New

Published: February, 2020

Secretary of State Security Audit

View Audit Statement

Secretary of State Security Audit

Audit Statement

Under the provisions of K.S.A. 46-1135, the Legislative Division of Post Audit conducts information technology security audits of state agencies. Every three years, we conduct a risk assessment which we then use to select agencies for review. The audits compare the selected agency’s security practices to a number of the IT security standards adopted by the state’s Information Technology Executive Council, as well as a handful of best practices for emerging technology issues. This report is kept permanently confidential under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(12)&(45) because release of the information could jeopardize the agency’s IT security. No corresponding public report has been issued.

View 3-year IT Summary Report

New

Published: February, 2020

3 Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State Agencies (2017-2019)

Read Report Read Abstract

3 Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State Agencies (2017-2019)

Report Abstract

We audited 19 agencies between 2017 and 2019. This report shows more than half of the agencies did not substantially comply with applicable IT security standards and best practices. Agencies struggled with properly scanning and patching their computers. Agencies also had compliance problems because they did not create, maintain, or test incident response plans or continuity of operations plans. Other significant issues included poor security awareness training or failed social engineering tests and inadequate data encryption, back up, or destruction processes. Agencies also had inadequate network boundary protection and were missing account security controls. Additionally, we noted poor access or environmental controls at several data centers. Several agencies also had management, contract, or policy-related weaknesses. We also noted significant security issues within agencies’ specific IT systems. The security findings in this report are similar to those in previous summary reports. The main reasons for compliance problems across the 19 agencies included insufficient top management attention and inadequate resources.

Read Full Report

New

Published: January, 2020

Juvenile Justice Reforms: Evaluating the Effects of Senate Bill 367

Read Report Read Abstract

Juvenile Justice Reforms: Evaluating the Effects of Senate Bill 367

Report Abstract

Senate Bill 367 reforms reduced out-of-home placements and increased community program funding for juvenile offenders in Kansas. Senate Bill 367 aimed to reduce the number of juvenile offenders put in out-of home settings like prisons, jails, and group homes. Out-of-home placements declined by 40% to 60% each year since the reforms were made. The reforms also aimed to create new community programs aimed to reduce recidivism. The Kansas Department of Corrections has spent about $9 million to create or expand community programs for juvenile offenders. Programs were generally available across the state, but more programs may still be needed. Department of Corrections did not have a process to ensure judicial districts used grant funds on appropriate programs. Stakeholders told us several Senate Bill 367 reforms had a negative impact on the juvenile justice system. These include the new probation, detention, and case time limits, as well as the graduated responses to probation violations. Stakeholders were more positive about the new youth assessment tool, but were split as to the effectiveness of other reforms. Kansas created a process to determine if Senate Bill 367 reforms were successful, but the process has not been used. In fact, only 2 of the 11 monitoring requirements we reviewed had been implemented.

Read Full Report

New

Published: January, 2020

Limited Scope: Consistency Across Foster Care Service Providers

Read Report Read Abstract

Limited Scope: Consistency Across Foster Care Service Providers

Report Abstract

Most foster families we surveyed reported inconsistencies in some child placing agency services, but that the process to switch agencies was not difficult. Regarding consistency of service, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) has policies and procedures to help ensure a minimum standard of service but child placing agencies can offer more or better services if they choose. Most foster families responding to our survey reported inconsistencies in some services provided by different child placing agencies, including how well the agencies helped them navigate the foster care system and the quality of interactions with staff. Regarding ease of transfer, DCF does not have any specific policies related to foster families who want to change child placing agency sponsorship. Only 23% of foster families responding to our survey said the process to transfer to a new child placing agency was difficult but most also said it could be improved. Finally, a few foster families and an official at child placing agency mentioned concerns about child placing agencies retaliating against foster families who transfer away from them.

Read Full Report

New

Published: January, 2020

Private Activity Bonds: Comparing How the Structure and Use of These Bonds in Kansas Compares to Other States

Read Report Read Abstract

Private Activity Bonds: Comparing How the Structure and Use of These Bonds in Kansas Compares to Other States

Report Abstract

Governments issue private activity bonds to to help private entities fund projects that have a public benefit (e.g., low income housing projects). Qualified private activity bonds, the subject of this audit, are exempt from federal income tax. As such, the federal government limits the amount of private activity bonds each state can issue. From 2016 to 2018, Kansas used fewer private activity bonds and for different purposes than most other states. For example, Kansas used less of its bond authority for exempt facility bonds, but more of its bond authority for small issue bonds than most other states. Kansas did not use qualified mortgage bonds to assist first-time homebuyers whereas most other states did. The Kansas Housing Assistance Program is a program for low and moderate-income homebuyers. It is a statewide program that is administered by Sedgwick County, Shawnee County, and a private investment bank. Unlike Kansas, state agencies administer the homebuyer programs in other states. Administering the Kansas Housing Assistance Program at the county level shields the state from financial costs and risks. However, it may reduce the state's opportunities to generate additional housing revenue and increase use of the program.

Read Full Report

Published: December, 2019

Kansas Neurological Institute Security Audit

View Audit Statement

Kansas Neurological Institute Security Audit

Audit Statement

Under the provisions of K.S.A. 46-1135, the Legislative Division of Post Audit conducts information technology security audits of state agencies. Every three years, we conduct a risk assessment which we then use to select agencies for review. The audits compare the selected agency’s security practices to a number of the IT security standards adopted by the state’s Information Technology Executive Council, as well as a handful of best practices for emerging technology issues. This report is kept permanently confidential under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(12)&(45) because release of the information could jeopardize the agency’s IT security. No corresponding public report has been issued.

View 3-year IT Summary Report

Published: December, 2019

University of Kansas Security Audit

View Audit Statement

University of Kansas Security Audit

Audit Statement

Under the provisions of K.S.A. 46-1135, the Legislative Division of Post Audit conducts information technology security audits of state agencies. Every three years, we conduct a risk assessment which we then use to select agencies for review. The audits compare the selected agency’s security practices to a number of the IT security standards adopted by the state’s Information Technology Executive Council, as well as a handful of best practices for emerging technology issues. This report is kept permanently confidential under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(12)&(45) because release of the information could jeopardize the agency’s IT security. No corresponding public report has been issued.

View 3-year IT Summary Report

Published: December, 2019

K-12 Education: Evaluating At-Risk Student Counts, Weights, and Expenditures

Read Report Read Abstract

K-12 Education: Evaluating At-Risk Student Counts, Weights, and Expenditures

Report Abstract

In 2018-2019, the state provided $413 million in dedicated funding for school districts to deliver services to students at risk of academic failure. The 20 districts we reviewed received $125 million in state at-risk funding but reported spending $162 million to provide at-risk services. Most districts serve more students than they received state funding for because funding is not tied to services. In our sample of 20 districts, most at-risk spending was used for teachers and programs for all students and did not appear to specifically address at-risk students as required by state law. Most of the at-risk expenditures we reviewed were for classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. Further, many of our sampled district’s at-risk programs and practices lacked strong research finding that they are effective. Additonally, a small portion of our selected districts' expenditures were not directly related to at-risk students or programs. In terms of guidance, KSDE has not approved strong at-risk practices or provided districts with good guidance on at-risk spending. Most of the at-risk practices approved by the Kansas State Board of Education did not target at-risk students and were not clearly evidence-based. KSDE also did not update spending guidance to reflect new requirements for the 2018-19 school year. Compared to other states, Kansas provides at-risk funding based on a poverty measure similar to most other states. Like 30 other states, Kansas uses participation in the National School Lunch Program to identify at-risk students. However, most other states that use a poverty measure use free and reduced lunch counts. Kansas’ method of basing funding on free lunch counts has strengths and weaknesses. Yet, stakeholders told us other possible methods, such as using the U.S. census or academic indicators, also have flaws. Finally, for the two years we reviewed, KSDE calculated at-risk funding correctly and in accordance with state law.

Read Full Report

Published: October, 2019

Economic Development Initiatives Fund: Evaluating the State’s Accountability Over the Use of EDIF Funding

Read Report Read Abstract

Economic Development Initiatives Fund: Evaluating the State’s Accountability Over the Use of EDIF Funding

Report Abstract

The Legislature created the Economic Development Initiatives Fund (EDIF) to aid economic development in Kansas. We compared how the state distributes EDIF funds to best practices for economic development fund oversight. Kansas does not design or award EDIF funds according to best practices for economic development. It also does not track EDIF recipients’ performance or evaluate whether EDIF is effective. In fiscal year 2018, Kansas spent about $42.3 million of EDIF funds. Only about $7.8 million (18%) of those funds went to programs consistent with specific legislative intent. About $14.4 million (34%) of EDIF funds related to economic development but not to the the specific purposes required in state law. Finally, $20.1 million (48%) of EDIF funds did not appear to relate to economic development.

Read Full Report

Published: October, 2019

Special Study: Salary, Compensation, and Allowance Comparison

Read Report Read Abstract

Special Study: Salary, Compensation, and Allowance Comparison

Report Abstract

The 2019 Conference Committee Report on Senate Bill 25 included a budget proviso for our office to compare how the salaries, compensation, and allowances of legislators, elected state officers, and judges in Kansas compare to other states. We used data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (2019), the Council of State Governments (2018), and the National Center for State Courts (2019). We adjusted the data for regional differences in the cost of living. For legislators' pay, we compared Kansas to 14 other states and calculated pay based on a 92-day session. Kansas legislators' annual pay is in the mid-range compared to the nine states with part-time legislatures. It is lower than in five nearby states. Kansas legislative leaders’ extra salaries are higher than in most of the other 14 states we reviewed, but that had little effect on how they compared to other state leaders in terms of total pay. We compared elected state officers' pay and judges' pay in Kansas to all other 49 states. Kansas elected state officers' pay and judges' pay is lower than in most other states. We did not follow generally accepted government auditing standards for this comparison. However, we still believe the data presented provides reasonable evidence to answer the objective.

Read Full Report

Published: July, 2019

2018 IT Security Follow-Up Report

View Audit Statement

2018 IT Security Follow-Up Report

Audit Statement

Under the provisions of K.S.A. 46-1135, the Legislative Division of Post Audit conducts information technology security audits of state agencies. Every three years, we conduct a risk assessment which we then use to select agencies for review. The audits compare the selected agency’s security practices to a number of the IT security standards adopted by the state’s Information Technology Executive Council, as well as a handful of best practices for emerging technology issues. This report is kept permanently confidential under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(12)&(45) because release of the information could jeopardize the agency’s IT security. No corresponding public report has been issued.

View 3-year IT Summary Report

Published: July, 2019

State Board of Indigent’s Defense Services Security Audit

View Audit Statement

State Board of Indigent’s Defense Services Security Audit

Audit Statement

Under the provisions of K.S.A. 46-1135, the Legislative Division of Post Audit conducts information technology security audits of state agencies. Every three years, we conduct a risk assessment which we then use to select agencies for review. The audits compare the selected agency’s security practices to a number of the IT security standards adopted by the state’s Information Technology Executive Council, as well as a handful of best practices for emerging technology issues. This report is kept permanently confidential under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(12)&(45) because release of the information could jeopardize the agency’s IT security. No corresponding public report has been issued.

View 3-year IT Summary Report

Audit Report Library

Filter Results

Secretary of State Security Audit

Secretary of State Security Audit

Audit Statement

3 Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State Agencies (2017-2019)

3 Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State Agencies (2017-2019)

Report Abstract

Juvenile Justice Reforms: Evaluating the Effects of Senate Bill 367

Juvenile Justice Reforms: Evaluating the Effects of Senate Bill 367

Report Abstract

Limited Scope: Consistency Across Foster Care Service Providers

Limited Scope: Consistency Across Foster Care Service Providers

Report Abstract

Private Activity Bonds: Comparing How the Structure and Use of These Bonds in Kansas Compares to Other States

Private Activity Bonds: Comparing How the Structure and Use of These Bonds in Kansas Compares to Other States

Report Abstract

Kansas Neurological Institute Security Audit

Kansas Neurological Institute Security Audit

Audit Statement

University of Kansas Security Audit

University of Kansas Security Audit

Audit Statement

K-12 Education: Evaluating At-Risk Student Counts, Weights, and Expenditures

K-12 Education: Evaluating At-Risk Student Counts, Weights, and Expenditures

Report Abstract

Economic Development Initiatives Fund: Evaluating the State’s Accountability Over the Use of EDIF Funding

Economic Development Initiatives Fund: Evaluating the State’s Accountability Over the Use of EDIF Funding

Report Abstract

Special Study: Salary, Compensation, and Allowance Comparison

Special Study: Salary, Compensation, and Allowance Comparison

Report Abstract

2018 IT Security Follow-Up Report

2018 IT Security Follow-Up Report

Audit Statement

State Board of Indigent’s Defense Services Security Audit

State Board of Indigent’s Defense Services Security Audit

Audit Statement