Performance Audit (B)

Findings & Recommendations

Response

Actions Completed

Actions Pending

1. Accountability for implementation of performance audits of county departments is not established.

Adopted collective responses of staff. BOS Ultimate accountability for implementation of performance audits for departments managed by appointed department heads. Elected heads are accountable for implementation of performance audits for their departments. CA Generally, performance audits are not all-encompassing examinations for an organization's mission, goals, objectives, operations and management structure. Typically will be more narrowly defined, often focusing on business processes. AC

Performance Based Budget Committee presented recommendations to BOS in November 1996.

State legislation is currently under consideration that will require performance audits. BOS asked staff to schedule future discussion of performance audits including enumeration of standard definitions. BOS

1a. BOS should enter into an agreement with the AC to conduct performance audits in each department under BOS control on a five year cycle.

AC can neither commit nor guarantee a five year cycle due to unforeseen events. AC

1b. BOS should direct the CA to coordinate an annual self-audit in each department under BOS control.

Currently using Internal Control Survey distributed by AC. CA

The Internal Control Survey has been completed, with a copy to BOS 9/10/96. CA

1c. Departments headed by elected officials should initiate a self-audit program and request an outside review every five years.

Internal Control Survey will serve Grand Jury's purpose. AC's role is to audit department financial and operational activities. CA monitors management effectiveness including development of department goals, objectives and performance measurements. AC Concur. CRA Concur. Internal Control Survey deferred due to staff vacancies and budget development. S Concur. Receives quarterly audit by AC and annually as part of county financial reports. T Concur. Family Support Division is monitored yearly by state. Criminal operations needs audit by organization familiar with criminal justice system. DA

Internal Control Survey completed. T

2. BOS should restore three positions to AC to assure a better probability of accomplishing performance audits.

AC office reduced staff from 61 FTE's to 48 FTE's due to business process improvements. Has tried since 1991 to redirect some resources to enhance Internal Audit activities. Five year audit plan predicated on this redirection. Has not been realized due to budget constraints. AC

3. The "User Survey" conducted by the PD is not a sufficient total evaluation of the management performance of that department. A performance audit of the Personnel Department should be given a high priority.

Current scheduling commitments would allow Internal Audit to begin such an audit in March 1997. Effective accomplishment depends upon willing cooperation of PD management. AC It is one of our office's goals for 1996-97 to either complete our own management review of the PD or to have it accomplished by an objective third party. CA

Funding for the 1996-97 budget was not allocated, Current priority is the design & implementation of a program performance budget for 1997-98. Once completed, and department performance measures established, the performance of all departments will be evaluated on a regular basis. CA

4. The 1996-1997 Grand Jury should review the results of the Internal Control Survey conducted in CRA, DA, HCS, MH, PDD, PROBATION, PUBLIC WORKS, SHERIFF and SOCIAL SERVICES.

Internal Control Survey will result in an effective annual self-audit of each department. It was found to be a useful tool in examining internal practices. BOS AC will assist the Grand Jury to the extent requested. AC The 1996-97 GJ choose not to pursue.