Agricultural-Related Agencies: A K-GOAL Audit Determining Whether Cost Savings Could Be Achieved By Making the Animal Health Department and the Conservation Commission Part of the Department of Agriculture

View Abstract

Published: DECEMBER, 2008

Kansas is one of six states that doesn’t place any of its animal health oversight or conservation grant functions within its Department of Agriculture. The remaining 44 states have varying degrees of those functions placed under their Department of Agriculture. Kansas could save about $710,000 a year by merging the two agencies with the Department of Agriculture. About $630,000 of the savings comes from eliminating or restructuring staff positions, while about $80,000 comes from other operating costs reductions. Although agency officials expressed concerns about restructuring, we found those issues could be overcome. During this audit, we identified other issues regarding the operations of the Animal Health Department and the Conservation Commission. For example, the Animal Health Department hasn’t fully developed and implemented policy manuals and criteria for assessing the results of inspections--these items were recommended in a previous audit issued in 2002. Other issues related to the efficient use of staff and technology need to be studied by management at both agencies.

Animal Health Department: Reviewing Issues Related to a Recent Animal Tracking Technology Project (limited-scope audit)

View Abstract

Published: OCTOBER, 2006

State law requires agencies to report all information technology (IT) projects costing more than $250,000 to the Chief Information Technology Officer (CITO), but officials from the Animal Health Department didn’t report a 2004 research and development project for the USDA because they didn’t think they were developing a system for agency operations. The CITO has determined that this project, along with two other Department projects, are covered by the law. Bringing research projects such as these under the IT approval and monitoring system could result in a major increase in the number of agency and university projects monitored. About $750,000 of the project’s $1.5 million budget was spent before the project was terminated–about $500,000 of federal funds and $250,000 of in-kind efforts. Although the project didn’t achieve the desired outcomes, USDA officials say the project proved that this technology could work. As a result, it’s unlikely USDA will ask that any of the spent federal funds be returned. USDA officials did tell us they will ask the Department to return the $38,000 in unspent federal funds.

Animal Breeders and Sellers in Kansas: Determining Whether Improvements Have Been Made In the Regulation of This Industry

View Abstract

Published: AUGUST, 2002

Both Kansas breeders and those who buy their animals agree that conditions in the animal breeding industry have improved significantly since 1990. Those improvements can be attributed in large part to efforts the Animal Health Department has undertaken, such as adopting comprehensive standards and regulations, implementing inspection schedules and procedures, and improving the staffing levels for the Program. However, several improvements such as a standard inspection manual, adherence to the inspection schedules, a uniform system for classifying violations, and a standardized system of sanctions still are needed to ensure the Program operates efficiently and effectively. Also, the Legislature needs to consider options for recouping costs associated with caring for animals that are seized by the Department. Two options we identified were requiring animal owners to post a cash bond when animals are seized, or establishing a fund financed by animal breeders that could be used to cover these costs.

Compliance and Control Audit: Selected Agriculture Agencies

View Abstract

Published: MAY, 1995

OARD OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GRAIN INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

Compliance and Control Audit: Selected Agriculture Agencies

View Abstract

Published: NOVEMBER, 1991

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE GRAIN INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ANIMAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Reviewing State Regulation Over Animal Breeders and Sellers in Kansas

View Abstract

Published: AUGUST, 1990

The Companion Animal Program has not been administered, managed, funded or staffed to the extent needed to efficiently and effectively carry out its responsibilities to regulate the companion animal industry. The Animal Health Department has neither established procedures for operating the Program nor provided oversight of the staff responsible for implementing it. The Department has not adequately identified the people it should be regulating, inspected regulated animal breeders and dealers, taken appropriate enforcement actions, or responded to complaints. Fees were not sufficient to support the Program in fiscal years 1989 and 1990, and are not likely to be sufficient to operate the Program in fiscal year 1991, even at very reduced staffing levels.

State Operated Laboratories Preliminary Assessment

View Abstract

Published: JUNE, 1975

Due to concerns that a number of the laboratories in the state are not operating to full capacity there is to be a review of the operations and fee schedules of state operated laboratories. Major state laboratories were identified from statutory and budget research prior audits, Budget Division, Legislative Research and other pertinent sources, including telephone interviews. The audit of the laboratories will follow the patterns of the audit of state operated pharmacies and drug rooms. This audit excluded such labs as those at state colleges and universities and labs operated by hospitals which serve the single institution’s needs.