Source: http://auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Performance-Special-Multi/Performance-Audits/07-Inventory-State-Programs-Digest.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:48:46+00:00

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

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.