Agency Responses to Audit Recommendations
|Previous Audit Recommendations||Agency Updates as of November 2020|
|Audit Report||ID||Recommendation||Current Status||Description of Current Status|
|Department of Corrections|
|Juvenile Justice Reforms: Evaluating the Effects of Senate Bill 367 (2020)||1||The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) and the Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) should both develop complete datasets of juvenile offenders under their supervision or custody.||In Progress||
Based on feedback from auditors, the missing data is local IIP data. KDOC does not have any authority to require or compel a jurisdiction to comply with statute regarding IIP. KDOC makes every effort to obtain the information and reports out through the JJOC and legislative testimony the jurisdictions that we do not receive data from.
KDOC will have a data system in place at the beginning of the calendar year that will assist in the reporting of data and makes the ability to share the data with others easier.
|2||Once both datasets are in place, KDOC and OJA need to cooperate to reach an agreement on how to share, stage, and analyze their agencies’ data so the state can have a comprehensive dataset of its juvenile offenders.||In Progress||A formal MOU has been drafted outlining all data points desired to be shared between KDOC and OJA and is being evaluated by legal teams.||3||The Kansas Department of Corrections should develop a process to ensure judicial districts are using reinvestment grant funds on appropriate programs.||Have Implemented||KDOC has established a process as outlined in the Financial Rules, Guidelines, and Reporting Instructions for Adult Community Corrections and Juvenile Services. In addition, additional requirements are outlined in the request for proposals. KDOC reviews the grant recipient’s workbooks on a quarterly basis. A fiscal audit schedule is utilized for further monitoring.|
|Office of Judicial Administration|
|Juvenile Justice Reforms: Evaluating the Effects of Senate Bill 367 (2020)||1||The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) and the Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) should both develop complete datasets of juvenile offenders under their supervision or custody.||In Progress||DOC and OJA are both getting updated data management systems in order to have complete datasets (Athena for DOC and Tyler Supervision for OJA). OJA’s implementation of Tyler Supervision is currently ongoing and active.||2||Once both datasets are in place, KDOC and OJA need to cooperate to reach an agreement on how to share, stage, and analyze their agencies’ data so the state can have a comprehensive dataset of its juvenile offenders.||In Progress||DOC and OJA are currently working on an MOU in order to exchange data.|
|Office of Information Technology Services|
|Office of Information Technology Services: Reviewing the Office’s Service and Rate Structures (2018)||1a||OITS should include all prior-year balances in its models.||Have Implemented||Prior-year balances will be considered in the future as rates are being developed.||1b||OITS should periodically review the accuracy and completeness of its rate models.||Have Implemented||Rates are reviewed on an annual basis.||2a||OITS should develop a plan for improving its rate setting process to address: i) how to balance OITS’ need to periodically adjust rates to cover its expenses against agencies’ needs for budget stability, ii) how to streamline, eliminate, or otherwise cover OITS’ expenses for services that consistently operate at a loss, and iii) any other obstacles that currently prevent OITS from setting service rates equal to those produced by its rate-setting model.||Have Implemented||OITS completed its revision of rates prior to July 1, 2020. The rate structure was streamlined for fewer individual rates. The rates were analyzed by the major lines of services provided by OITS. It will be another budget year of adjusting the rates to fully align these rates with the actual cost.||2b||Present the final plan to the Legislature for their consideration by April 2019.||Have Implemented||CITO Burns-Wallace presented updated rate structure to Joint Committee on Information Technology during 2020 interim session.|
|Lobbying Services: Evaluating a Small Sample of Local Governments’ Reported Payments to Lobbyists and Associations with Lobbyists (2018)||1||To address the issue of lobbyists’ discretion on their public funds reports, the Ethics Commission should provide additional guidance to registered lobbyists on what constitutes lobbying services and therefore what public funds received lobbyists should report.||Have Implemented||
This item has been fully implemented. Additionally, for maximum clarity to the lobbyists, we are sending specific further guidance to the lobbyists when we send a reminder for the Public Funds Report.
The Ethics Commission issued a formal opinion on this subject in October 2018 located here. This opinion provides that additional guidance.
Additionally, the Ethics Commission will be sending a condensed form of this opinion to lobbyists when we send reminders regarding the Public Funds Report. The Report is due at the end of the calendar year, and as such, would be most effective to send closer to the deadline near the end of the year.
|Department of Health and Environment|
|Medicaid: Comparing Health Care Provider Tax Revenues to Increased Provider Reimbursement Rates (2018)||1||To address HCAIP’s percentage distribution problem, KDHE and the HCAIP panel should:||Have Implemented||
With the assistance of Navigant, KDHE created a report showing the amount spent in rate enhancement for hospitals and physicians. The amounts are broken out by FFS and MCO capitation payments. The report is completed monthly upon KDHE receiving the member months from Gainwell. The report has been enhanced to show actual SMART balances, actual expenses incurred and projections for current SFY. KDHE also reduced the hospital inpatient and outpatient enhanced rates by 2.14%. The fund was overspent by $10.7M in SFY2020 and is projected to be overspent by $2.74M in SFY2021.
On behalf of the HCAIP Panel, KHA presented a proposal to the 2019 Legislature changing the provider assessment program that would keep the HCAIP fund from being overspent. The proposal included the following:
KDHE worked with KHA and KHA’s contractor to implement the new program described above. Implementation of the new program was contingent upon CMS approval. CMS did not approve the changes to the HCAIP program due to budget neutrality restrictions. Consequently, the proviso and the new Provider Assessment Program have not been implemented. KDHE is presently working with CMS to gain approval for a technical correction to the state’s 1115 waiver budget neutrality cap. If CMS approves the technical correction, KDHE will work with KHA to develop a revised HCAIP proposal to submit to CMS that is within the state’s budget neutrality limit and consistent with the requirements of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 65-6208 and 65-6218.
|1a||Modify how HCAIP funds are distributed to ensure hospitals and non-hospital providers receive percentages that align with statute.||Have Implemented||1b||Proactively monitor HCAIP fund expenditures to ensure HCAIP distribution percentages align with statute each year.||Have Implemented||2||To address HCAIP’s overspending problem, KDHE and the HCAIP panel should:||Have Implemented||2a||Work with the Kansas Legislature to determine whether HCAIP is intended to be supplemented with state general funds.||Have Implemented||2b||If not, develop a plan to ensure state general funds are fully reimbursed each year. This plan might include:||Have Implemented||2bi||Increasing revenues by raising the percentage and updating the base year used to calculate hospitals’ annual tax payment amounts||Have Implemented||2bii||Increasing revenues by using both net inpatient and outpatient revenues to calculate hospitals’ annual tax payment amounts||Have Implemented||2biii||Decreasing expenditures by reducing HCAIP’s Medicaid payment rate increases or the payments made to hospitals to help cover services provided to uninsured patients.||Will Not Implement||2c||Proactively monitor HCAIP fund expenditures to ensure state general funds are fully reimbursed each year.||Have Implemented||2d||Present their plan to the Kansas Legislature for its consideration no later than July 1, 2019.||Have Implemented|
|Kansas Department of Agriculture|
|Department of Agriculture: Evaluating the Animal Facilities Inspection Program (2018)||Q1R1||Program officials should update their policy and procedure manual to correct deficiencies we identified in this question related to consistent inspections and appropriate penalties.||Have Implemented||The AFI Program completed updates to their policy and procedures manual in August of 2020. The manual contains detailed sections about conducting inspections and determining if a violation occurred. It also contains a legal penalty matrix. This matrix outlines fines for unsatisfactory inspections. It also indicates when a revocation or suspension of a license should occur. [Updated as part of LPA’s 2020 Follow-Up Audit]||Q2R1||Program officials should create processes and policies to:||Have Implemented||Q2R1a||Establish annual performance goals for inspectors.||Have Implemented||The AFI program created three new task objectives as part of evaluating inspectors’ performance. These goals include performing routine and complaint inspections within specific timeframes and completing inspection documentation by its due date. These and other performance goals must be reviewed with inspectors during their annual performance evaluations. [Updated as part of LPA’s 2020 Follow-Up Audit]||Q2R1b||Monitor that all inspections and penalties are timely and appropriate.||Have Implemented||
The AFI Program uses a database tool that provides a weekly report of upcoming inspection due dates. This report is used by inspectors to plan and complete their inspections on time. The program manager also uses the report to make sure inspections are completed on time.
The AFI program monitors penalties using their database and the database home screen. However, part of the process relies on the agency’s legal department staff and systems. We learned legal staff primarily use a paper filing system to ensure legal actions are completed on time. They also use Outlook Calendar invitations to manage deadlines. Lastly, legal staff also maintain a shared spreadsheet that allows AFI program staff to monitor legal actions. [Updated as part of LPA’s 2020 Follow-Up Audit]
|Q2R2||Program officials should work with Kansas State University officials to provide the statutory required training.||Have Implemented||The AFI Program offers continuing education training in conjunction with KSU. Those who are licensed through the AFI program may attend the training. A continuing education training was offered in July of 2019. Another training was offered in September of 2020. The 2020 training opportunity was published on the KDA website. [Updated as part of LPA’s 2020 Follow-Up Audit]||Q2R3||Program officials should consider working with the Legislature to request an investigative inspector position.||Have Implemented||KDA created a new investigator position and posted it as open in early 2020. The position was not filled because of the budgetary concerns created by the COVID-19 pandemic. [Updated as part of LPA’s 2020 Follow-Up Audit]|
|Department of Administration|
|State Surplus Property: Evaluating Opportunities to Generate Revenue from State Owned Land and Buildings (2019)||1||The Department of Administration should work with officials from the Adjutant General’s Department, the Department of Corrections, and the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs to determine if they agree that the four properties we identified are surplus and if they should be sold.||In Progress||The Department of Administration (DofA) has spoken with the Department of Corrections and they have expressed no interest in selling the properties identified. DofA will follow-up with the other agencies in the coming months to determine their interest in selling the properties identified.||2||The Department of Administration should develop criteria for identifying surplus real property and make existing guidance for selling surplus real property available to state agencies to use. They should also develop a process for periodically reviewing state owned real property to identify surplus property.||Have Implemented||DofA has developed the steps to identify and dispose of surplus property. Furthermore, DofA will reach out to state agencies every five years to determine if the agencies have an interest in selling any property they have deemed surplus.|
|Department of Commerce|
|Kansas Department of Commerce: Evaluating the Department’s Administration of the Job Creation Program Fund (2019)||1||The Department of Commerce should establish criteria it will use to evaluate job creation fund awards and a process for determining how much money it will award.||Have Implemented||
Commerce evaluated JCF awards based on the economic impact to the community, county, region and state of each business recruitment/business growth project. Economic impact was based on the number of new/retained jobs, salaries and wages of those jobs, and the new capital investment created by each project. Commerce also evaluates the competition from other states for each project. Commerce also evaluates how the state’s JCF investment leverages local incentives in partnership with local units of government.
Commerce continues to evaluate projects as stated above but Commerce also utilizes an internal committee inclusive of the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, Legal Counsel and Business Development Director to ensure the worthiness of a JCF award and that those awards are aligned with statute.
|2||The Department of Commerce should verify that the data companies submit related to award requirements is accurate.||Have Implemented||
Companies awarded JCF file annual reports that include job creation. Commerce compares those reported numbers against data available from the KDOL to ensure accuracy and proper oversight. The annual reports also provide evidence of purchase orders, invoices and receipt that verify the capital investment made by the company. Companies sign a contract with the State of Kansas/Commerce in which they attest, under penalty of law, that their reporting accurately reflects their job creation, payroll and capital investment. Commerce does not have the staff resources to visit each company to verify information contained in the annual reports. Much of the verification process outlined in this response was omitted in the LPA audit.
Commerce continues the verification process outlined above and believes it is more than adequate to assure companies are delivering on the contractual obligations for job creation, payroll and capital investment. The fact that Commerce has deployed clawbacks when metrics and expectations are not met is further evidence that the verification system is working.
|3||The Department of Commerce should include all elements in its annual report required by state law and seek out any legislative guidance it needs to understand those requirements.||Have Implemented||
Commerce reports to the Legislature annually via regularly scheduled testimony provided to the Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Ways & Means Committee, House Commerce/Economic Development/Labor Committee, House Appropriations Committee, House Rural Revitalization Committee and other Committees as requested. Commerce also appears before Interim Committees as requested to provide agency information, reports and program information. Commerce publishes an annual written report that covers aggregate program information.
Commerce has deployed a new public-facing program award database that is published on our website and updated to ensure it is current. This database includes awards from all our programs once those awards have a signed contract and the information shared is no longer considered proprietary and confidential. You can find the transparency database by following this link. Further Commerce is re-formatting our published annual report to ensure it is a comprehensive review of programs and incentive awards. This annual report will be made available electronically to Legislators and the general public in the fourth quarter of each calendar year.
|The Kansas Creative Arts Industries Commission: Measuring its Economic Impact (2020)||1||Commission officials should research what impact data to collect from their programs, provide clear guidance for all metrics and data collected, and develop a process to verify reported results to ensure data collected is consistent and reliable.||In Progress||
In order to establish and measure appropriate benchmarks for arts funding, KCAIC is analyzing how best to identify the appropriate metrics. This process includes reviewing evaluative tools like DataArts, CVI Suite and methods developed by cultural impact experts such as Maria Rosario Jackson at ASU. KCAIC field reps will collect contact data to measure reach and success in converting outreach into eligible grant applications.
KCAIC will include impact evaluation in its upcoming strategic planning process currently being developed in conjunction with WSU Regional and Economic Development. Metrics may include direct participation and related demographics, geographic reach, job retention/creation, community health and vitality. Efforts will be made to coordinate data with other cultural and community entities like Main Street and Tourism.
|Department of Education|
|K-12 Education: Evaluating At-Risk Student Counts, Weights, and Expenditures (2019)||1||The department should ensure that any guidance they provide to the districts reflects current state law.||Have Implemented||Guidance documents are updated to reflect current state law.||2||The department should establish a process to determine that any identified programs and practices are evidence-based and for at-risk students.||Have Implemented||Web site has been updated with the list of evidence based best practices for districts to spend state at-risk aid. School district expenditures are monitored annually by approving the Local Consolidated Plan.|
|State Board of Education|
|K-12 Education: Evaluating At-Risk Student Counts, Weights, and Expenditures (2019)||3||The board should more thoroughly oversee the process for identifying at-risk programs and practices.||Have Implemented||The State Board of Education regularly monitors school district practices and compliance data through the Annual Report as well as systems’ accreditation reviews.|