📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2000-2001
Department of Social Services: Fiscal Control
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 145
Claim vouchers were returned from the Auditor-Controller’s office to the Department during FY’s 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 because of: · Duplicate payments; · Overpayments; · Incorrect and/or missing documentation; and · Invalid/Insufficient Authorization. Response to F1: The respondent agrees with the finding. 1 46
F2
Page 146
Prior to January 31, 2001, claim vouchers processed through the Department’s Accounting Unit were not adequately checked for errors or omissions. Only a spot check process was used. Response to F2: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The Accounting Unit has always checked the following information on every invoice or request for payment received before preparing a claim voucher: vendor name, dates of service, type of service/product provided, line item charges and total invoice charges. In addition, the Accounting Unit ensures that the appropriate authorized signers have signed the request for payment. In accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the Accounting authorizer randomly samples claims and performs a complete audit on these random samples. The complete audit includes a review of the invoice(s) and payment request form and a review of the completed claim voucher form. In addition, the Accounting authorizer checks every claim voucher to ensure that the following are included: vendor name, vendor number and vendor address (if needed), proper payment description, amounts, proper transaction codes, index codes and sub-object account numbers and justifications for rush requests and pick-up requests.
F3
Page 146
There has been significant improvement in the number of claim vouchers rejected by the Auditor’s office since January 1, 2001. For February 2001, the number was approximately 11%. Response to F3: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. There has been significant improvement in the number of claim vouchers rejected since January 1, 2001. However, the 11% rejection rate for February does not seem correct. According to a Department report, 443 claim vouchers were processed during February 2001. According to a memorandum from the Auditor dated March 28, 2001, “for the month of February, 2001our office rejected 11 claims.” Eleven rejected claims represents a 2.5 percent rejection rate not 11 percent.
F4
Page 146
Claim vouchers signed or reviewed by Department Program Managers often contain errors and omissions.
F5
Page 147
Guidelines for payment of invoices have been implemented, although they are not consistently followed by all Program Managers. Response to F5: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. As indicated above, this was only a significant problem after the initial implementation of new policies and procedures during January of 2001. This has been corrected.
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 147Each claim voucher should be checked for accuracy and completeness before it is forwarded to the Auditor-Controller for payment. Response to Recommendation R1: The recommendation has been implemented. The Department has been submitting monthly claim rejection reports to the Grand Jury since March of 2001. The monthly rejection rates have been: March 4.7% (18 of 384); April 1.7% (8 of 464); May 3.3% (14 of 418); and June 1.7% (9 of 544). The Department attempted to estimate the average countywide rejection rate to establish a standard for comparison. According to information from the Auditor’s Office, the rough average claim rejection rate is around 5%. Using these figures, the Department has been sustaining an acceptable rejection rate for several months.
-
R2Page 147The original of all invoices, as required by the Auditor’s Office, should be attached to all claim vouchers before payment is issued. The original documentation should remain in the Auditor’s Office for fiscal control. Response to Recommendation R2: The recommendation has been implemented. The recommendation has been implemented. The policy and procedure was revised to state that the original of all invoices should be attached to all claim vouchers before payment is issued. Staff was trained on this procedural change.
-
R3Page 147Department Program Managers and their staff should comply with existing procedures to eliminate claim voucher inaccuracies. Response to Recommendation R3: The recommendation has been implemented. The Accounting Unit prepares a monthly report on any errors found on claim vouchers. These reports are given to the Program Managers. This has allowed the Program Managers to identify training needs and to assure that the supervisors provide the necessary training.
-
R4Page 147The 2000/2001 Grand Jury recommends that the Department be reviewed in 2001/2002 by the Grand Jury with a follow up of its fiscal performance. 1 48 Response to Recommendation R4: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. By law the only responses available to the Board include “the recommendation has been implemented, has not yet been implemented but will be, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented”. Although none of these responses fit the recommendations since the Board can not speak for the Grand Jury, it is the most appropriate given that the Board assumes that the Grand Jury will follow-up as recommended. Responses Required for Findings