This audit evaluated whether 3 agencies and the Board of Education had implemented 7 previous audit recommendations. The Kansas Department of Education (KSDE) fully implemented 1 of 3 recommendations from our 2019 audit evaluating at-risk student counts, weights and expenditures. KSDE partially implemented the other recommendation, and the Board of Education did not implement the third recommendation. The Kansas Department of Agriculture partially implemented all 3 recommendations from our 2020 audit evaluating the agency's price verification inspection process. We could not evaluate whether the Kansas Department of Commerce implemented a recommendation from our 2020 Angel Investor Tax Credit Program audit.
This audit evaluated whether 3 agencies and the Board of Education had implemented 7 previous audit recommendations. The Kansas Department of Education (KSDE) fully implemented 1 of 3 recommendations from our 2019 audit evaluating at-risk student counts, weights and expenditures. KSDE partially implemented the other recommendation, and the Board of Education did not implement the third recommendation. The Kansas Department of Agriculture partially implemented all 3 recommendations from our 2020 audit evaluating the agency's price verification inspection process. We could not evaluate whether the Kansas Department of Commerce implemented a recommendation from our 2020 Angel Investor Tax Credit Program audit.
Welcome to the Rundown, your source for the latest news and updates from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit featuring LPA staff talking about recently released audit reports and discussing their main findings, key takeaways and why it matters. I'm Andy Brizo. In April, 2023, L P a released a limited scope performance audit, determining the extent to which agencies have implemented recent L P A audit recommendations. I'm with Tanner Rohrer, auditor at Legislative post audit who conducted this audit. Welcome Tanner.
Speaker 2:Thanks, Andy.
Speaker 1:So for this particular audit, which agencies and how many recommendations did you review?
Speaker 2:We reviewed audit recommendations for three agencies for this follow-up audit. Um, so we reviewed three recommendations for, uh, the Department of Education from our 2019 at-risk audit, and then we reviewed another three recommendations for the Kansas Department of Agriculture from our 2020 price certification audit. And then we reviewed one recommendation for the Kansas Department of Commerce from the 2020 Angel Investor Tax Credit Program Audit.
Speaker 1:Okay. So let's start with the Department of Education, uh, or K S D E. So tell me a little bit about the problems the original audit found and LPA a's recommendations at the time.
Speaker 2:So the original at-risk audit found that among several other things, um, in a sample of 20 districts that they, um, looked into most at-risk spending was used for teachers and programs for all students and didn't necessarily appear to specifically address at-risk students like the law requires. Um, and then also it found, uh, that K S D had approved at-risk practices that didn't target at-risk students and were not clearly evidence-based. Then another finding that audit had was that the K S D didn't necessarily provide any guidance that could help districts understand and follow at-risk spending requirements. Um, and so as a result, that audit, um, the original at-risk audit in 2019 made three recommendations to K STE E well, two to K S D E and one to the board, uh, of education. First, that audit recommended re recommended that K S D should ensure guidance that they provide to districts reflects state law. And then the second one is that K S D E should establish a process first for determining whether at-risk programs are for at-risk kids and based on evidence. And then lastly, the recommendation for the State Board of Education was that the board should more thoroughly oversee the process for identifying at-risk programs and practices.
Speaker 1:So right now, another L p A audit team is, uh, auditing at risk expenditures and statutory compliance. So you use some of the information that team had already gathered from K S D E for that audit, uh, to do your work. So how did you review whether K S D E and the Board of Education had implemented the recommendations from before, and what did you find?
Speaker 2:Yeah, this one was a little unique given the nature of the, the simultaneous audits. Um, so we, um, at the very beginning decided to primarily use the, uh, the current at risk audit teams work, um, for, we were fortunate that their work was directly addressing, um, all of the recommendations that this follow-up audit was reviewing. So we worked closely with that team. Um, then I made my own conclusions on whether or not K S D E and the State Board of Education had implemented our previous recommendations or not using the information that I had gained from the, the current at-risk audit team. I found that K S D E and the Board of Ed implemented one of the three recommendations. K S D E did establish a process for determining programs and practices are at risk and evidence-based. However, on another recommendation, KSD did not ensure that the guidance they provide to districts reflects state law. They did create guidance and sent it to school districts, but that guidance after the audit team's review and my own review, um, does not fully reflect state law. One example for that, um, K S E guidance establishes a limit on how much at-risk funds can be used for a teacher's salary, but no such limit exists in the statute. And then finally, on the last recommendation, the board, uh, did not increase oversight over this process. Uh, K S D staff told our at-risk audit staff that the board delegated this responsibility to K S D E staff, but that K S D E staff keeps the board informed on, um, the things that are happening in the, the at-risk program.
Speaker 1:Okay. Next, you reviewed the Department of Agriculture, uh, or kda, specifically the weights and Measures division. Uh, what did the original audit of that division find, and what did L P A recommend to K D A at that time?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so the original audit was looking at Kansas' price verification process. Uh, this is a process, uh, and for those that are unaware, that is supposed to ensure the accuracy of point of sale systems in Kansas. So that basically kind of means cash registers in stores from Dollar General to target to any gas station. Um, they also do large and small scales. Um, but this audit was focused on those point of sale systems. The audit, the original audit found that retail businesses in Kansas failed most price verification inspections, and that K D A didn't respond to those failures in a timely manner. And then additionally, the audit found that staffing constraints contributed to these, to these problems. So the audit, the original price verification audit recommended K D A should develop a more effective inspection strategy as a whole, perhaps one that focused on inspecting businesses that have more severe pricing issues. For one example, the audit also recommended that K D A do a staffing analysis to estimate the cost of implementing a new strategy, and then to use that analysis to inform future budget requests. And then the last recommendation the original audit made was that K D A should create a strategy for issuing legal orders in a timely and consistent manner. The audit suggested the strategy should clearly identify when K D A will issue legal orders and that it should reflect K d's resources and that k d a management should regularly review program data to ensure the strategy is being followed.
Speaker 1:So how did you determine the implementation status of these recommendations, and what did you find?
Speaker 2:We spoke with Katie officials and reviewed documentation they sent us, and then determined that they had partially implemented all three recommendations. First, they had developed a document that contains inspection data for failed inspections. However, nothing they sent had anything in a policy or anything outlined where, um, they noted a specific strategy or a list of criteria that inspectors must follow in terms of how they choose facilities to inspect, uh, across the state of Kansas. Second, K d A did complete a high level analysis of the amount of inspections they could conduct if they hired more inspectors, but they have not used that analysis to inform any budget requests. Lastly, K D A did document an escalation process, which addresses a strategy to issue legal orders timely and consistently. But again, the document didn't quite address every part of our recommendation. It doesn't mention department resources, and it still includes some softer language. For example, escalation to summary order may be considered. If so, it leaves things up to inspector discretion instead of requiring inspectors to, uh, issue legal orders exactly when or at a certain time.
Speaker 1:And the third and final department you looked at was the Department of Commerce. What did the original audit of Commerce find and what did L P A recommend at the time?
Speaker 2:So the original audit on the Angel Investor Tax Credit program, um, e evaluated that program. And this, just for a little background on that program, it, it gives inve investors a tax credit for investing in certain Kansas startups, and this included a statutory requirement for participating businesses to stay in Kansas for at least 10 years. The Department of Commerce is then responsible for determining whether a business qualifies and, um, is also responsible for monitoring that program's success. We recommend that we recommended to the agency, and that's the one we evaluated for this audit, um, that commerce more proactively, uh, enforced the timeframes, uh, the statute requires.
Speaker 1:But unlike with the other two agencies, it looks like you couldn't determine the implementation status of the recommendation to the Department of Commerce. So tell me more about this.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so we had, um, similar interactions with, um, the Department of Commerce, um, as with other agencies except for the unique, um, situation with K S D E on this one. Um, but, uh, commerce had, uh, their own unique situation where the, they had, um, the, the program director was a staff person that was on leave, um, extended leave. And, uh, we were told that this staff person was the only person who had access to any evidence that showed that commerce is enforcing, um, the, the recommendation that we were evaluating. So, um, our options were to either, um, wait until that person returned or, um, mo move on and have it be just an incomplete or could not evaluate. Um, and so that given the nature of the this audit, that's the direction we had to take.
Speaker 1:And finally, what's the main takeaway of this audit report?
Speaker 2:So I'd say that each of these, um, the, the three audits and the recommendations that we evaluated kind of have their own story. But if we were to bring them all together, I think the overall takeaway is that, um, all of these agencies, the, at least the two that we could evaluate made some notable progress on our past recommendations, but in several cases, they just didn't quite complete the entire recommendation. So they got a, a partial partial credit. Um, and hence why we have one out of seven recommendations. Only one was implemented. There were just a number that were partial.
Speaker 1:Tanner Rohrer is an auditor at legislative post audit. He conducted a limited scope audit following up on agency's implementation of recent L P a audit recommendations. Thank you for joining me, Tanner. Thanks
Speaker 2:Andy. Thank
Speaker 1:You for listening to the Rundown. To receive newly released podcasts, subscribe to us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. For more information about legislative post audit and to read our audit reports, visit ks lpa.org. Follow us on Twitter KS audit or visit our Facebook page.