An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Brought to you by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
State & Local Reports
Date Issued
Agency Reviewed/Investigated
Report Title
Type
Location
State of Delaware
State of Delaware Match Plan Financial Statements December 31, 2018 and 2017
Why this Audit? In accordance with 29 Del. C. §2906 and §6058, under the direction of the Auditor of Accounts (AOA), Belfint, Lyons, & Shuman P.A. performed a financial statement audit of the State of Delaware Match Plan, which comprise the statements of fiduciary net position as of December 31, 2018 and 2017.
OIG audited the Department of Law’s (DOL) process for notifying people of sanitation code violations cited by the Department of Streets and Sanitation, such as overflowing garbage containers or uncut weeds. The Collections, Ownership, and Administrative Litigation (COAL) division of DOL is responsible for identifying the owners of properties cited by DSS for such violations. Once COAL verifies the correct owner, it sends a notice of violation. The objective of the audit was to determine the average number of days from alleged violation to notification and why, in some cases, the process took more than a year.For sanitation code violations that occurred in 2016 and 2017, DOL notified property owners an average of 289 days—more than 9 months—after the alleged violation. In 63.2% of cases, it took DOL 6 to 12 months to notify property owners and, in 23.8% of cases, DOL did not provide notice until a year or more had passed. Fewer than 2% of notifications were sent within one month of the violation.OIG concluded that the average 9-month delay in notification was due primarily to DOL’s large backlog of alleged sanitation code violations. Once COAL staff are assigned a violation, it took just a few days to identify the property owner and send the notice.
An OIG inquiry has determined that the Department of Streets and Sanitation (DSS) is violating the Municipal Code of Chicago (MCC) by providing free garbage collection service to at least 1,182 nonprofit entities. Section 7-28-235 of the MCC, effective January 1, 2016, requires all recipients of City garbage collection service to pay $9.50 per month. Because of DSS’ noncompliance, the City is losing at least $134,748 in garbage fees each year, totaling $449,160 as of April 30, 2019. Furthermore, OIG found that DSS’ list of nonprofit entities receiving free garbage collection is incomplete. OIG identified 25 properties not included on DSS’ list that nonetheless receive free City garbage service, and there may be many more. Finally, DSS’ current provision of free garbage service only to those nonprofits fortunate enough to have received it in the past is inherently unfair. It perpetuates a discretionary benefit that DSS historically granted to entities who knew to request it, or otherwise acquired it, while similarly situated nonprofits are denied this benefit and must pay for private garbage collection.
An OIG advisory determined that the Department of Streets and Sanitation (DSS) was violating the Municipal Code of Chicago (MCC) by providing free garbage collection service to at least 1,182 nonprofit entities. Section 7-28-235 of the MCC, effective January 1, 2016, requires all recipients of City garbage collection service to pay $9.50 per month. Because of DSS’ noncompliance, the City is losing at least $134,748 in garbage fees each year, totaling $449,160 as of April 30, 2019. Furthermore, OIG found that DSS’ list of nonprofit entities receiving free garbage collection is incomplete. OIG identified 25 properties not included on DSS’ list that nonetheless receive free City garbage service, and there may be many more. Finally, OIG concluded that DSS’ current provision of free garbage service only to those nonprofits fortunate enough to have received it in the past is inherently unfair. It perpetuates a discretionary benefit that DSS historically granted to entities who knew to request it, or otherwise acquired it, while similarly situated nonprofits are denied this benefit and must pay for private garbage collection.