the primarycontrol over expenditure voucher processing.The State Comptroller pre-audits financial trans-actions to determine if they are proper and legal.

On July 1, 1997, the Comptroller’s Office imple-mented the new Statewide AccountingManagement System (SAMS).

Agency officials stated that the new SAMS systemtakes advantage of the latest technology and hasreplaced the antiquated CUSAS system. Theyfeel the new system will resolve our audit findingthat has recurred since 1975 to replace CUSAS.•

OTHER AUDIT RESPONSIBILITIES

FEDERAL AUDITING

8

9

Performance audits are conducted at the requestof legislators to assist them in their oversightfunction. Based on the scope specified in the res-olution or the law requesting the audit, agencies’programs, functions, and activities are reviewed.The audits determine if resources are used effi-ciently, economically, and effectively to provideservices which the General Assembly intended.These audits are important to furthering publicaccountability.

The General Assembly uses performance auditinformation to develop legislation, to deal withbudgetary issues, and to direct agencies tochange and improve programs.

Some audits produce immediate changes. Forexample, our Program Audit of the NursingHome Prescreening Program released in June1998 identified weaknesses in the Departmenton Aging’s management controls over paymentsfor screenings. As a result, a total of $19,896was recovered from provider agencies who sub-mitted duplicate billings.

In addition, our Management Audit of Tuitionand Fee Waivers, released in April 1998, result-ed in the formation of a committee composed ofthe Illinois Board of Higher Education and Stateuniversities to address the findings we reported.

In other instances, significant changes may notbe seen for several years. The length of time ittakes to see some changes is due to the processof transforming the audit findings and recom-mendations into legislative bills, converting billsinto law, and the passing of time to see the effectof change.

For example, Public Act 90-699, approvedAugust 1998 and effective January 1999,amended the Medical Practice Act of 1987. Theamendment was requested by the Department ofProfessional Regulation as a way to address certainfindings and recommendations in our ProgramAudit of Physicians Regulated Under TheMedical Practice Act released in May of 1997.

Performance audits also directly impact andimprove agency operations. In 1998, the AuditorGeneral released five major performance audits.State agencies accepted many of the audit rec-ommendations to correct or improve operations.

THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT PROGRAM

10

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S ROAD

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Legislative Audit Commission ResolutionNumber 111, adopted May 5, 1997, directed theAuditor General to conduct a management auditto determine whether costs paid by the IllinoisDepartment of Transportation (IDOT) for road-building materials are comparable with costspaid by other midwestern states, why there arecost differences, and whether changes in IDOT’sprocurement methods are warranted. Based on areview of calendar year 1996 data for Illinoisand six other midwestern states (Indiana, Iowa,Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin), wefound:

• IDOT’s average unit costs for selected payitems were higher than other midwesternstates’ average unit costs for 9 of 10 majorroadbuilding pay items examined, includingexcavation, asphalt, and portland cementconcrete.

• Factors contributing to cost differencesincluded Illinois’ higher labor costs, limitedavailability of certain materials, differencesin project requirements, and differences incost reporting among states.

• Award amounts for IDOT’s 106 single bidcontracts averaged 0.64 percent aboveIDOT’s estimated cost, while 783 multiplebid contracts averaged 10.88 percent belowthe estimated cost.

• Fifty-four percent of IDOT’s project costestimates were not within 10 percent of thelow bid.

The audit made 12 recommendations to helpcontrol roadbuilding costs through the procure-ment process. For example, we recommendedthat IDOT evaluate differences in projectrequirements between Illinois and other states toidentify areas where cost savings can be real-

ized, and that IDOT increase the number of let-tings and centralize the collection of bids. IDOTfully or partly concurred with all the recommen-dations.

TUITION AND FEE WAIVERS

Legislative Audit Commission ResolutionNumber 108, adopted July 25, 1996, directed theAuditor General to conduct a management auditof tuition and fee waivers granted to studentsattending the State’s public universities. Theaudit issued in April of 1998 found that tuitionrevenue in Fiscal Year 1996 for the State’s nineuniversities was $507 million, of which $117million (23 percent) was waived. The total num-ber of waivers was 40,752. In addition, universi-ties waived almost $5 million in fees. We alsoreported the following:

• Of the $117 million in tuition waived, $106million was granted at the discretion of theindividual universities and $11 million wasfor programs established by law.

• Of the $117 million waived, 80% was forgraduate students.

• Statewide guidelines for awarding waiverswere minimal. While undergraduate institu-tional waivers were generally limited to apercentage of undergraduate tuition set byIBHE, no policy or dollar limit existed ongraduate waivers.

• Our sample of tuition waivers showed thatthe administration of waivers was decentral-ized and guided by few written policies.

The audit made 10 recommendations to improvethe awarding, management, and reporting ofwaivers. The universities and agencies generallyconcurred with the recommendations.

AUDITS COMPLETED IN 1998

11

NURSING HOME PRESCREENING

Senate Resolution Number 207 directed theAuditor General’s Office to complete a programaudit of the new universal screening program todetermine the cost effectiveness of the universalscreening mandate. This mandate became effec-tive July 1, 1996, when the Nursing Home CareAct was amended to require universal prescreen-ing for all individuals seeking admission to anursing facility (210 ILCS 45/2-201.5).

Responsibility for the mandate is shared amongthe Departments on Aging, Human Services, andPublic Health. In our review, released in June of1998, we determined that:

• In its first year, the universal screening pro-gram at the Department on Aging appears tohave been cost effective for individuals aged60 and over. Even though only a small pro-portion of individuals screened were deflect-ed from nursing facility care to less expen-sive community based care, we estimate thatduring Fiscal Year 1997, the State may havesaved approximately $2.8 million as a resultof Aging’s screenings.

• Due to this new requirement, the Departmenton Aging did 332 percent more nursingfacility prescreenings during Fiscal Year1997 than in the prior year. In Fiscal Year1997, Aging paid for 62,747 screenings per-formed for individuals 60 years of age orolder at a total cost of $3.6 million. Of the62,747 screenings performed, 51,189 resultedin the person being placed in a nursing facility.

• The universal screening requirement had lit-tle impact on the screenings for individualsunder age 60. The Department of HumanServices’ divisions of rehabilitation servicesand of mental health and developmental dis-abilities are responsible for these screenings.

• The Department of Public Health had notestablished a control to assure that all indi-

viduals are screened as required by law todetermine the need for nursing facility serv-ices prior to admission.

The audit report contained seven recommenda-tions, five for the Department on Aging and oneeach for Public Aid and Public Health. Theagencies generally concurred with the recom-mendations.

COMPTROLLER’S OFFSET SYSTEM

Legislative Audit Commission ResolutionNumber 110 adopted April 28, 1997, directedthe Auditor General to conduct a special audit ofthe 10 agencies with the largest amount of netreceivables, as identified in the Comptroller’sReceivables Report for 1996. The Resolutionasked the Auditor General to determine whetherall eligible debts have been placed in theComptroller’s Offset System as required by law.The Offset System is a collection tool used tointercept State payments to debtors who owe theState money.

The 10 agencies in the scope of the special auditincluded: the Teachers’ Retirement System, theIllinois Student Assistance Commission, theUniversity of Illinois, Southern IllinoisUniversity, and the Departments of Public Aid,Revenue, Employment Security, Children andFamily Services, Transportation, and CentralManagement Services.

The audit, issued in September of 1998, foundthat in the 1,000 randomly sampled accountsreceivable cases (that were over $1,000 andmore than a year old):

• 522 receivables (52 percent) did not complywith the provisions of the State CollectionAct or the Administrative Code which gov-ern the use of the Offset System. Of these,

• 330 (totaling almost $3.6 million)were not placed in the Offset

12

System by the agencies, and

• 192 (totaling over $2.5 million)were placed in the Offset System butnot within one year, as required by theAct. On average, agencies submittedthese 192 receivables to Offset 3.7years after the debt’s due date.

• 478 receivables (48 percent) complied withthe provisions of the State Collection Act orAdministrative Code. Of these,

• 191 were placed by the State agencyin the Offset System within oneyear, and

• 287 were not eligible for offset (e.g.,a deferred payment plan had beenestablished).

We analyzed our sample of receivables to deter-mine how much might have been recovered ifagencies had submitted the 192 untimely receiv-ables in a timely manner or had submitted the330 eligible receivables which were not submitted.We determined that offsets could have beentaken in 121 of these 522 receivables (23 percent),for a potential recovery of $1,019,525.

Based on our sample of 1,000 receivables, weprojected that potentially $13.5 million couldhave been recovered if agencies had submittedall eligible accounts receivable that exceeded$1,000 and were over one year old. Since manyagency receivables were several years old, this$13.5 million does not represent an annualrecovery amount, but rather, would be spreadover several years.

We also found that: some receivables in theOffset System were not accurate; differencesexisted between the balances of receivables inagency records and the balances reported in theOffset System; and some receivable amountsreported to the Comptroller were either under-stated or overstated.

The audit report contained six recommendationsto State agencies. The agencies generally con-curred with the recommendations.

DHS OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Abused and Neglected Long Term CareFacility Residents Reporting Act directed theAuditor General to conduct a program audit ofthe Office of the Inspector General, Departmentof Human Services (210 ILCS 30/6.8). This wasthe fifth audit of the Office of the InspectorGeneral’s effectiveness in investigating allega-tions of abuse or neglect.

The mission of the Inspector General is to “iden-tify, evaluate, and communicate the preventionof abuse or neglect.” The Inspector General isappointed by the Governor and confirmed by theSenate for a four-year term. The InspectorGeneral reports to the Secretary of theDepartment of Human Services. The currentInspector General was appointed in October1995.

The audit found the following:

• Overall timeliness of the investigations hasdeteriorated since our last audit. Eighty-sixpercent of Fiscal Year 1998 investigationstook longer than the 60 days allowed inDHS policy. The number of cases takingmore than 200 days to complete increased to211 in Fiscal Year 1998 from 13 in FiscalYear 1997.

• Case file documentation has improved sinceour last audit. We noted 18 percent of casesin our sample missing one or more requireddocuments. In our prior audit, we reportedthat 44 percent were missing documentation.

• Supervisory review of case files needs to beimproved. Of 186 OIG investigations requir-ing a supervisory review form, 30 (16%) didnot have the form. Supervisory review also

13

needs to be improved in investigations con-ducted by community agencies and facili-ties. Eighty-nine percent of community and32 percent of facility investigations did notcontain the appropriate case review docu-mentation.

• Although the number of investigators whoreceived all required training has improved,12 of 30 investigators were lacking one ormore of the 15 required courses. In addition,the OIG has not monitored the trainingreceived by facility investigators who con-duct investigations and the initial steps inOIG investigations.

• The OIG has also not imposed or definedsanctions against facilities although the OIGhas had statutory authority since January1990.

The audit made 11 recommendations to theOffice of the Inspector General. The OIG agreedwith all of the recommendations. •

14

CHICAGO AIRPORTS

Public Act 89-386, effective August 18, 1995,directs the Auditor General to “conduct a com-pliance and management audit of the City ofChicago and any other entity with regard to theoperation of Chicago O’Hare InternationalAirport, Chicago Midway Airport and Merrill C.Meigs Field.” The law specifies that the auditshall include “an examination of revenues,expenses, and transfers of funds; purchasing andcontracting policies and practices; staffing levels;and hiring practices and procedures.”

On September 9, 1996, the City of Chicago fileda lawsuit against the Auditor General seeking toenjoin our efforts to carry out the audit requiredby Public Act 89-386.

The Auditor General’s Office is represented inthis lawsuit by the Illinois Attorney General’sOffice.

OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL

House Resolution Number 486, adopted May21, 1998, directs the Auditor General to conducta management audit of the State Fire Marshal’srole in fire investigations. The resolution directsthat the audit include a review of the:

• timeliness of the Fire Marshal’s investigations;

• policy or protocol statements; and

• the agency’s utilization of overtime compensation.

MEDICAID HOME HEALTH CARE

Legislative Audit Commission ResolutionNumber 114 adopted July 16, 1998, directs theAuditor General to participate in the NationalState Auditors Association’s joint audit of the

State’s Medicaid expenditures for home healthcare and the State’s regulatory control overhome health care agencies. The Resolutiondirects the Auditor General to:

• Determine whether the home health servicesbilled for Medicaid clients by providers areproperly authorized, approved, allowable,and provided;

• Determine if there are adequate managementcontrols over the regulatory function whichcontrols home health care agencies; and

• Determine whether the State has proceduresin place to ensure that quality care is providedto Medicaid home health care clients.

SURVEY OF PROVIDER COSTS

House Resolution Number 504, adopted May12, 1998, directs the Auditor General to conducta survey to determine the cost of providingselected health and human services that are paidfor by the Department on Aging, the Departmentof Children and Family Services, theDepartment of Human Services, the Departmentof Corrections, and the Department of PublicAid, through grants or contracts with providers.The Resolution asks that the survey summarizehow each State agency included in the studysets, reviews, and updates reimbursement ratesfor the programs selected.

The Resolution states that the cost data collectedin the survey may be based upon the costsreported by the State agency and providers andneed not be independently verified by the Officeof the Auditor General. The Resolution alsostates that the survey may be conducted by sam-pling a limited number of providers for eachprogram included in the review.

PERFORMANCE AUDITS IN PROGRESS

15

PILSEN-LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY

MENTAL HEALTH CENTER

Illinois House of Representatives ResolutionNumber 385, adopted May 20, 1998, directs theAuditor General to conduct a management auditof the Pilsen-Little Village Community MentalHealth Center, located in Chicago, Illinois. TheResolution asks the Auditor General to deter-mine whether funds received by the Center havebeen spent according to applicable State law,regulations, contracts, and grants.

DELTA DENTAL

Legislative Audit Commission ResolutionNumber 113, adopted on April 20, 1998, directsthe Auditor General to conduct a managementaudit of the Department of Public Aid’s con-tracts with the Delta Dental Plan of Illinois. TheAuditor General’s Office previously conducted asimilar audit, which was released in 1990.Resolution Number 113 asks the AuditorGeneral to determine:

• Whether the Department of Public Aidhas addressed concerns expressed in theprior management audit and implement-ed the recommendations contained inthe prior audit;

• Whether the Department’s current con-tract provided the Department with ade-quate controls to effectively manage theperformance of Delta Dental Plan ofIllinois;

• Whether the Department’s review ofDelta Dental’s performance assessedcompliance with all pertinent contractprovisions, including the timeliness ofclaims processing and the disposition ofclaims denied for reimbursement;

• Whether the fees paid by the State,under the terms of the current contractand any new contract, for dental care arereasonable;

• Whether the manner of soliciting pro-posals for a new contract was adequateand in conformity with any applicablelaws and prudent business practices; and

• Whether the manner and basis of evalu-ating proposals for dental care was ade-quate and in conformity with any appli-cable laws and prudent business prac-tices. •

16

Computers are an integral part of State govern-ment, processing billions of dollars in financialtransactions each year and helping control theoperations of State agencies. Since financialtransactions and confidential information areprocessed using computers, audits of informa-tion system activities are necessary to ensurethat computer processing is secure and accurate.

TESTING CONTROLS AND SYSTEMS

The Auditor General’s office plans to review theinformation system controls of all the Stateagencies. In 1998, we reviewed the followingagencies:

Department of Public Aid, Secretary of State,Illinois Student Assistance Commission,Treasurer, Department of ProfessionalRegulation, Supreme Court, Department ofPublic Health, Chicago State University,Governors State University, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Western Illinois University,Department of Employment Security,Department of Mental Health & Disabilities.

As end-user computing has proliferated in Stategovernment, the Auditor General has increasedaudit efforts in these areas. To enhance the controlenvironment in the implementation of statewideend-user computing, the Auditor General hasemphasized the review of local and wide areanetworks. These reviews have focused on thenecessity of establishing consistent and effectivesecurity policies and programs on all computersystems.

The information systems audit staff also re-viewed and tested the systems and procedures atthe State’s central computer facility operated bythe Department of Central ManagementServices. Through its facilities, the Departmentprovides data processing services to approxi-mately 103 user entities throughout State ofIllinois governmental agencies. Auditors tested

the facility’s controls and the application sys-tems used by many State agencies, such asaccounting, payroll, inventory, and timekeeping.

Additional emphasis was placed on the use ofComputer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs)in the application reviews. Computer programswere developed and executed to verify theintegrity and validity of data. No major prob-lems were identified with the data.

Controls at the central computer facility weregenerally adequate. However, we did recom-mend that the Department of CentralManagement Services continue and intensify itsefforts in coordinating the Year 2000 complianceissues for the Department and for State agencies.We also noted that disaster contingencyresources and procedures may not be adequatefor resumption of data processing following adisaster. •

THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AUDIT PROGRAM

17

Three agencies, Northeastern Illinois University,Chicago State University, and the Departmentof Public Aid did not adequately plan the imple-mentation of new computer systems.

Public Aid did not completely define its needsand the requirements of an accounting systemproject prior to executing a contract with its vendorand significant cost overruns resulted.

The agency published a Request for Proposals inJanuary 1995 and rewarded the contract in June1995 to the lowest bidder for $3.4 million. Thisbid was substantially less than the second lowestbid of $8 million. In recommending the selectedvendor, Department officials stated: “theaccounting functionality of the software meetsthe required needs of the Department”.

In the two years following the award, the contractwas amended three times, four additional agree-ments were signed with the vendor, and fourtask orders were charged to a master contractarranged through the Department of CentralManagement Services. Public Aid’s total obliga-tions with the vendor increased from $3.4 millionto $13.6 million. The Department at June 30,1997 estimated an additional $1 million wouldbe needed to complete the project.

We recommended the Department review itscontracting procedures to identify steps to morethoroughly plan future system projects and limitsubstantial cost overruns.

Department officials agreed with our recommen-dation and stated the procurement process wasunder review and steps were added to theprocess to assure comprehensive planning.

Northeastern Illinois University purchased asoftware package that did not meet its needs,required extensive modifications, and was paidfor before it was delivered. Although the projectwas originally targeted to be completed byNovember 1996, it was still incomplete at theend of our audit period.

Chicago State University did not have an effec-tive planning framework in place to direct andassist the University through a major develop-ment system, such as the implementation of anew administrative software package, or criticalYear 2000 problem.

Other ISA findings pointed out inadequate andincomplete disaster recovery contingency plans,outdated and inefficient computer systems, andlack of security, or outdated security proceduresin State agencies’ Local Area Networks andmainframe computers.

The agencies generally concurred with our rec-ommendations concerning these issues.

Information systems audit staff also reviewedthe Generally Accepted Accounting Principles(GAAP) System at the Office of theComptroller. This system is used to accumulatefiscal information from all State agencies intothe State’s comprehensive financial report. Nosignificant problems were identified in the com-putational portion of the automated GAAPSystem.

The Information Systems Audit Division alsoprovides audit staff and management with dataprocessing and reference support, and with pro-fessional training to supplement job skills and tocomply with Government Auditing Standards.

Y2KThe year 2000 can cause problems with comput-er-based systems due to the manner in whichcomputers process calendar dates. Until recently,computers have stored the calendar year as twodigits rather than four. For example, the year1998 is stored as “98”. In the year 2000, thecomputer would store “00” as the calendar year.Therefore, the computer would not know if theyear is 1900 or 2000.

ISA FINDINGS

18

If State agencies do not give high priority to thisissue, systems relied upon to meet mandates andobjectives could have serious problems.Corrective work often requires considerable pro-gramming effort to examine numerous lines ofsource code in order to locate the date fields andcorrect them. As we rapidly approach 2000, thecorrective process should have been defined andscheduled, or implemented.

The IS audits completed in 1998 found the fol-lowing agencies deficient in their efforts todefine and correct impending Y2K problems:

Southern Illinois UniversityNortheastern Illinois UniversityChicago State UniversityGovernors State UniversityCriminal Justice Information AuthorityDepartment of Rehabilitation ServicesDepartment of Public Health

ISA staff will continue to increase awareness ofthe Y2K problem and monitor State agencyefforts to ensure computer systems will functionproperly in the new millennium.

In addition to auditing the Y2K problem, theAuditor General and Director of InformationSystems Audits are members of the Year 2000Technology Task Force for the State of Illinois.

On July 30, 1998, Governor Jim Edgar signedPublic Act 90-666 which created the Task Forceand designated the following objectives:

• assess the current status of Year 2000 com-pliance within State and local government;

• analyze and prioritize corrective measuresthat must be taken to become Year 2000compliant;

• prepare an estimated timetable for complet-ing these corrective measures; and

• conduct additional inquiries or studies asdeemed appropriate.

The Task Force published it Preliminary Reportin November 1998. For further information, con-tact the State’s Year 2000 Project Office or visitthe State of Illinois Home Pagewww.state.il.us/cms/y2k

CONTINUING EDUCATION AND

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) hasestablished the Yellow Book which containsstandards for audits of governmental organiza-tions, programs, activities, and functions. Thefirst general standard in the Yellow Bookrequires that auditors should collectively possessadequate professional proficiency for the tasksrequired. This standard establishes continuingeducation requirements for those auditors whoare responsible for planning, directing, conducting,or reporting on governmental audits performedin accordance with Yellow Book Standards.

This training requirements first became effectiveJanuary 1, 1989 and states that auditors mustcomplete 80 hours of Continuing Education andTraining every 2 years, with a minimum of 20hours in any one year. Additionally, at least 24of the 80 hours should be in subjects directlyrelated to the government environment and togovernment auditing. The most recent completedtwo-year period for training requirements asmeasured by the Office of the Auditor Generalwas January 1, 1997 through December 31,1998. All required auditors, audit directors, andinformation specialists were in compliance withthe training requirements for that two year meas-uring period.

Additionally, the Office of the Auditor Generalis a registered sponsor with the Department ofProfessional Regulation and complies with therules of the Illinois Public Accounting Act. •

AUDITOR GENERALASSISTANT TO

AUDITOR GENERAL

DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERALS

LEGAL COUNSEL

FISCAL OFFICER QUALITY ASSURANCE

PERFORMANCE FINANCIAL/COMPLIANCE INFORMATIONAUDITS AUDITS SYSTEMS AUDITS

As of December 1998, there were 75 employees. Sixty four were located in the Springfield office and eleven in the Chicago office.

19

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

As required by law (30 ILCS 205/2 (k)), the Office of the Auditor General is reporting that the totalamount of claims administered by the Office that were due and payable to the State as of December 31,1998, was $158,000.00. This represents one account receivable. The accounts receivables generated byour Office primarily represent billings to other State agencies for reimbursement of audit costs.Reimbursements for federal single audits are deposited into the General Revenue Fund. Reimbursementsfor audits not associated with federal single audits are deposited or transferred to the Audit ExpenseFund. If normal collection methods fail, we request assistance from the Office of the Attorney General.To date we have never used the services of a private collection agency.

The Office of the Auditor General was funded by appropriations from the General Revenue Fund andAudit Expense Fund for fiscal year 1998 (July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998).

FY 1998 - Final

20

Personal ServicesEmployee Retire (Employer)RetirementSocial SecurityContractual ServicesTravelCommoditiesPrintingEquipmentEDPTelecommunicationsOper. of Auto. Equip.Audits/Studies/Invest.*TOTAL*Audit Expense Fund

Appropriation$ 3,080,500

123,200191,470225,130536,26083,60018,80016,70037,200

104,50073,200

5,240 10,567,860$15,063,660

Expended$ 2,942,852

115,325191,470217,564461,340

70,08316,71914,93036,995

100,91869,2725,240

8,888,935$13,131,643

Balance$ 137,648

7,8750

7,56674,92013,517

2,0811,770

2053,5823,928

01,678,925

$1,932,017

CLAIMS DUE THE STATE AND METHODS OF COLLECTION

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES

FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1997F = Financial C= Compliance

AGENCY F C DATE RELEASEDAgriculture - General Office x x 04-15-98Alton Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Anna Mental Health Center (Choate) x 03-12-98Arts Council and Foundation x x 04-98-98Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission x x 05-13-98Board of Admissions to the Bar x x 05-13-98Board of Higher Education x x 07-22-98Bureau of Admin. Support Services x 03-12-98Bureau of the Budget x x 03-24-98Capital Development Board x 03-24-98Chester Mental Health Center x x 03-12-98Chicago Metro Child and Adol. Ctr. x 03-12-98Chicago Read Mental Health Center x x 03-12-98Chicago State University x x 04-23-98Chicago State University Foundation x x 04-23-98Choate Mental Health and Developmental Center x 03-12-98Civil Service Commission x x 04-29-98Commerce Commission x x 04-29-98Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation x x 04-08-98Comptroller - Fiscal Officer x x 05-13-98Comptroller - Statewide Financial Opinion x 12-31-97Correctional Industries x 03-24-98Court of Claims x x 03-24-98Criminal Justice Information Authority x x 03-24-98Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse x x 05-06-98Department of Central Management Services - Deferred Compensation Plan Fund x 07-22-98Department of Central Management Services - Internal Service & Enterprise Fund x 03-24-98Department of Employment Security x x 03-26-98Department of Insurance x x 03-18-98Department of Insurance - Special DeputyDepartment of Labor x x 03-26-98Department of Lottery x x 04-15-98Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities x x 03-12-98Department of Nuclear Safety x x 05-06-98Department of Professional Regulation x x 03-18-98Department of Public Aid x x 05-06-98Department of Public Health x x 03-18-98Department of Rehabilitation Services x x 05-06-98

21

FINANCIAL & COMPLIANCE AUDITS

22

AGENCY F C DATE RELEASEDDepartment of Revenue x x 04-15-98Department of Transportation x 03-24-98Development Finance Authority x x 03-05-98DuQuoin State Fair x x 04-15-98Eastern Illinois University x x 04-23-98Eastern Illinois University Alumni Association x x 04-23-98Eastern Illinois University Foundation x x 04-23-98Economic and Fiscal Commission x 04-08-98Educational Facilities Authority x x 03-05-98Educational Labor Relations Board x x 03-26-98Elgin Mental Health Center x x 03-12-98Emergency Management Agency x x 03-18-98Farm Development Authority x x 03-05-98Fox Mental Health Center x 03-12-98General Assembly - House x 05-13-98General Assembly - Senate x 05-13-98General Assembly Retirement System x x 01-27-98Governor x x 05-13-98Governors State University x x 04-23-98Governors State University Alumni Association x x 04-23-98Governors State University Foundation x x 04-23-98Grain Insurance Corporation x x 04-15-98Guardianship and Advocacy Commission x x 03-18-98Health Facilities Authority x x 03-05-98High School Association x x 04-08-98Housing Development Authority x x 03-05-98Howe Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Human Rights Commission x x 03-26-98Illinois Center for Rehab. And Education x x 07-22-98Illinois Conservation Foundation x 01-29-98Illinois Distance Learning Foundation x x 05-13-98Illinois Gaming Board x x 04-15-98Illinois Literacy Foundation x x 05-13-98Illinois Math and Science Academy x x 05-06-98Illinois Public Treasurers Investment Pool x 01-29-98Illinois Rural Bond Bank x x 03-05-98Illinois State Fair x x 04-15-98Illinois State University x x 04-23-98Illinois State University Foundation x 04-23-98IMSA Fund x x 05-06-98Industrial Commission x x 03-26-98Jacksonville Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Judges Retirement System x x 01-27-98Kankakee River Valley Area Airport Authority x x 07-22-98Kiley Mental Health Center x x 03-12-98

23

AGENCY F C DATE RELEASEDLegislative Audit Commission x 04-08-98Legislative Printing Unit x 04-08-98Legislative Reference Bureau x x 04-08-98Legislative Research Unit x 04-08-98Lieutenant Governor x x 05-13-98Lincoln Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Ludeman Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Mabley Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Madden Mental Health Center x x 03-12-98McFarland Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Metropolitan Child and Adolescents Center x 03-12-98Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority x 07-22-98Murray Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Northeastern Illinois University x x 07-22-98Northeastern Illinois University Foundation x 07-22-98Northern Illinois University x x 04-23-98Northern Illinois University Foundation x 04-23-98Pension Laws Commission x 07-22-98Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities x x 03-18-98Prairie State 2000 Authority x x 03-26-98Public School Teachers Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago x 04-08-98Rural Bond Bank x x 03-05-98School for the Deaf x x 05-06-98School for the Visually Impaired x x 05-06-98Secretary of State x x 05-13-98Shapiro Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Singer Mental Health Center x 03-12-98SIU - Carbondale Alumni Association x 01-29-98SIU - Carbondale Alumni AssociationS x 04-23-98SIU - Carbondale Foundation x 01-29-98SIU - Carbondale Foundation x 04-23-98SIU - Carbondale Foundation ET x 01-29-98SIU - Edwardsville Alumni Association x 01-29-98SIU - Edwardsville Alumni Association x 04-23-98SIU - Edwardsville Foundation x 01-29-98SIU - Edwardsville Foundation x 04-23-98SIU - University Park x 01-29-98SIU - University Park x 04-23-98Southern Illinois University x x 04-23-98Space Needs Commission x 04-08-98State Board of Education x 04-08-98State Board of Elections x 04-29-98State Board of Investment x x 01-27-98State Employees Retirement System x x 01-27-98

AGENCY F C DATE RELEASEDState Labor Relations Board x 03-26-98State Universities Civil Service System x x 04-29-98State Universities Retirement System x x 01-27-98Summer School for the Arts x x 04-08-98Supreme Court x x 05-13-98Teachers Pension and Retirement System - Chicago x x 04-08-98Teachers Retirement System x x 01-27-98Tinley Park Mental Health Center x 03-12-98Treasurer - Fiscal Officer x x 05-13-98Treasurer - Non fiscal Officer x x 05-13-98UIHMO, Inc. x 01-29-98 UIHMO, Inc. x 07-22-98University of Illinois x x 04-23-98University of Illinois - Chicago HMO x 01-29-98University of Illinois Alumni Association x 01-29-98University of Illinois Foundation x 01-29-98Western Illinois University x x 04-23-98Western Illinois University Foundation x x 04-23-98Zeller Mental Health Center x 03-12-98

24

1980-1998

AUDITS IN PROGRESS

• CHICAGO AIRPORTS• OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL • MEDICAID HOME HEALTH CARE• SURVEY OF PROVIDER COSTS• PILSEN-LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY

HEALTH CENTER• DELTA DENTAL

12/98 DHS: Inspector General9/98 Comptroller’s Offset System6/98 Nursing Home Prescreening5/98 IDOT’s Road Construction Program4/98 Tuition & Fee Waivers5/97 Professional Regulation - Physicians

Regulated Under the Medical Practices Act

12/96 DMHDD - Office of the Inspector General

6/96 IHSA - Site Selection for Boys Basketball Finals

4/96 DMHDD - Reporting of Resident Abuse & Neglect

5/95 Summer Unemployment at StateUniversities

2/95 Laws Considered Obsolete1/95 Public Aid’s Child Support

Program12/94 Office of the Inspector General

6/94 Toll Highway: Helicopters6/94 DMHDD: Abuse & Neglect5/94 Correctional Industries5/94 Central Management Services:

Telecommunications3/94 Collection of Money from Circuit Clerks1/94 State Housing Benefits5/93 Public Aid: Property Transfers4/93 Office of the Inspector General4/93 Early Intervention Services System4/93 User Fees

11/92 DMHDD: Abuse & Neglect

7/92 St. Anne’s Lease6/92 State Police I-SEARCH Program5/92 Privatizing Weigh Stations4/92 Henry Horner’s Children’s Care3/92 Governor’s Council on Health &

Physical Fitness3/92 Case Management Practices1/92 State Legal Services

11/91 State Regulation of InsurerSolvency

8/91 High Education "Systems ofSystems"

7/91 Eastern Illinois University Coal Conversion Project

6/91 Special Analysis: Build Illinois5/91 Availability of Obstetric Care5/91 Collection of Sales & Taxes

Receivable5/91 Property Forfeited Under the

Illinois Controlled Substances Act3/91 Illinois Competitive Access &

Reimbursement Equity Program3/91 Nutritional Services Paid by the

Department of Children & FamilyServices

2/91 Illinois Multi-Year FixedContractual Obligations

2/91 Administrative Citations:Environmental Protection Agency

10/90 Project Chance Evaluation Contract10/90 Frequent Flyer Programs

8/90 Parents Too Soon Program7/90 State University Tuition & Fee

Policies & Practices7/90 Debt Collection Practices of Illinois

& Other States5/90 DMHDD: Abuse & Neglect4/90 Veterans’ Affairs Field Office

Closures3/90 Illinois Competitive Access &

Reimbursement Equity Program1/90 Public Aid’s-Delta Dental

12/89 Regional Transportation Auth.11/89 Illinois Sports Facilities Authority

& the Chicago White Sox

PERFORMANCE AUDITS, INQUIRIES, & SPECIAL REPORTS

25

11/89 Five State Retirement Systems’Financial Status

10/89 Feasibility of Consolidating StateRevenue Bond Agencies

7/89 Commerce & Community Affairs’Economic Development Programs

5/89 EPA’s Hazardous WasteManagement Program

4/89 Selected Auditor Comparability:Jobs & Pay

2/89 AIDS Testing: StatutoryRequirements & Costs

1/89 Public Univ. Instructional Costs1/89 Vehicle Emissions Testing Program

10/88 U of I Athletic Association8/88 JTPA7/88 Audit Status of Circuit Courts6/88 Dept. of Revenue - Corporate

Income Tax5/88 State Program of Internal Auditing7/87 Computer Acquisition & Use in

Higher Education6/87 Chicago Housing Authority6/87 Cash Management Practices4/87 State Laboratory Services4/87 U of I Hospital & Affiliated Clinics4/87 Chicago’s Use of State Appropriated

Funds10/86 State Pensions Assets Investment

Performance10/86 CMS - Lottery Building Lease10/86 Property Management Problems -

Mental Health Centers5/86 Illinois Preferential Procurement

Programs4/86 State Toxicology Lab4/86 Engineering Programs in Illinois -

NIU3/86 Claims & Accounts Receivable3/86 Capitol Development Board:

Construction of the State of IllinoisCenter

2/86 Illinois Commerce Commission2/86 Advisory Boards & Commissions

11/85 Data Security Practices

11/85 Hazardous Waste Management9/85 Management & Collection of

Claims Receivable3/85 Perinatal Medical Care

10/84 State Employee Travel10/84 Feasibility Study: Rock Island Co.

Facility9/84 Employment Security

Unemployment Insurance8/84 Salaried Non-working Time

Benefits8/84 Responsible Relative Requirements5/84 Bd. of Investment: 5 State

Retirement Systems10/83 Commerce Comm.: Management

Audits of Public Utilities5/83 Contractual Legal Services4/83 Industrial Commission

12/82 Procurement Policies & Procedures7/82 Criminal History Components4/82 Financing of Improvements of Rock

Island State Park1981 Chicago Road Fund

12/81 DMHDD: Region 211/81 Procurement of Real Property10/81 Registration & Education:

Investigation & EnforcementFunctions

1/81 Licensing & Regulation of Bingo1/81 Chicago Bd. of Education

12/80 Nursing Home ReimbursementSystem

12/80 DCFS Day Care Activities11/80 Dept. of Personnel Management10/80 Public Aid’s Local Office

Management9/80 Licensing of Grain Dealers7/80 Illinois Fair Employment Practices

Commission6/80 Sect of State Vending Services5/80 Coastal Zone Management1/80 Court of Claims1/80 Cook Co. Health & Hospitals •

26