 |
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2000-111
October 24, 2000
Fulton
State Hospital, which is administered by the Department of Mental Health, spent
nearly $400,000 above its state budget during a two-year period.� The hospital paid these excess costs with
the subsequent year�s appropriations and money authorized for a separate,
unrelated rehabilitation center.
Our office noted this concern in an audit of Fulton State
Hospital for the years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998.� Our audit�s findings focused in three main areas:
�
Overspending
appropriations
� Providing services to other entities
�
Monitoring
Hospital circumvents state budget process
The
hospital went around the state�s appropriation process when it spent more than
its budget and used its subsequent year�s appropriations and Southwest Missouri
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center�s appropriations to pay the excess.� We recommend that the hospital either keep
its expenditures within its budget or request additional funding. (See page 6)
Hospital services to other entities do not cover costs
The
compensation the hospital receives does not cover the cost of the services it
provides. The hospital does laundry for four other state mental health
facilities, but only charges two facilities for the service and, in some cases,
does not have a written contract for these services.
In
addition, the hospital provides meal services and bed space to other entities,
in exchange for food purchases from one entity and in-kind services from
another entity. This practice of charging expenditures to other state
appropriations violates the intent of�
the appropriation process and state law.� We recommend the hospital create written contracts for all services
it provides, create an internal service fund to account for these costs, and
change budgeted funds so all facility costs are paid from the hospital�s
approved appropriations. (See page 7)
Supported Community Living program needs better monitoring
The
Supported Community Living Program, which serves about 775 clients in various
housing setting, needs a better system to track deficiencies and client
expenditures.� Although the program�s
staff made monitoring visits, there were very few written reports documenting
the visits.� The reports also did not
always adequately describe the specific deficiencies.
