office of inspector general, florida department of children and families, annual report fy 1999

8/9/2019 Office of Inspector General, Florida Department of Children and Families, Annual Report FY 1999

1/58

Secretary Inspector GeneralJudge Kathleen A. Kearney Guiseppe A. Betta

Office of Inspector General

Annual ReportFiscal Year 1999

Accountability

Efficiency

Integrity

Committed to working in partnership with local

communities to ensure safety, well-being, and self-

sufficiency for the people we serve.


2/58

Office of Inspector General Mission

---i---

To provide a central point

for coordination

and responsibility of efforts

that enhance accountability, efficiency,

and integrity and deter criminal activities

in the Department of Children and Families.


3/58

Office of Inspector General Code of Ethics

---ii---

The Office of Inspector General Employees

Code of Ethicss the central point for coordina-tion and responsibility of activi-

ties that enhance public account-ability in the Department, every memberof the Office of Inspector General (OIG)is personally committed to legallyfulfilling the true spirit and intent of thegoals and objectives required by20.055, F.S.

he OIG plays a significant role inthe accountability arena, evenmore so with a Secretary who is

totally committed to accountability, aswell as the prevention of fraud, waste,and abuse in state government. Publicaccountability requires demonstrating totaxpayers that their resources are safe-guarded and spent according to legalmandates and limitations, that their pro-grams operate economically and effi-ciently; and, more importantly, that thetaxpayers desired results are obtained.Moreover, the Secretarys mandate to

every employee is that strict adherenceto the leadership traits, as promoted by

the Departments Leadership Program, isvital to the sustained maintenance ofaccountability in this Agency.

ince perceptions of the OIG can beas damaging as reality, the profes-sional ethics and personal behavior

of OIG staff are issues of great signifi-cance. Each employee must maintainunassailably high moral standards, faith-ful obedience to the law; a strict avoid-

ance or even the appearance of unethicalbehavior; and an unrelenting self-discipline for independent and objec-tive thoughts and work habits that emu-late integrity in every sense of the word.Though it is important for everyemployee to understand that integrity,objectivity and independence are precur-sors for accountability in the OIG, or inany agency for that matter, they mustalso believe in it!

Compromise any of this and the need for an OIG no longer exists!

T

S


4/58

Office of Inspector General Table of Contents

---iii---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE OIG MISSION.......................................................................................................... i

THE OIG CODE OF ETHICS......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................iii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLE ................................................................................. iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. 1

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 3

SECTION B: OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................ 6

Investigations Highlights.................................................................................................. 9

SECTION C: OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT........................................................... 19

Contract Audit ................................................................................................................ 22

Information Systems Audit ............................................................................................ 23

Performance Audit ......................................................................................................... 25

Management Review...................................................................................................... 27

SECTION D: OFFICE OF APPEAL HEARINGS........................................................ 30

Fair Hearings ................................................................................................................. 30

Nursing Home Transfer/Discharge Hearings................................................................. 31Administrative Disqualification Hearings...................................................................... 32

SECTION E: OFFICE OF QUALITY CONTROL....................................................... 34

Administration of Quality Control ................................................................................. 34

Programs Reviewed........................................................................................................ 34

The Review Process ....................................................................................................... 35

Error Rates...................................................................................................................... 35

Medicaid......................................................................................................................... 35

Reports and Corrective Action Efforts........................................................................... 35

APPENDIX I: PROVIDER SELF-DISCLOSURE PROTOCOL ................................. 38

APPENDIX II: INVESTIGATIONS BY DISTRICT.................................................... 43


5/58

Office of Inspector General List of Figures and Table

---iv---

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLE

Figure A.1: OIG Organizational Chart............................................................................. 5

Figure B.1: Information Received in the Operations Center ........................................... 6

Figure B.2: Requests for Employee Reference Checks ................................................... 7

Figure B.3: Allegations Investigated................................................................................ 8

Figure B.4: Complaints and Investigations by Region .................................................... 9

Figure C.1: Total Staff Months Available versus Staff Months Filled.......................... 20

Figure C.2: Ad-Hoc Customers Served.......................................................................... 21

Figure C.3: Ad-Hoc Requests by Program..................................................................... 21

Figure D.1: Fair Hearing Decisions by District ............................................................. 31

Figure D.2: Dollars of Overpayment Associated with Disqualifications....................... 32

Figure D.3: Months of Program Disqualifications for Intentional Program

Violations.................................................................................................... 33

Figure E.1: Food Stamp 5 Year Trend36

Figure E.2: TANF/AFDC 5 Year Trend 37

Table C.1: Internal Audit Positions.19


6/58

Office of Inspector General Executive Summary

Page 1

Executive Summary

uring the past fiscal year, the

Office of Inspector General(OIG) eagerly embraced theSecretarys new Department mission:The Department of Children and

Families is committed to working in

partnership with local communities to

ensure safety, well-being and self-

sufficiency for the people we serve.This mission focuses on greater account-ability, efficiency, integrity, and effec-tiveness for the Department, the clients

we serve, and the taxpayers. The OIGwill continue to focus on the partner-ship/teamwork concept.

To validate the philosophy of partner-ships and teamwork, this office organ-ized task forces with other departmentsand agencies to combine our expertise,experience, resources, and authority toovercome the ever increasing capabilityof those who indulge in fraud, waste,

and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

This team approach was utilized inexamining billing irregularities by NovaSoutheastern University and investigat-ing fiscal issues and the provision ofservices to foster children by LakeCounty Boys Ranch and OutreachBroward. In addition, the auditors util-ized the multiple state agency taskorganized team audit concept where-by two or more state departments oragencies combine their talents toeradicate fraud, waste, and abuse of statefunds. In conjunction with the Depart-ments mission, the Audit and Investiga-tion Units worked jointly with the Office

of the Attorney General, Office of the

Comptroller, Office of State Attorney invarious judicial circuits, Agency forHealth Care Administration, Departmentof Juvenile Justice, and the United StatesDepartment of Justice.

Of particular significance this year wasthe conception of the Provider Self-Dis-closure Protocol (Protocol) which willbe offered to all contract providers toimplement a self-reporting program that

may minimize both civil and criminalliability (see Appendix I). The Protocolencourages providers to conduct periodicself-assessments of the delivery of serv-ices to Department clients, disclose anyirregularities noted during the self-assessment, and facilitate the resolutionof these irregularities.

he Auditor General conducted aquality control review on the OIG,

Office of Internal Audit (OIA),for the period July 1997 through June1998. The Auditor General report datedSeptember 16, 1998, indicated that theOIA was generally adequate to reason-ably ensure compliance with applicableprofessional auditing standards, OIGpolicies and procedures, and specificprovisions of 20.055, F.S.

n addition, the OIGs OperationsCenter became fully functional thisfiscal year. Its primary goal is to

develop a formal training program andprovide statistical information and trendanalysis data to facilitate managementsdecision-making processes.

D

T

I


7/58

Office of Inspector General Executive Summary

Page 2

The Operations Center processed refer-ence checks for 4,071 current or formerpersonnel to determine if they had everbeen under investigation by this office.Also a total of 437 notifications of

alleged serious wrongdoing to includecriminal activity by Departmentemployees were processed and trackedstatewide. Finally, 197 public recordsrequests were processed for informationcontained within official OIG files.

The Operations Center also processed1,656 complaints, letters, or other corre-spondence. Each document was re-viewed and either answered by this

agency or referred to another agency orthe appropriate district or headquartersoffice for action as deemed appropriate;was resolved via telephone or letter; ordid not contain enough information topursue.

he Investigations Unit opened 149preliminary inquiries and fullinvestigations and completed a

total of 138. Of the 138 completed, 30were preliminary inquiries that did notwarrant a full-scale investigation by thisoffice. Reasons included, but were notnecessarily limited to, a determinationthat the issue had already been investi-gated by another entity, were referred tolaw enforcement or to another jurisdic-tion as appropriate.

he Office of Appeal Hearingsprovides administrative hearingsfor applicants or recipients of

public assistance programs. These hear-ings are designed to provide due processfor individuals who may not berepresented and who are not familiarwith the administrative hearing process.These hearings provide a cost-effectivemethod to resolve disputes between

individuals and the Department. Theoffice, during this fiscal year, receivedthree additional positions from the Eco-nomic Self-Sufficiency Program toaddress past growth. With these posi-

tions, the office was able to completehearing requests within federal programdeadlines.

he Office of Quality Controlmeasures accuracy of publicassistance programs through sta-

tistical sampling. In the coming year,Quality Control will review over 3,000cases for accuracy of the Departmentseligibility and payment determinations.

In addition, Quality Control will reviewover 300 TANF disability determina-tions for compliance with the require-ments of the settlement agreementreached pursuant to the Spencer v. Bushlawsuit.

As a result of a Medicaid waiverrequested by the state, Quality Controlwill also review Medicare cases todetermine if the participants are eligiblefor Medicaid assistance with their pre-miums. The Office of Quality Controlanticipates being directed by U.S.D.A.,Food and Nutrition Service, to reviewthe accuracy of agency disqualificationsof food stamp recipients.

he OIG will continue its focus onthe concept of partnerships andteamwork utilizing task forces

within our own Department and withother departments and agencies. Thebenefits from this partnership wererevealed during the Nova SoutheasternUniversity investigation, which resultedin a reimbursement of $4,149,555 incash and in-kind services from thecontract provider.

T

T

T

T


8/58

Office of Inspector General Introduction

Page 3

Section A: Introduction

his report, as required by20.055(7), F.S., summarizes theOffice of Inspector Generals

(OIG) authority for FY 1999.

The mission of the OIG, the Departmentof Children and Families, is toprovide acentral point for coordination and

responsibility of efforts that enhance

accountability, efficiency, integrity, and

effectiveness, and deter criminal activi-

ties in the Department. The basic dutiesand responsibilities of the OIG are to:

Advise in the development ofperformance measures, standards, andprocedures for the evaluation of theDepartments programs.

Assess reliability and validity ofthe information provided by the Depart-ment on performance measures andstandards, and make recommendationsfor improvement, if necessary.

Review the actions taken by theDepartment to improve programperformance and meet programstandards and make recommendationsfor improvement, if necessary.

Direct, supervise, and coordinateinvestigations, audits, and reviewsrelated to management and operations.

Conduct, supervise, or coordinateother activities carried out or financed by

the Department for the purpose of pro-moting economy and efficiency in theadministration of, or preventing anddetecting fraud, waste, and abuse in itsprograms and operations.

Keep the Department Secretaryinformed concerning fraud, waste,

abuses, and deficiencies relating to pro-grams and operations of the Department.

Recommend corrective actionconcerning fraud, waste, abuses, anddeficiencies and report on the progressmade in implementing corrective action.

Ensure effective coordinationand cooperation between the AuditorGeneral, federal auditors, and other gov-ernmental bodies with a view towardavoiding duplication; review as appro-priate, rules relating to programs andoperations and make recommendationsconcerning their impact.

Ensure an appropriate balance ismaintained between audit, investigative,and other accountability activities;develop long-term and annual auditplans based upon the findings of periodicrisk assessments.

he OIG continues to project the

Secretarys intent to improve ac-countability, efficiency, integrity,

and effectiveness by being pro-active.Throughout FY 1999, the OIG continuedto realign its personnel resources toenhance the OIGs ability to carrying outits responsibilities.

The OIG realigned regional resourcesinto management teams centrally locatedinto three regional areas. This focuses

on positioning OIG staff throughout thestate strategically to: extend manage-ment out to where the action is; maxi-mize administrative and logisticalresource sharing among OIG personnelin Investigations, Quality Control,

T

T


9/58


Page 4

Appeal Hearings, and Internal Auditoffices; and enhance the potential forsynergism among OIG personnelthrough co-location and consolidation.

he regional supervisors responsi-bilities are to provide supervisionand feedback to investigators;

keep the IG, Chief of Investigations, anddistrict administrators informed; developinvestigative plans; provide administra-tive training support; create an OIGawareness throughout their respectiveregions; establish cross-training, i.e.,Institutional, Child Welfare, SubstanceAbuse, and Contract Management

knowledge; provide input to the OIGfraud, waste, and abuse data system;coordinate task forces and inspectionprograms; and facilitate communicationsand understanding of OIG programs andissues.

Effective January 1, 1999, the officefinalized consolidation and the regionalsupervisors assumed administrativeresponsibility for all regional OIG per-

sonnel to include Quality Control,Appeal Hearings, and operational con-trol of investigative personnel.

The investigative regions are staffed asfollows:

North Region: Gainesville

1. Regional Inspector Supervisor (1)2. Regional Inspector (1) Gainesville

3. Regional Inspector (3) Tallahassee4. Regional Inspector (1) Jacksonville5. Regional Inspector (1) New Port

Richey

Central Region: Orlando

1. Regional Inspector Supervisor (1)2. Regional Inspector (2) Orlando3. Regional Inspector (2) West Palm

Beach4. Regional Inspector (1) Tampa

South Region: Miami

1. Regional Inspector Supervisor (1)2. Administrative Assistant (1) Miami3. Regional Inspector (2) Miami4. Regional Inspector (1) Ft. Myers5. Regional Inspector (1) Ft.Lauderdale

Operations Center

The Operations Center, under the cogni-zance of the Chief of Investigations,coordinates the activities of threeregional supervisors, six informationsystems/administrative personnel, andfifteen inspectors as included in FigureA.1:

1. Chief of Investigations (1)2. Operations Supervisor (1)3. Management Review Specialist (1)4. Operations and Management

Consultant II (1)5. Senior Management Analyst I (1)6. Administrative Assistant II (1)7. Administrative Assistant I (1)8. Regional Inspector Supervisors (3)9. Regional Inspectors (15)

T


10/58


Page 5

Office of InspectorGeneral

InspectorGeneral

Operations Center(6 Positions)

North Region(7 Positions)Central Region

(6 Positions)

South Region(6 Positions)Appeal Hearings

(14 Positions)

Quality Control(50 Positions)

Quality Control(11 Positions)

Investigations(1 Position)Internal Audit(14 Positions) Appeal Hearings(6 Positions)

Administrative

OperationalLegal Counsel

Legal Counsel(1 Position)

Figure A.1


11/58

Office of Inspector General Office of Investigations

Page 6

Section B: Office of Investigations

he Operations Center is primarilyresponsible for correspondence

and complaint intake, processing,and tracking. The information is loggedinto the tracking system and screened forreferral to the proper entity for handling.This may include the investigative staff,Department managers, or other agencies.The Operations Center also is taskedwith coordinating responses of personnelreference checks on current and formeremployees who apply for positionswithin the Department; logging and

tracking criminal allegations and dispo-sitions involving Department employees;logging, tracking and responding topublic records requests; and logging,updating, and tracking of correctiveactions taken on preliminary as well asfull investigations. Additionally, theOperations Center is responsible for

collecting, analyzing, and disseminatingdata for management.

During FY 1999, the Operations Centerreceived a total of 1,656 complaints,letters, or other correspondence for proc-essing. As summarized in Figure B.1,the types of written communicationincluded Requests for Investigation fromDepartment Managers, Assignmentsfrom the Governors and SecretarysOffices, Public Records Requests,Serious Incident/Miscellaneous Criminal

Activity Notifications, Comptroller GetLean Hot Line Complaints, and GeneralComplaints from a variety of sourcesrequesting investigations, reviews, orassistance. Sources include, but are notlimited to, employees, clients, familymembers, and private citizens via tele-phone calls, letters, and personal visits.

T

Information Received in the Operations Center

General Complaints

863 = 53%Comptroller Get Lean

Hot Line Complaints

36 = 2%

Serious Incident/

MiscellaneousCriminal Activity

Notifications

437 = 26%

Request for

Investigation from

Department Managers

72 =4%

Public Records

Requests

197 =12%

Assignments from

Governor's and

Secretary's Offices

51 = 3%

Figure B.1

Note: 1,656 requests for assistance were received by the Office of Investigations

Source: Office of Investigations


12/58


Page 7

Processing of the 1,656 pieces of corre-spondence occurred in one or more ofthe following ways: referrals to theInvestigations unit for completion of

reviews, preliminary inquiries and fullinvestigations; referrals to Departmentmanagers for review and response to theInvestigations Unit; referrals to otheragencies or the appropriate district orheadquarters office for handling asdeemed appropriate; and resolved viatelephone or letter or did not containenough information to pursue. Of thereferrals to Department managers forreview and response, each response was

reviewed by the Investigations Unit toensure the complainants concerns wereadequately addressed and to determine ifadditional investigative activity waswarranted.

The Operations Center processed 4,071personnel reference checks, Figure B.2.The OIG conducts these referencechecks on current or former employees

prior to rehiring or promotion todetermine if they were ever the subjectsof an investigation. Additionally, a totalof 437 notifications of alleged seriouswrongdoing, including criminal activityby Department employees statewide,was reported and tracked. Thesenotifications remain open in the unituntil the Department managers report theoutcome of the final criminal oradministrative actions to the Operations

Center. Finally, 197 public recordsrequests were processed for informationcontained within official OIG records.

294

13

789

460

180

161185

106

514

124105

603

181

67

194

95

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

NumberofRequests

HQ D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15

Figure B.2


Requests for Employee Reference Checks


13/58


Page 8

After the Operations Center logs corre-spondence and complaints, the Chief ofInvestigations reviews the informationfor assignment and follow-up to the

appropriate regional supervisor for localhandling and coordination. Regionalstaff are responsible for providing assis-tance to federal, state, and local lawenforcement agencies on cases related topossible and actual criminal violations;serve as Department liaison to lawenforcement agencies, work in conjunc-tion with other state agencies andadministrative entities involvingemployee or provider misconduct; and to

present fact-finding reports of inquiriesand investigations for information oraction by management.

Requests for assistance or investigationsare received via telephone, letters, andoffice visits. These requests come froma variety of sources such as the

Governors Office, the Chief InspectorGenerals Office, and other OIGs; legis-lators; the Department Secretary, man-agers, administrators and employees;

clients; or anyone with a concern aboutthe integrity of the Departments opera-tions or employees.

During FY 1999, the investigations unitopened 149 preliminary inquiries andfull investigations and completed a totalof 138. The 138 closed cases consistedof 300 total allegations. Figure B.3depicts a breakdown of the types of alle-gations investigated. Of the 138 com-

pleted, 30 were preliminary inquiriesthat did not warrant a full-scale investi-gation by this office. Reasons included,but were not limited to, determinationsthat the issues were already investigatedby another entity, were more appropri-ately referred to law enforcement oranother jurisdiction.

Allegations Investigated

Financial Improprieties

5 =2%Mishandled Cases

27 = 9%

Misuse of State

Property/Personnel

37 = 12%

PersonnelImproprieties

8 = 3%

Theft

8 = 3%

Unauthorized

Solicitation

3 =1%

Other

38 =13%

Falsification of Records

88 = 29%

Contract

Improprieties

13 = 4%

Computer-Related

Crimes

1 = 0%

Client Abuse

20 = 7%

Breach of

Information

25 = 8%

Violation

27 = 9%

Figure B.3

Note: Total cases investigated equals 138. Number of allegations for those cases equals 300.



14/58


Page 9

Figure B.4 depicts the regional distribu-tion, including the Operations Center, of

complaints and investigations initiatedand completed.

Investigations Highlights

As previously stated, a total of 138inquiries and investigations were closedby OIG inspectors during FY 1999. A

complete listing of those inquiries andinvestigations is provided at AppendixII. Detailed reports of investigations canbe provided upon request. The follow-ing summaries are preliminary inquiriesor full investigations, which represent a

broad spectrum of case typesinvestigated by this office.

Headquarters--Tallahassee, Florida

(Inspector General Case #98-0094)

Based upon the results of an employeesatisfaction survey conducted by theEconomic Self-Sufficiency ServicesProgram Office, an investigation wasinitiated to determine if a secretary in the

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

North Central South Headquarters

Figure B.4

Note: *Includes preliminary inquiries and full investigations


Complaints & Investigations* by Region

Complaint Investigation


15/58


Page 10

Program Policy Bureau falsified atten-dance and leave records, and if the sec-retarys supervisor, a program adminis-trator, condoned the falsifications.

The information obtained supported theallegations. Three coworkers separatelydocumented absences by the secretaryduring a 90-day period, but the secre-tarys attendance and leave records didnot reflect all of the absences resulting ina variance of 102 hours.

In addition, a comparison of the secre-tarys attendance and leave records with

the timecards of a second employer,police files, and court records discloseddiscrepancies totaling 28.5 hours. Duringthe investigation, the inspectors receivedadditional allegations.

The information obtained from lawenforcement and court records also sup-ported the allegation that the secretarywas arrested and convicted of felonycharges involving the theft of merchan-dise from her second employer. At thetime of her arrest on Department prop-erty, the secretary was in possession ofan unauthorized weapon that was identi-cal to a weapon that she had allegedlyused to threaten employees of her secondemployer.

The information further indicated thatthe allegations that the secretary andanother administrative employee werearrested for other criminal charges werenot reported to the OIG as required.

The information obtained supported theallegations that the secretary, her super-visor, and another secretary each madepersonal, long-distance telephone calls

via the state telephone system.

The Department terminated the secretaryand her supervisor. The other secretaryresigned before the Department couldtake disciplinary action.

District 1--Pensacola, Florida


This investigation was initiated by a

complaint received from staff of theheadquarters Family Safety and Preser-vation Program Office. It was allegedthat a child care center, under contractwith District 1, was billing for servicesto children who were not in attendance.A client alleged that the child care centerwas paid for child care services for theentire year of 1997 (approximately$23,000), even though the client statedher children attended for only twomonths during that year.

The information did not support thecomplainants allegation and reflectedthat the clients children received childcare services for ten months in 1997 andfor approximately two months in 1998 atthe day care center in question. In addi-tion, it was determined that the clientappeared to have falsely reported childcare expenditures to her food stampcaseworker. A recommendation wasmade for appropriate staff to review thisissue for possible public assistance fraudand appropriate follow-up.


16/58


Page 11

District 2--Chattahoochee, Florida


This investigation was initiated at therequest of the Florida State Hospital

Administrator as a result of allegationsrelating to theft or diversion of stateproperty, misuse of state property, andthe misuse of position and violations ofrules pertaining to utilization of inmatelabor from the collocated River JunctionCorrectional Institution.

It was alleged that hospital employeesused hospital supplies and equipment forpersonal use. It was also alleged that

hospital employees attempted to induce,alter, or withhold witness informationand that one employee threatened fellowemployees who reported information. Itwas further alleged that a contractedemployee misused hospital staff andequipment at his private residence; thatan employee misused the welding shopresources, including inmate labor, andfalsified time sheets; and that this sameemployee committed theft and misusedother state equipment.

The findings of the investigation sup-ported the allegations that attempts weremade to induce witness statements oralter and influence information providedto the inspectors and that one employeethreatened fellow employees. Theinvestigation determined that hospitalemployees diverted hospital supplies andequipment for the purpose of construct-ing personal items. The information didnot support the allegations relating to theuse of inmate labor or falsified timesheets.

As a result of this investigation, discipli-nary actions ranged from documentedcounseling to suspensions and proposed

dismissals. In addition, a review ofFlorida State Hospital purchasing andinventory procedures was initiated alongwith an increased training of staff in avariety of areas.

District 3--Gainesville, Florida(Inspector General Case #99-0011)

This investigation was initiated basedupon information provided by a pur-chasing agent relating to purchasingprocedures undertaken in the warehouseat the Tacachale Center. The allegationsincluded purchasing outside of the statecontract without authority, sending

unsigned purchase orders to vendors,and purchasing large quantities ofmattresses that did not meet State FireCodes. In addition, it was alleged thatTacachale Center management failed toofficially notify the purchasing staff thatthe warehouse supervisor was givenauthority to sign purchase orders. Theauthority that was given createdadministrative problems in purchasingprocedures at the Tacachale Center.

The inquiry revealed that managementfailed to advise staff in the PurchasingDepartment that the warehouse super-visor was authorized to sign purchaseorders and that this failure resulted inunnecessary confusion over purchasingissues. It also revealed that the ware-house supervisor failed to comply withthe rules contained in the FloridaAdministrative Code relating to off-state-contract purchases. The inquiry didnot substantiate allegations regarding thepurchases of mattresses that did not meetthe applicable State Fire Codes.

As a result of this investigation, thewarehouse supervisors authorization to


17/58


Page 12

sign purchase orders was rescinded and aformal procedure for off-state-contractpurchases is being developed whichincludes quarterly audits by the

accounting department.

District 4 -- St. Augustine, Florida


Based upon an anonymous complaint, aninvestigation was initiated to determineif a family services counselor falsified apredisposition study by forging hersupervisors signature and failed toobtain the required signatures on a case

plan filed with the court.

The information obtained supported theallegations. The counselor admitted thatshe signed her supervisors name on thepredisposition study while the supervisorwas in a meeting. The supervisor previ-ously approved the predisposition studyand was aware that the documents wouldbe filed with the court. The counseloralso said that this was a common prac-tice when a supervisor was not available.The counselor also admitted that she didnot obtain the required signatures on thecase plan, but stated that this wasbecause the clients required to sign thecase plan refused to do so.

The counselor was not disciplinedbecause this had been an accepted prac-tice. All district administrators weredirected to immediately end the practiceof counselors signing for theirsupervisors.

District 5 -- St. Petersburg, Florida(Inspector General Case #99-0042)

This investigation was initiated as aresult of allegations that Christmas gifts

intended for clients of the Departmentwere being misappropriated by a familyservices counselor supervisor for per-sonal use. Allegedly, the supervisor felt

that, due to a clerical error, a Departmentclient was going to receive too manygifts and offered a fellow employee aChristmas gift that was intended for thatclient.

Due to contradictory statements givenduring interviews of witnesses, theinformation obtained did not support orrefute the allegation. According to thewitnesses statements, clients who were

to have received the donated Christmasgifts received them. However, since thedonated gifts were wrapped and mixedwith gifts intended for numerous clients,it was not possible to determine whichclient was to receive any specific gift.

District 5--St. Petersburg, Florida

(Inspector General Case #99-0012-P)

This case was initiated as a result ofallegations that two family servicescounselors misappropriated donatedChristmas gifts intended for Departmentclients. According to the complainant,she contacted the employees for assis-tance to identify needy Departmentclients (children) and what gifts theywould like to receive for Christmas.

The complainant requested that onlychildren who could actually attend theChristmas party be on this list. Theemployees provided the complainant alist of alleged Department clientsincluding gifts the clients had requested.Only 20 of the expected 80 childrenactually attended the Christmas party.


18/58


Page 13

The employees contacted the complain-ant and picked up the undistributedChristmas gifts the following day.

The complainant became suspicious thatthe gifts werent distributed by theemployees and notified District 5 staff.The district initiated an investigation anddetermined some of the children whoreceived gifts from employees were notDepartment clients and some of the giftsdistributed did not match the giftscollected by the employees. The districtthen requested assistance from the OIG.The Pinellas County Sheriffs Office

was advised of the allegations andinitiated a criminal investigation. TheOIG provided assistance to the PinellasCounty Sheriffs Office when it wasrequested.

One family services counselor resignedand the other was dismissed by the Dis-trict 5 Administrator. Both counselorswere arrested by the Pinellas CountySheriffs Office and charged with grandlarceny and dealing in stolen property.

District 7 -- Orlando, Florida(Inspector General Case #98-0064)

Based upon an anonymous complaint tothe district administrator, an investiga-tion was initiated to determine if afamily services counselor supervisorused state-funded metered postage forpersonal use and changed a field assess-ment test for a favored employee.

During the investigation, two additionalallegations were identified to includethat the supervisor created a hostile workenvironment and the supervisor and afamily services counselor falsified

records by taking extended lunch breaksand not claiming the additional time ontheir time sheets.

The information obtained supported theallegations that the supervisor used state-funded metered postage for personal use,created a hostile work environment, andthat she and the counselor took extendedlunch breaks and did not claim the addi-tional time on their time sheets. Theinformation obtained did not support theallegation that the supervisor changed afield assessment test for a favoredemployee.

As a result of the investigation, thesupervisor received a written reprimandfor disruptive conduct and misuse ofstate property. The supervisor alsorepaid the state for postage used. Also,the sub-district administrator was todevelop a more accountable system forthe use of flex time.

District 7 -- Orlando, Florida(Inspector General Case #99-0037)

This investigation was based upon arequest from the District 7 Administra-tor, who alleged an employee hadverbally and physically abused a clientwho was attending a drug rehabilitationprogram.

The employee admitted to touching theclient while pushing the client awaywhen the client attempted to hug theemployee. However, two witnessessupported the clients allegation. Inaddition, the investigation determinedthat the clients case was not properlytransferred to the appropriate district.


19/58


Page 14

As a result of the investigation, thedistricts program operations adminis-trators were instructed to adhere to theDepartments policy regarding casetransfers. The employee involved in this

investigation resigned.

District 8 -- Fort Myers, Florida


This investigation was initiated basedupon a complaint from the District 8Fiscal Department. It was alleged thatan operator of a licensed group fosterhome was submitting multiple travelvouchers to the Department for travel

mileage. The billings occurred when theoperator transported foster care childrento their medical and other appointments.

The information obtained supported theallegation that the expense voucherswere duplicative in miles claimed, and inseveral instances, reflected overlappingmileage and times.

The investigation also revealed thatDistrict 8 paid foster care parents formileage that should have been submittedto Medicaid for payment. These pay-ments were made contrary to theDepartments policy, which states thatthe Department would not reimbursefoster care parents for Medicaid-relatedtravel.

It was recommended that the FamilySafety and Preservation Program Officeestablish and publish a uniform state-wide policy and procedure which alldistricts must follow regarding Medicaidtravel for foster care children.

District 8--Sarasota, Florida


This investigation was based upon arequest from the Acting District 8

Administrator. An anonymous letter anda fax included a myriad of allegationsagainst employees and supervisors of theSarasota and Venice Service Centers.These alleged that a family servicescounselor used state equipment and timeto view sexually explicit videos, booksand magazines; a supervisor used threat-ening and abusive language towardemployees; employees falsified officialdocuments and conducted personal busi-

ness on state time; and supervisors failedto accommodate an employees medicalrestrictions, showed favoritism withemployees, and failed to provide ade-quate training for employees.

The investigation determined that theworkers viewed the administration andsupervisors as their enemy, rather thanan ally to achieve Department goals, andthere were very distinct factions in thetwo service centers. A significant num-ber of employees believed that admini-strators and supervisors did little to assistthe investigators in their jobs or inrectifying their complaints. Many of theemployees who were interviewedbelieved they proved their allegations,while the administrators and supervisorsdenied that they did anything wrong orthat all employee concerns were notaddressed.

The investigation also determined thatthree of the allegations were supportedby the information received by the


20/58


Page 15

inspectors. As a result, disciplinaryactions ranging from demotions toterminations were recommended by thedistrict. Also, management changeswere made in the district to address the

issues and improve employee morale.

District 9--West Palm Beach, Florida


This investigation was requested by aDistrict 9 Labor Relations Specialistbased upon an allegation that anemployee falsified and misrepresentedhis medical leave request. The employeepreviously requested and was denied

time off for specific dates to attendtraining for his secondary employer.

This investigation confirmed that duringthe time period that the employee statedhe was under medical supervision, hewas conducting training for his secon-dary employer in another state. Theemployee resigned his position with theDepartment before disciplinary actioncould be taken.

District 10 -- Ft. Lauderdale, Florida(Inspector General Case #98-0013-P)

In October 1997, the OIG created apartnership/task force with the Office ofthe Comptroller, the Medicaid FraudControl Unit of the Office of theAttorney General, and the Agency forHealth Care Administration in order toenhance quality control for largecontracts entered into by the State ofFlorida.

Pursuant to its authority under Chapter17, F.S., the Office of the Comptrollerrequested the assistance of the task forceand initiated an investigation intoalleged billing irregularities in regards to

the contract between the Department andNova Southeastern University for theprovision of mental health services.During the course of this investigation,the task force forwarded to the OIG a list

of findings regarding improper contractlanguage, monitoring, and managementissues for the Department to address.

The issues involved in this task forceinvestigation were also the subjects of aqui tam legal action subsequently filed inthe United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida in March,1998. On August 19, 1999, the partiesto the suit (State of Florida, United

States of America, Alan Kent, and NovaSoutheastern University) signed aSettlement Agreement under which theUniversity agreed to reimburse$4,149,555 in cash and in-kind services.

District 10 -- Ft. Lauderdale, Florida(Inspector General Case #98-0087)

This investigation was initiated basedupon a complaint received by formerSecretary Feavers office to determine ifthe former District Administrator hadprovided the former Secretary false ormisleading information.

The information obtained during theinvestigation did not support theallegations. However, the informationobtained supported that the district failedto maintain records in accordance withthe law, policies, and procedures. Thedistrict hindered the investigation bymaking records that were necessary tothoroughly investigate the allegations.unavailable for review.

The information obtained during thisinvestigation served as a reminder that


21/58


Page 16

administrators must set the example ofethical conduct and avoid even theperception of any improper relationshipwith a client or provider. Additionally,administrators must not place themselves

in a situation where it appears that theirprivate interest leads to the disregard oftheir public duty. It was stressed that theCode of Ethics was created because theFlorida Legislature determined , It isessential to the proper conduct and

operation of government that public

officials be independent and impartial

and that public office not be used for a

private gain other than the remuneration

provided by law.

District 11--Miami, Florida


This investigation was initiated basedupon an anonymous complaint receivedby the Office of the Comptrollers GetLean Hotline. The complainant allegedthat two District 11 employees wereproviding tests to public assistance spe-cialists in advance of the exam and falsi-fying typing certificates for their friends.Although information obtained duringthis investigation did not support theallegations, the investigation did revealadditional information pertaining toimproper hiring and promotion practices.

As a result of the investigation, District11 updated the Knowledge, Skills, andAbilities library to support the recruit-ment and selection process. In addition,the recruitment for public assistancespecialists, interviewing clerks and clerkspecialists was centralized. A rotatingtrained pool of employees from all stafflevels will be established to participatein the hiring panels. The HumanResources Division will select the hiring

panels through a random selectionprocess. All human resources staff willreceive retraining in confidentiality,personnel rules and procedures, andoffice protocol.

District 11 -- Miami, Florida(Inspector General Case #98-0093)

At the request of a District 11 employee,an investigation was initiated to addressallegations that a program operationsadministrator (POA) committed impro-prieties and abused her position. Thecomplainant provided 12 allegations and7 additional allegations were identified

during witness interviews. The investi-gation substantiated eight allegations andseven allegations were referred to dis-trict management for review andappropriate action(s). Four allegationscould not be substantiated.

The investigation revealed numerousabuses by the POA. The abuses includeddirecting employees to perform personalerrands; directing a transfer of leave timeagainst employees wishes; falsificationof leave and attendance records; direct-ing employees to destroy officialrec??ords; and other acts againstDepartmental policy and procedures.

The POA was suspended for 45 days andwas demoted to a lower position with a15 percent reduction in salary.

District 13--Tavares, Florida


This investigation was based uponinformation provided by the Depart-ments headquarters quality assurancestaff following the death of a child.


22/58


Page 17

Twenty discrepancies were notedbetween Department records, contractorprotective services records, and childprotection team records. The investiga-tion determined that in seven instances

the contractors records were falsified orinaccurate. No information indicated thatDepartment records or child protectionteam records were falsified.

As a result of the investigation, the mat-ter was referred to the Office of the StateAttorney. Information obtained duringthe inquiry was subsequently used toevaluate the contractors performance asa factor in contract renewal.

District 13--Lake County, Florida


Based upon a citizen complaint to aFlorida Senator, an investigation wasinitiated to determine if a privatizationcontractor was negligent in providingprotective services to foster children inLake County. A second private citizenmade similar complaints against both thecontractor and the Department.

The investigation supported the allega-tions that falsification of records by thecontractors program supervisor resultedin inappropriate services to one fosterchild; that the supervisor was negligentin handling services for two other fosterchildren; and that the supervisor failed tomake the required notification to theDepartment regarding dual employmentwith the contractor while the supervisorwas working for the Department.

Other supported allegations includedplacement of a child into an unsafe fos-ter home by the contractor and theDepartment, false reporting of therapeu-tic services for a foster child by a con-

tractor employee, negligent handling of afoster childs trust fund by the Depart-ment, unauthorized taking of moneyfrom a foster childs relative by aDepartment employee, and deficient

child abuse investigations by Depart-ment employees.

As a result of this investigation, the con-tractors program supervisor resigned.All but one Department employeeinvolved either resigned or were termi-nated for negligence in connection withother cases completed before thisinvestigation was conducted.

District 14 -- Lakeland, Florida(Inspector General Case #99-0059)

At the request of the District 14 Admin-istrator, this investigation was conductedto determine if a family services coun-selor had sexually harassed a fellowemployee while both employees were ontheir own time away from the work-place, and if management failed to takethe proper action in response to thecomplaint. It was also alleged that thesame family services counselor threat-ened mothers of children on his caseload to obtain sexual favors.

During the course of this investigation,no independent information surfacedsupporting or refuting the allegation ofsexual harassment of the fellowemployee. There were no witnesses tothe incident. The victim employeeinsisted the incident occurred, while thesubject employee said it did not.

The investigation determined that,although management took correctiveaction in response to the complaint, theprogram operations administrator incor-rectly advised supervisors that no


23/58


Page 18

disciplinary action could be taken formisconduct off the job. The investigationdetermined that two mothers and a rela-tive of children on the employeescaseload reported that the employee

made them feel uncomfortable in hispresence, but no threats or demands forsexual favors were made of them.

The investigation determined that twoother employees had made sexualharassment complaints against theemployee prior to the incident resultingin this investigation. In each instance,the victims chose not to file an EEOCcomplaint. Again, each incident had no

witnesses and the employee denied anywrongdoing. Management failed to rec-ognize the incidents as a possible patternof misconduct and failed to identify theneed for a thorough civil rights

investigation.

As a result of this investigation, District14 sought the assistance of the Office ofCivil Rights to provide civil rights

training to all staff. A quality assurancereview was conducted on closed cases offive clients who were on the employeescaseload to determine if his conduct putothers ill at ease and to ensure that noinappropriate behavior occurred. Theresponses from the clients were eitherneutral or positive.

This investigation also identified differ-ing statements made on employment

applications filed by the employee.Therefore, a review of the applicationswas conducted. Falsification of recordscould not be supported.


24/58

Office of Inspector General Office of Internal Audit

Page 19

Section C: Office of Internal Audit

he Office of Internal Audit (OIA) hadresponsibility for nine majorfunctions during FY 1999: per-

formance audits, contract audits, informationsystem audits, financial audits, single auditfunction, coordination of responses toexternal audit reports, assessment ofperformance measures, preparing aDepartment risk assessment, and conductingmanagement reviews. These functions areauthorized pursuant to Chapter 20, F.S. In

addition, internal audits of the securityprogram for data and informationtechnology resources are required by282.318, F.S.

The Internal Audit Function of the OIGundergoes a peer review every three yearsby the Auditor General. Pursuant to20.055(5)(f), F.S., the Auditor General isrequired to review a sample of eachagencys internal audit reports to evaluatethe extent of compliance by the OIA with

current standards for the ProfessionalPractice of Internal Auditing or, ifappropriate, generally accepted governmentauditing standards.

he Office of Internal Audit ismanaged by a director of auditing,who reports directly to the Inspector

General. During FY 1999, the office wascomposed of 14 positions, all located inTallahassee. In addition to the Director of

Auditing, four of the positions wereassigned to conduct performance audits,three for management reviews, one forcontract audits, four for information systemsaudits, and one for staff support. Abreakdown of positions by title is shown inTable C.1.

INTERNAL AUDIT POSITIONS

Position Title

Number

ofPositions

Director of Auditing 1

Computer Audit Supervisor 1

Senior Management Analyst

Supervisor 2Senior ManagementAnalyst II 1

Audit Administrator 1

Professional AccountantSpecialist 1

Computer Audit Analyst 2

Senior ManagementAnalyst I 3

Senior ProfessionalAccountant 1

Administrative Assistant II 1

Table C.1

Staff certifications are as follows:

4 Certified Public Accountants1 Certified Information Systems Auditor2 Certified Internal Auditors

1 Certified Public Manager

In addition, three of the employees took theNovember 1998 and May 1999 CertifiedInternal Auditor Examination. Also, oneemployee took the June 1999 Certified

T

T


25/58


Page 20

Information System Auditor Examination.Four employees have post-graduate degreesand four have over ten years of auditingexperience.

All employees, except the AdministrativeAssistant II, are members of the Institute ofInternal Auditors, participate in variousother professional organizations, and attendtraining seminars to maintain proficiency asan auditor to comply with the continuingeducation requirements of GovernmentAuditing Standards.

Figure C.1 shows the total staff monthsavailable to each unit within the Office of

Internal Audit, compared to the total staffmonths the positions were filled. On aconsolidated basis, the Office of InternalAudit had staff positions filled for 114 of thetotal 143 available staff months. This resultsin an overall vacancy rate of 20 percent forFY 1999.

As stated in 20.055(5)(h), F.S., Theinspector general shall develop long-term

and annual audit plans based upon the

findings of periodic risk assessments. Therisk assessment was completed during FY1999. The analyses identified 1,166auditable units that were ranked in order ofassessed risk exposure.

The audit plan was used as the basis foraudit selection and assignments. Staffassignments were allocated to eachfunctional area in proportion to the numberof assigned staff.

he peer review, as previously men-tioned, was completed by the AuditorGeneral in September 1998. The

Auditor General found that the system of

quality control related to the OIG and theinternal audit function was generally ade-quate to reasonably ensure compliance withapplicable professional auditing standards,OIG policies and procedures, and specificprovisions of 20.055, F.S., which relate tothe operation of state agencies offices ofinspectors general and internal auditfunctions for the period July 1, 1997,through June 30, 1998.

T

Total Staff Months Available vs Staff Months Filled

-24

-12

0

12

24

36

48

60

72

a. Contract Audit 0% Information Systems

23%

Management Review

0%

Performance 42% b. Single Audit 0%

Total Staff Months Available Total Staff Months Filled Total Staff Months Vacant

Figure C.1

Notes: a. Contract Audit Unit was established and staffed as of March 1999

b. Single Audit Unit was transferred from Office of Internal Audit during December 1998

Source: Office of Internal Audit


26/58


Page 21

During this fiscal year, OIA conducted ad-hoc assignments originating from the Cen-tral Office, districts, the Auditor General,the Legislature, and Federal auditors. FigureC.2 shows the internal and external custom-

ers served through the ad-hoc requestprocess.

The work done in response to ad-hocrequests provided broad range audit cover-age to the Departments programs. Distri-bution of requests by program is shown inFigure C.3.

Ad-Hoc Customers Served

Total = 63

Headquarters

20 = 32%

Districts

12 = 16%Auditor General,

Federal and

Legislature

31 = 48%

Figure C.2


Ad-Hoc Requests by Program

Total = 63Administration

17 = 26%

Department Wide

12 = 19%

Substance

Abuse

1 = 2%

Mental

Health

7 = 11%

Family Safety

& Preservation

8 = 13%Developmental

Services

3 = 5%

Economic

Self-Sufficiency

5 = 8%

ExecutiveOffice

10 = 16%

Figure C.3



27/58


Page 22

Contract Audit

he contract audit function is responsi-ble for conducting audits or reviewsof Central Office and district client

services contracts.

Periodic Department risk assessments orspecific written requests from managementare the primary means through which pro-grams or specific contracts are identified foraudit or review. During FY 1999, therewere approximately 2,400 contracts out-standing, (not including general service con-tracts), which awarded a total of approxi-mately $2 billion to providers and vendors.

One position was assigned to this function.

Contract Audit and Review Highlights

he following are highlights of majorprojects that the contract auditor par-ticipated in during FY 1999.

Audit of the use of the Innovation

Investment Program for Energy Conser-

vation in State Facilities Grant by South

Florida State Hospital (SFSH) for theperiod July 1, 1996, through June 30,

1998 (A-99-01)

Due to staff shortages in the performanceaudit unit, the contract auditor conductedthis financial and performance audit. Theaudit was initiated based upon allegationsthat SFSH had inappropriately spent MentalHealth Institutions Grants and DonationsTrust Fund (G&DTF) money not allocatedto it. Moreover, it was alleged that SFSHhad inappropriately spent funds receivedfrom the Innovation Investment Program forEnergy Conservation in State FacilitiesGrant.

The audit found that SFSH spent moniesfrom the G&DTF based upon its budget

authority without verifying whether ade-quate cash was available to it and whetherthe monies were spent in accordance withthe approved purpose. As a result, for theperiod July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1998,

SFSH used $346,676.07 of its InnovationEnergy Grant Cycle I monies for purposesother than for which they were approved.Moreover, during that period, SFSH spent$206,510.90 of Florida State Hospitals and$27,301.95 of G. Pierce Wood MemorialHospitals Innovation Energy Grant monies,as well as $26,758.66 of various other grantmonies in the G&DTF for purposes otherthan for what they were approved.

The audit determined that the followingcauses contributed to SFSH inappropriatelyspending the G&DTF money: (1) althoughincluded as a source of revenue for FYs1997 and 1998 in SFSHs G&DTF approvedoperating budget, monies received from ten-ants were not always recorded to theG&DTF; (2) SFSHs G&DTF approvedoperating budgets for FYs 1997 and 1998included as sources of revenue, receiptsfrom tenants for which sublease or serviceagreements either could not be located, orwere not executed; and (3) tenants identifiedas having utilized space on the campus ofSFSH were not always included as aG&DTF source of revenue in SFSHsapproved operating budgets for FYs 1997and 1998, nor were the tenants remittancesalways recorded to the G&DTF.

As a result of the audit, the Office of theAssistant Secretary for Administration hastaken or agreed to take steps designed to

implement procedures to minimize the riskof trust funds being spent for purposes otherthan for what they were approved. Addi-tional funds were also made available to theaffected mental health institutions so thatthey could complete their approved Innova-tion Energy Grant projects.

T

T


28/58


Page 23

Participation in a Task Force Investi-

gating Certain Allegations Against Lake

County Boys Ranch (LCBR)

Initiated and coordinated through the Officeof the Attorney General Medicaid FraudControl Unit (MFCU), the Departmentscontract auditor participated in a task force,that also included staff from the Office ofthe Comptroller. OIA provided assistancewith eight specific tasks that covered thefollowing areas: obtaining descriptions ofclient services purchased; reconciling pay-ments recorded in the Florida AccountingInformation Resource to spreadsheet detailprepared by MFCU staff; obtaining FamilySafety and Preservation program policyregarding foster care; reviewing contractprocurement methodology; and identifyingpossible payments made in advance ofservice delivery. In June 1999, an interimreport was issued to the MFCU.

Management Review of District 10Administration (99-01-M)

Upon removal of the district administrator,the Secretary requested a review of District

10 Administration. Areas reviewedincluded: payroll, budget, conflicts ofinterest, and local area network security. Thereview team identified eight pay increasesapproved by the former district administra-tor, which lacked prior approval by appro-priate district management and were of aquestionable nature. The new acting districtadministrator temporarily reversed these payincreases, and followed-up to resolve thisand several additional findings of the review

team.

Contract Audit Reorganization

In order to maintain objectivity and inde-pendence, the three positions assigned to theSingle Audit Function were transferred to

the Office of Financial Management inDecember 1998.

Information Systems Audit

he broad objectives of the informationsystems audit unit are: (1) to providean independent appraisal of the

Departments information systems securityand operational control and (2) to assistmanagement by monitoring informationsystems for compliance with statutes andadministrative code. These objectives areaccomplished through audits of statewideand district information systems and theorganizational units with oversight.

Information Systems Audit Highlights

he following are highlights of theaudits and special projects that theinformation systems audit staff

participated in during FY 1999.

Compliance Audit of General Informa-

tion Security of District 1 Information

Systems (A-98-02)

The Office of Internal Audit (OIA) con-ducted a general compliance audit of infor-mation systems security in District 1. Thefindings and recommendations were asfollows:

HRSP 50-18, Data Security Guide, is notbeing used by security officers in eachdistrict program.

OIA recommended that the Office of Infor-mation Systems at Central Office completethe review and update of HRSP 50-18,DataSecurity Guide. The district should keepand use the current version of HRSP 50-18until replaced by an official revision. Allinformation systems security policy andprocedures should be confirmed through the

T

T


29/58


Page 24

Central Office Information Systems SecurityOfficer. The CFOP 5-1, Publication Index,should not be relied on solely. OIA alsorecommended that current written policiesand procedures relative to system security

that are program-specific and disbursed in avariety of manuals and procedures be con-solidated into a master security plan for thedistrict.

The district office lacked a developed andon-going security awareness program that ismaintained across all programs.

OIA recommended that continued securityawareness be promoted through the district

management systems directors office. Thismay be accomplished through security arti-cles in a district newsletter, the circulation ofposters reminding staff of security require-ments, as well as other means.

Instances were found in which employeesusers IDs were still active after they termi-nated employment with the Department.

OIA recommended district managementcomply with operating procedures andInformation Resources Security Standardsand the Data Security Guide for user IDrevocation. Supervisors should be advisedduring in-service training of the importanceof informing the appropriate district securityofficer of an employees termination. As aback-up to this process, the district person-nel office should ensure that each programsdistrict security officer is provided a copy ofCOPES EKL255L1, Terminated EmployeesReport, on a biweekly basis in order to ver-ify employee terminations and revoke userIDs of terminated employees.

The district had a 100 percent compliancerate for employee security screening

including fingerprinting, background screen-ing, and signed acknowledgment forms.

Audit Assistance with the Investigation ofthe Toys for Tots Cash Account Con-

trol in District 8, Sarasota County.

OIA reviewed a bank account established inDistrict 8 that included HRS/Toys ForTots in its name but was preceded by, andin care of, a district employee. The accountwas a personal account giving this individ-ual sole control. OIA found there was nostatutory authority permitting theestablishment of an account in behalf of theDepartment in this manner.

OIA was not provided the necessary docu-mentation to have a basis for a total reviewof the account. OIA staff reviewed the dataavailable and summarized the results.Available documents indicated that the indi-vidual did not maintain accountability of thisaccount. OIA staff could not conclude anoverall opinion about how much was re-ceived and spent due to the scope limitation.

OIA staff reviewed documents from threeyears - 1998, 1997, and 1996.

In December 1998, a donation of $10,000was made to the Department. The audit dis-closed that the donation was not depositedinto an authorized Department account, andwas not within the Departments control.

HRS Regulation 55-2, Financial Manage-ment Donations and the DepartmentsAccounting Procedures Manual Volume11, Chapter 1, Clearing Funds and CashReceipts District Procedures provides pro-cedures for establishing clearing accountsand for handling deposits of cash receipts.


30/58


Page 25

Compliance Audit of General Informa-

tion Security of District 6 Information

Systems (A-99-02)

OIA conducted a general compliance audit

of information systems security in District 6.The finding and recommendation were asfollows:

Signed Security Agreement Forms were notfound in 19 out of 65 (29 percent) employeefiles reviewed.

OIA recommended that the personnel officestaff ensure that Security Agreement Formsare signed and retained in each employees

personnel file.

Contract Audit of the Mental Health

Association of Greater Tampa Bay, Inc.,Drop-In Centers (A-99-03)

OIA conducted a contract audit of TheMental Health Association of GreaterTampa Bay, Inc. (MHA), and its operationof two drop-in centers. Allegations weremade, and the Regional Office of Investiga-tions asked for OIAs assistance in lookinginto consumer complaints that MHA wasimproperly running two drop-in centers.There were allegations that the statesmoney was not being spent in accordancewith the contract.

The findings and recommendations were asfollows:

OIA determined that MHA did not meet 1)the number of days of cash on hand and 2)the current ratio (current assets/currentliabilities) requirements of Section 9-4 of theGuide to Performance Contracting for

Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health

Services, 4th

Edition.

OIA recommended that District 5 evaluatethe current liquidity position prior to enter-ing into a new contract for delivery of men-tal health services. OIA also recommended

that if District 5 enters into a contract withMHA for the FY 2000, District 5 monitorMHAs liquidity position on a monthly basisto ensure that the MHA improves their abil-ity to meet short-term obligations. Mostimportantly, OIA recommended that District5 monitor to ensure MHA maintains suffi-cient staff to operate the facility and ensurethat normal repairs and maintenance aremade timely.

MHA did not prepare their financial state-ments in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles, as requiredin the contract.

OIA recommended that MHA prepare itsfinancial statements on an accrual basis con-sistent with generally accepted accountingprinciples.

Performance Audit

he objective of the performance auditunit is to provide independentappraisals of managements perfor-

mance and compliance with applicable laws,rules and regulations in meeting the missionof the Departments programs, operations,functions and activities. Appraisals arefurnished to assist management in carryingout duties and responsibilities in the mostefficient, effective, and productive manner.

The scope of internal auditing encompassesthe examination and evaluation of theadequacy and effectiveness of the organ-izations system of internal control and the

T


31/58


Page 26

quality of performance. To this end, internalauditors review the following: the reliabilityand integrity of financial and operatinginformation, the systems established toensure compliance with required guidelines,

the means of safe-guarding assets, and theeconomy and efficiency with whichresources are employed.

The objective is accomplished by con-ducting financial related audits, complianceaudits, performance audits, and otheractivities.

The performance audit unit is comprised offour positions: senior management analyst

supervisor, professional accountant special-ist, senior management analyst I, and asenior professional accountant

Performance Audit Highlights

The following are highlights of major pro-jects the performance audit unit participatedin during FY 1999.

Energy Verifications

The Department was awarded approximately$1.8 million by the Department of Manage-ment Services under the InnovationInvestment Program for Energy Conser-vation in State Facilities for seven statefacilities participating in the program. Themoney was awarded for the purchase andinstallation of energy cost reduction mea-sures and improvements resulting in lowerenergy costs or greater energy efficiency.

The program required the Department tocommit for five years and reinvest each yearin additional energy reduction measures anamount at least equal to the amount savedthe previous fiscal year. The program

required the OIG to validate the energysavings. In completing the verifications, theperformance audit unit worked closely withthe local utility companies.

The performance audit unit initiated energyverifications for Sunland Marianna, Land-mark Learning Center, G. Pierce WoodHospital, and Marianna Service Center -four facilities awarded a total of $825,544.The unit completed the verification forMarianna Service Center, which wasawarded $9,300. The review found anestimated annual energy savings of $278 and4,277-kilowatt hours. The projected savingsthat contributed to winning the award was

overstated by 89 percent as compared to theestimated dollar savings found.

Assessment of Performance Measures

At the beginning of the fiscal year, the posi-tion dedicated to performance-based pro-gram budgeting activities was located in theperformance audit unit. This position wastransferred to the management review unit inMarch 1999.

OIA staff and staff from the former Officeof Standards and Evaluations (now MissionSupport and Planning Team) workedtogether to assess the performance measuresin the Mental Health and Substance AbusePrograms. Central Office and district pro-gram staff, as well as staff from the threelargest provider agencies in those districtswere interviewed, and sampled case files infour districts were reviewed. In general, thereview determined that improvementsshould be made with several Mental Healthand Substance Abuse measures, the standardsetting process, and the use of client assess-ment instruments.


32/58


Page 27

Risk Assessment

Section 20.055(5)(h), F.S., requires thedevelopment of annual audit plans based onthe findings of periodic risk assessments.

Standards for the Professional Practice ofInternal Auditing recommend that riskassessments be used to identify auditableactivities and relevant risk factors and assesstheir relative significance.

The majority of the risk assessment wascompleted during FY 1998, but finalizationand issuance occurred on July 29, 1998,under the direction of the performance auditunit. OIA utilized the risk assessment as a

tool for prioritizing future audits. It wasdivided into four components including pro-gram services, provider contracts, and dis-trict and statewide information systems, toinclude 1,166 auditable units identified fromprogram and functional areas. Each audit-able unit was evaluated by district andCentral Office staff based on a set of pre-determined risk factors. Units were rankedaccording to weighted factors agreed uponby senior management. Auditable unitswere prioritized and scheduled based uponthe highest ranking of assessed riskexposure.

The responsibility for generating the riskassessment was reassigned to the newlycreated management review unit in March1999.

The performance audit unit is responsiblefor effective coordination with the Office ofthe Auditor General, Office of ProgramPolicy Analysis and Governmental Account-ability, and federal agencies, such as, theU.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture-Food and Nutrition Services.

During this fiscal year, the performanceaudit unit coordinated 31 external auditliaison activities. These activities included:attending entrance and exit conferences;coordinating, reviewing, and preparing

responses to audit recommendations for theSecretarys signature; monitoring correctiveaction plans; preparing six-month andeighteen-month status reports; preparing theSummary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings;preparing a Report of Major Audit Findingsand Recommendations for LegislativeBudget Issues.

Although unfinished at the close of FY1999, audit staff spent considerable time and

resources on two audits: Florida StateHospital Internal Control of Cash Handling,District 2; and Home and Community-BasedServices Waiver Program Administered bythe Developmental Services program officein District 4. Although both audits werenear completion, vacancies created by thedeparture of the lead auditors on bothprojects stalled completion.

Management Review

In March 1999, the OIG established a man-agement review unit within the OIA as partof its responsibility for activities that pro-mote accountability, efficiency, and integ-rity. The specific responsibilities of the unitare conducting management reviews, pre-paring department-wide risk assessments,and assessing the reliability and validity ofperformance measures. The unit is staffedwith a senior management analyst supervi-

sor, a senior management analyst II, and asenior management analyst I.

Section 20.055, F.S., mandates that the OIGassess the reliability and validity of theDepartments performance measures andstandards.


33/58


Page 28

As previously mentioned, this function wastransferred in March 1999 from the perform-ance audit unit. An assessment of the reli-ability and validity of the Family Safety andPreservation Programs performance meas-

ures was initiated during June 1999.

Management Review Highlights

The following are highlights of majorproj??ects the management review staffparticipated in during FY 1999.

Management Review of the Florida Abuse

Hotline (99-02-M)

This management review was based upon acomplaint and an investigation of the AbuseHotline concerning an alleged breach ofconfidentiality. The objective of this reviewwas to assess managements effectiveness inimplementing appropriate internal controlsin accordance with applicable FloridaStatutes and rules contained in the FloridaAdministrative Code to achieve Abuse Hot-line objectives. The scope was Septemberthrough December 1998.

The review disclosed the following:

The Abuse Hotline did not have a formalsecurity awareness program for employeeswho have been granted access to confiden-tial client information.

Employee social security numbers wereused inappropriately as user identificationcodes for access to the Florida Abuse Hot-

line Information System.

The Abuse Hotline did not receive qualityassurance monitoring from the FamilySafety and Preservation Program Office.

The Departments Confidentiality Statementwas not found in 35 percent of the officialemployee personnel files reviewed.

User identification numbers were active for

19 percent of terminated Abuse Hotlineemployee files reviewed.

Counselors received no training to maintainor enhance their assessment skills andoverall performance.

Management Review of the MentalHealth Program: Allegations Concerning

Salaries and Contracts (99-03-M)

This management review was based uponwritten allegations received in the OIGregarding a poor work environment in theMental Health Program Office due tomanagement practices. The objectives ofthis review were to determine the validity ofthe allegations by evaluating managementspractices in controlling the salary budget in1998 and managing contracts with theFlorida Alliance for the Mentally Ill duringFYs 1997 and 1998.

The review disclosed the following:

The salary budget was in deficit during thefirst half of calendar year 1998; however,budget amendments provided for payactions for certain OPS and career serviceemployees.

Pay actions for certain OPS and careerservice employees were properly justifiedand documented.

The Florida Alliance for the Mentally Ill didnot meet the terms of the contract in that aminimum of 50 participants did not attendthe forums.


34/58


Page 29

Deliverables for the FY 1997 amendedcontract with the Florida Alliance for theMentally Ill were documented as completedtimely.

Use of State contract funds for lobbyingcould not be substantiated in the FloridaAlliance for the Mentally Ills audited finan-

cial statements nor the contract file.

Risk Assessment

In June 1999, the management review unitdeveloped a planning document for com-pleting the FY 2000 Departmental riskassessment.


35/58

Office of Inspector General Office of Appeal Hearings

Page 30

Section D: Office of Appeal Hearings

he Office of Appeal Hearings hasresponsibility for conducting adminis-

trative hearings and making a determi-nation of a final agency action for issuesrelated to an individuals entitlement orreceipt of benefits, disqualification fromparticipation in a program or discharge/transfer from a licensed nursing facility.

The office operates pursuant to the follow-ing legal authorities:

409.285, F.S., Opportunity for Hearing

and Appeal. Chapter 120, F.S., the Administrative

Procedures Act, 120.80, F.S.,Exceptions and special requirements;agencies.

400.0255, F.S., Resident hearings offacility decisions to transfer ordischarge.

The administrative rules for the Depart-ment's fair hearing procedures appear in

Rule 65-2.042, et seq., Florida Administra-tive Code, Applicant/Recipient Hearings.

The major controlling federal regulations areas follows:

Temporary Assistance to Needy FamiliesPersonal Responsibility and WorkReconciliation Act of 1996

Medicaid

42 CFR 431.200, Fair Hearings forApplicants and Recipients

Food Stamps7 CFR 273.15, Fair Hearings7 CFR 237.16, Disqualification forintentional Program violation

or independence purposes, the officereports directly to the Inspector

General. Federal regulations require ahearing officer to be a state-level employee.

The office has 20 full-time positions and isstaffed with an administrator, 2 supervisors,14 hearing officers and 3 supportemployees.

In order to deliver services on a statewidebasis in the most timely and cost-effectivemethod, the hearing officers are located in

different geographical areas. Two each arelocated in Jacksonville, Ft. Lauderdale, andMiami. One each is located in Tallahassee,Gainesville, Lakeland, St. Petersburg,Orlando, Tampa, West Palm Beach, andCrestview.

All administrative costs for hearings arefunded at 50 percent federal administrativetrust funds and 50 percent general revenue.

FAIR HEARINGS

he Department is required by thefederally-funded assistance programsto offer a fair hearing prior to an

action to terminate assistance which meetsbasic due process requirements as containedin Goldberg vs. Kelly, (1970). TheAdministrative Procedures Act, Chapter120, F.S., sets forth the state proceduralrequirements the Department must meet inresolving issues which affect the substantialinterest of individuals. The Office of AppealHearings has been delegated the authority tocomplete final agency actions on a variety ofissues arising out of most of the federally-funded programs.

T F

T


36/58


37/58

Office of Inspector General Office of Appeal Hearings

Page 32

ADMINISTRATIVE

DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS

he Department has the authority todisqualify an individual from receiv-ing cash assistance and food stamp

benefits when that individual has beenfound, through the administrative hearingprocess, to have committed an intentionalprogram violation. Intentional program vio-lations are such acts as making false ormisleading statements, or misrepresented,concealed or withheld facts. The disqualifi-cation is for one year for the first offense,two years for the second offense and

office of inspector general, florida department of children and families, annual report fy 1999

Documents