|
|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities (Council) in response to a May
27, 1997, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This performance audit was
conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
§§41-2951 through 41-2957.
The Council’s purpose is to plan and advocate on behalf of
Arizona’s estimated 83,000 developmentally disabled citizens to assist them in
reaching their maximum potential. The Council does this by monitoring current services for
the developmentally disabled, identifying unmet needs and gaps in services, and developing
plans to address these needs. To address the important issues facing Arizona’s
developmentally disabled citizens, the Council develops a three-year State Plan. This plan
is required under federal legislation and is approved by the U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services. Federal legislation also requires that the Council operate
independently of direct service providers, such as the Department of Economic Security
(DES). However, DES does provide the Council with administrative services.
The Council’s current State Plan (1998-2000) identifies four
important goals: Leadership/Self-Determination (increasing self-sufficiency), Education,
Employment, and Family Support. The Council implements these goals through annual
contracts with six regional district councils, located in Scottsdale, Tucson, Prescott,
Kingman, Apache Junction, and Benson. The district councils provide local developmentally
disabled citizens with advocacy on important issues, information regarding service
providers and services offered, and referrals to needed services.
Governor’s Council Should
Continue Increased Emphasis
on Contract Oversight
(See pages 5 through 11)
This performance audit found several problems that have historically
impacted the Council’s ability to achieve its monitoring and advocacy goals for the
developmentally disabled.
Contract oversight problems—The Council’s limited
oversight of the contracts it holds with six district councils has impacted its ability to
ensure all State Plan goals and objectives were met in the past. Prior to 1998, the
contracting process was problematic because the Council relied on the district councils to
develop their own contracts. This did not ensure district councils were working on
high-priority activities or that all Council goals and objectives were collectively
addressed. Further, the audit found that district councils were not performing all of the
work mandated by their contracts. For example, several district councils made little or no
progress in establishing family support groups or supporting leadership development
programs. Moreover, some district councils were also performing work under non-Council
contracts, which may have adversely affected the resources expended to achieve Council
goals.
Contract monitoring historically insufficient—The Council
has also failed to adequately monitor district council contract performance to ensure
compliance with contract requirements in the past. The Council requires the district
councils to provide quarterly reports on their activities. However, until recently the
Council has not effectively used this information to monitor contractually mandated
activities and ensure goals are met at the local level. The Council should continue its
recent efforts to use information obtained from district council quarterly progress
reports, have Council staff conduct regular site visits, and review independent audit
reports to monitor and assess contract performance.
Other options—In addition to improved contracts and better
monitoring, the Council has other options to help ensure contract requirements are met.
First, annually reviewing and revising district council contracts to address deficiencies
would help the Council ensure all State Plan goals and objectives are addressed.
Additionally, the Council could withhold district council funding for partial or complete
nonperformance of contractual requirements. Moreover, outcome-based contracts, which focus
on specific impacts of district council activities, such as the number of jobs
developmentally disabled citizens obtained as a result of district council efforts, could
help the Council measure district council performance. Finally, the Council could use a
competitive bidding process to help ensure its goals are met. Currently, the Council
issues sole source contracts to the district councils. The Council could use a competitive
bidding process, such as Requests for Proposal, to promote competition and help ensure
adequate performance of contract requirements. Nine of 10 states surveyed during the audit
use competitive bidding.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format
|
|
