The Rundown with Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit

Latest Episodes:

Reviewing Ford County’s Procedures for Election Security in the 2022 General Election [October 2024] Oct 07, 2024

This audit includes information about Ford County’s policies and practices to ensure the security of storage units, ballots, and devices used to tabulate votes in the 2022 general election. It is a follow up to an election security audit that we completed in 2023 of 15 Kansas counties' election offices. We evaluated Ford County's security practices using 55 best practices from the US. Election Assistance Commission and state law. Ford County generally had adequate practices in the area of overall process security which was like the other counties we reviewed in the 2023 audit. Ford County had a mix of adequate and inadequate practices in the areas of ballot security and voting and tabulation machine security. This was also like other counties we reviewed. But Ford County’s election management computer security and transfer and movement security practices were generally inadequate and were Ford County’s weakest areas. This is different than other counties we reviewed because most of the other counties we reviewed in 2023 had adequate election management computer security practices. Additionally, most of the other counties we reviewed had a mix of adequate and inadequate transfer and movement security practices. Ford County also didn’t have adequate written security policies during the 2022 general election, but this was like the other counties we reviewed in 2023. Overall, Ford County’s results don’t change our overarching conclusions from the 2023 audit.

Reviewing Ford County’s Ballot Reconciliation Process During the 2024 Primary Election [October 2024] Oct 07, 2024

State law requires that poll book check-ins balance with cast ballot totals when the polls close on election night. The supervising poll worker at the polling site is responsible for ensuring these totals balance. If they don’t, the discrepancy must be explained to the election office in writing. We reviewed Ford County’s election records from the 2024 primary election to evaluate Ford County’s ballot reconciliation process. We determined that at 4 of the 5 polling sites, poll book check-ins and the number of votes cast balanced. However, at 1 polling site, voted ballots exceeded poll book check-ins by 1 ballot. This was because poll workers at that polling site did not follow the proper processes. We were also asked to check if Ford County’s poll books contained a declaration on each signature page as required by state law. We found that Ford County’s poll books had a declaration on the signature page, but they did not have the specific language required by state law.

Evaluating the STAR Bonds Financing Program [October 2024] Oct 07, 2024

The STAR bonds program allows local governments to use future sales tax revenue for development or redevelopment projects. Commerce officials expect STAR bond districts to improve local quality of life, but they haven’t defined or measured this. We gathered the data to evaluate districts' affects on local quality of life and found that the 6 districts we reviewed grew in quality-of-life industries survey respondents said they value. However, the numbers and types of industries varied by district. To evaluate the program’s effects, we first determined how 6 districts changed over time in 109 quality-of-life industries. We then compared the 6 districts’ industry changes in these 109 quality-of-life industries to what college graduates told us affected their quality of life. Survey respondents said social and economic factors other than amenities have more influence on where they want to live. However, about half of respondents or more said amenities in all 10 quality-of-life industry groups we asked them about were important to their quality of life. All 6 districts we reviewed added jobs in quality-of-life industries from the time the district was approved to 2023. The 6 districts grew most often in industries that most survey respondents (81%-85%) said were important to their quality of life. They grew similarly in industries that only about half of respondents said were important. However, the 6 districts grew in few of the industries that the largest percentages of survey respondents (86%+) said were important. Finally, they grew very little in a few industries that most respondents (68%-80%) said were important. The 6 districts varied widely in the numbers and types of industries with job density growth. We don’t know for sure how the STAR bonds program affected these districts, but the infrastructure it financed likely contributed to the patterns we observed.

Estimating the Economic Impacts of Tax Increment Financing Districts [October 2024] Oct 07, 2024

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts are a type of economic development tool in which cities use a property tax increment to help finance development projects. A property tax increment is the amount of property tax generated above a base level, which is established when the city creates the district. We contacted the 10 largest cities in Kansas to generate a list of past and present TIF districts. From this list, we selected 6 districts to evaluate their economic costs and benefits. We selected 2 districts from Wichita, and 1 district each from Kansas City, Olathe, Topeka, and Salina. For each of these districts, we estimated the impacts they had on property values, taxes, development, employment, and crime. We also evaluated whether the costs to the city were recovered timely for these districts. We found that 3 of 6 districts did not recover their costs timely. Further, we found that most of these TIF districts likely experienced economic benefits from increased property values and taxes, increased development, or increased jobs. However, we were unable to directly compare these benefits to the costs because they could not be readily quantified. Whether a TIF district was worth its financial costs is often subjective and project-dependent. We also evaluated the school districts where these 6 TIF districts were located to determine what financial costs they may have imposed on those school districts. We found that all 6 TIF districts were too small in scale to have a significant negative impact on school district funding.

Reviewing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program [September 2024] Sep 10, 2024

Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) administers the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in Kansas. Kansas receives about $102 million in federal TANF block grants annually. This amount has generally remained stable since 1996, but that means this amount has lost an estimated 49% of its purchasing power since 1996 because of inflation. One of the programs DCF funds with the TANF block grant is cash assistance. TANF cash assistance serves Kansas families with very low incomes. In Kansas, a family is eligible for TANF cash assistance if they have insufficient income or resources to support themselves. Funds must be granted to families that live in Kansas. The family must include a child or expectant mother who is a U.S. citizen, legal immigrant, or qualified immigrant. The state’s 2015 Hope, Opportunity, and Prosperity for Everyone (HOPE) Act changed eligibility requirements for TANF cash assistance in Kansas. This included things like capping lifetime assistance to a total of 24 months and reducing the amount of time single caregivers could be exempt from work activity to 3 months. TANF cash assistance benefit amounts in Kansas haven't been updated since 1997. Spending on TANF cash assistance in Kansas has decreased from about 15% of block grant spending (about $15.2 million) to about 9% ($9.4 million) of block grant spending from FY 2009 through FY 2023, while spending on other TANF programs has increased. The purchasing power of TANF cash assistance also decreased by about 30% from FY 2009 to FY 2023 because of inflation. One reason for the decrease in cash assistance spending in Kansas is the decreasing caseloads. All cash assistance caseloads in Kansas decreased from about 12,600 average monthly cases in FY 2009 to about 2,900 average monthly cases in FY 2023; about a 77% decrease. Other reasons may include eligibility changes, wage increases, and inflation. The research we reviewed suggested TANF rules like those in Kansas lead to mostly negative program outcomes for TANF families, while stakeholders held mixed opinions about the impacts of Kansas’s TANF rule changes.

Evaluating Monitoring Requirements and Processes for the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program [September 2024] Sep 10, 2024

The Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC) administers state and federal housing programs in Kansas, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is a federal program meant to encourage the development of rental housing for low-income individuals. The federal government requires KHRC to monitor housing developments that have been awarded LIHTC to ensure they comply with applicable rules. KHRC has a detailed compliance monitoring process to ensure that development owners comply with federal and state rules and meet all of the requirements they agreed to when they received LIHTC. Although KHRC's compliance monitoring process is extensive, most of the process is required by federal rules or is otherwise necessary for them to appropriately oversee the program. However, we did find two minor areas where KHRC's requirements are not necessary to meet a state or federal rules, a best practice, or an internal control. Additionally, developers who responded to our survey generally reported that KHRC's compliance monitoring process was easy to complete. Last, we found that KHRC's reserve amounts and land use restrictive covenant terms were applied consistently across the 16 projects we reviewed.

Reviewing the Louisburg School District's Expenditures [April 2024] Apr 24, 2024

In the 2022-23 school year, the Louisburg school district spent a little more than $31 million. Generally, state law allows districts broad discretion in how they spend their state and local funding, but there are some exceptions. We selected 57 expenditures (representing $1.2 million) across 6 funds to determine whether the district spent them in accordance with state law. We selected funds that have a mix of broad and specific spending rules sets in state law. We chose expenditures that represented a good cross-section of different types of expenditures. Because we did not choose the sample randomly, we cannot project the results to all expenditures. Of the 57 expenditures we reviewed, we identified 12 (about $63,000) related to at-risk and capital outlay that did not comply with state laws related to those funds. This included expenditures such as seating, salaries for interpreters, and a contract to operate light and sound equipment.

Reviewing the Department of Revenue’s Procedures to Ensure Correct Payment of Sales and Compensating Use Taxes on Motor Vehicle Sales [April 2024] Apr 24, 2024

In Kansas, individuals must pay a 6.5% sales or use tax when purchasing any vehicle that is primarily stored or used in the state. This is paid either at the dealership or at a county treasurer’s office. Ultimately, KDOR is responsible for collecting motor vehicle sales and use tax from dealerships and counties. The Kansas Department of Revenue had procedures to help ensure dealerships remit vehicle tax but was missing several key procedures related to county tax remittance. We saw evidence that KDOR had several procedures related to training and guidance for counties and dealerships as well as procedures related to the monitoring and enforcement of dealerships. However, KDOR was missing several procedures related to the monitoring and enforcement of counties. One county didn't remit taxes for 15 months, resulting in about $11 million in delinquent taxes. Additionally, KDOR's lack of written procedures means efforts to ensure that individual buyers and dealerships are remitting aren't as effective as they could be. And KDOR's MOVRS database had significant errors, preventing us or them from doing a state-wide analysis.

Angel Investor Tax Credit [February 2024] Feb 28, 2024

The Angel Investor Tax Credit (AITC) program incents investors to invest in Kansas start-up businesses. In exchange for investing in a participating start-up businesses, an investor can receive a tax credit equal to up to 50% of their investment. As part of this audit, we surveyed investors and businesses that participated in the AITC program. The purpose of the surveys was to learn how the program influenced investors' and businesses' behaviors. Investors who responded to our survey told us the program caused them to invest more or sooner in participating businesses. Businesses who responded to our survey told us the program helped them do more than they otherwise would have been able to (e.g., hiring more staff or offering more products). As part of this audit, we also evaluated whether Commerce implemented a process to make sure participating businesses stayed in Kansas as required by state law. We determined Commerce had implemented a process, but the process has room for improvement.

Reviewing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Spending and Foreign Income at State Universities [February 2024] Feb 21, 2024

The 6 state universities did not have a shared definition of what diversity, equity, and inclusion activities are, but there were some common themes. The universities provide a variety of DEI-related services and activities such as food pantries, support groups, and tutoring services to a wide range of students. To determine how much universities spent on DEI-related activities, we asked the universities to report expenditures related to common DEI themes shared across the universities. In the 2022-23 school year, universities reported spending about $45 million in DEI-related activities, of which, about $9 million was paid for with state funding. Nearly all of the $9 million universities reported spending in state funding was spent on salary and benefits for faculty and staff who engaged in DEI-related activities. Universities reported spending a small amount of state funding on DEI-related training and other non-personnel expenses like travel, software, and outreach programs. The universities DEI-related expenditures are self-reported and we have a limited ability to determine if they are accurate and complete. Last, the universities do not have consistent measures for determining whether DEI-related activities are effective for achieving their DEI goals.
Universities receive money from foreign sources for a few reasons including tuition and fees, gifts, and contractual services. In 2022-23, state universities reported receiving about $116 million in foreign contributions, but most ($111 million) was for tuition and fees. In the 2022-23 school year, universities reported receiving contributions from 170 countries but about half was from India and China. The universities foreign contributions are self-reported and we have a limited ability to determine if they are accurate and complete.

Reviewing Community College Athletic Programs [February 2024] Feb 07, 2024

The 3 community colleges we reviewed (Butler, Garden City, and Hutchinson) spent an average of $2.8 million annually in college funds such as student tuition, fees, public sources of funding, and other income on athletic departments from fiscal years 2018 to 2022. Most athletic department spending was for coaching salaries and the sports of football and basketball. The 3 community colleges also spent an average of $1.2 million annually in student fees and private funds on athletic scholarships during these 5 years. The total athletic department and athletic scholarship spending was similar to expenditures at the other colleges competing in the Kansas Jayhawk Community College Conference in fiscal year 2021.
We also reviewed student-level data for 8 sports at the same 3 community colleges from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 and found that most student athletes are from outside of Kansas. Further, most athletic scholarships are awarded to student athletes from outside of Kansas. Other colleges participating in the Kansas Jayhawk Community College Conference also generally drew in athletes from outside of Kansas in fiscal year 2022.

Reviewing the KPERS 3 Retirement Plan [February 2024] Feb 07, 2024

The KPERS 3 retirement plan was created by the Legislature to help improve the long-term sustainability of the KPERS trust fund. KPERS 3 is a cash balance plan. There are other types of retirement plans, including defined benefit, defined contribution, and hybrid plans. We compared KPERS 3 to other plans on key plan metrics. These plans included KPERS 2, Thrift Savings, Nebraska's cash balance plan, Oklahoma's defined contribution plan, Indiana's hybrid plan, and Utah's hybrid plan. We found that KPERS 3 gives employees less flexibility, requires them to share some financial risk, and generally provides lower benefits than other plans we evaluated. Further, we found that employees of defined benefit plans (such as KPERS 1 and 2) are generally more satisfied and more likely to remain at their job compared to employees of other plan types (such as KPERS 3).

Information Systems: Reviewing Specific IT Security Controls Across State Agencies and School Districts (Part 2) [January 2024] Jan 17, 2024

Evaluating Whether Fiscal Notes Include Accurate and Reasonable Estimates [December 2023] Dec 12, 2023

Overall, we found that changes made to bills after fiscal notes were submitted resulted in most of the inaccuracies we saw. But a few fiscal notes were unreasonable because of agencies' methods. Statute requires the Division of the Budget (Budget) to provide fiscal notes for original bills but outlines only a few requirements for them. Budget works with agencies to create estimates for all original bills, but not amendments. We reviewed 10 fiscal notes from enacted bills to determine fiscal notes' accuracy and 10 fiscal notes from bills that died to determine the reasonableness of agencies' methods and estimates. 7 of 10 fiscal notes for enacted bills differed significantly from their actual fiscal effects, mostly due to bill amendments or other changes made after the fiscal notes were submitted. Most other states update fiscal notes after bill amendments to account for this, but Kansas doesn't. 3 of 10 fiscal notes for bills that died appeared to be unreasonable because they didn't include complete or correct information. Of these, 2 were unreasonable because agencies used questionable data and assumptions, and 1 was unreasonable because Budget left out a potentially large cost to the state. Finally, we didn't see evidence Budget coordinated with agencies on fiscal notes like we would've expected.

Estimating the Cost of K-12 Education [October 2023] Oct 10, 2023

In 2022, Kansas school districts received $7.9 billion in funding from state, local, and federal sources, up 12% from 2017. Since 2017, public school enrollment has decreased while staffing and spending have increased. Only about 1/3 of students met state standards in the 3 subjects we evaluated, and the numbers have been declining since 2017.
It is unlikely that any amount of additional spending will result in all students meeting state standards. We used a logistic regression model to predict how increases in regular education spending might affect student outcomes. Across-the-board spending increases were associated with almost no increase in the percentage of students who met state standards. Targeted increases in spending were associated with improvements in the number of students who met state standards, but significant numbers of students would still be unlikely to meet state standards. Targeted increases in spending were associated with improvements in the number of students who met state standards, but significant numbers of students would still be unlikely to meet state standards. We identified several factors, such as teacher pay and administrative spending, that were also associated with whether students met state standards. Much like our own model, the research we reviewed found a positive relationship between spending and outcomes but it was not strong in all circumstances. Research also suggests spending on teacher pay, books, and time in class may improve student outcomes.
We estimated how much it would cost to provide special education services in Kansas. In the 2021-22 school year, Kansas school districts provided special education services to nearly 89,000 children. We estimated it would cost between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion to provide special education services that would allow students to meet their IEP goals. Our special education estimate has a few important caveats related to staffing and efficiency.

Reviewing the African American Affairs Commission’s Statutory Compliance and Expenditures [August 2023] Aug 22, 2023

The Kansas African American Affairs Commission is a liaison office within the Governor’s Office and its fiscal year 2022 expenditures were about $130,000. It is comprised of 7 commissioners and an executive director. In this audit, we reviewed the commission and executive director's statutory compliance and expenditure approvals.
The commission and its executive director are required to meet various statutory requirements and bylaws to accomplish their mission. The commission did not comply with 2 of 6 meeting-related duties and 1 of 3 staff-related duties outlined in law or bylaws in the timeframe we reviewed. The executive director complied with her statutory duties to serve the commission in 2022 and the first half of 2023. The commissioners who responded to our survey generally had positive reviews of the executive director’s performance, but some thought she wasn’t as effective or responsive as she should be.
With regard to its expenditures, the commission’s fiscal year 2023 expenditures seemed reasonable to accomplishing its duties at a high level. However, about half of the 11 individual expenditures we reviewed in detail did not receive written approval to ensure they were appropriate. Commissioners told us they had insufficient financial awareness and oversight, in part because the executive director has not shared relevant information.

Assessing the Impact of Permanent Work from Home Options [August 2023] Aug 22, 2023

As of Spring 2023, the State of Kansas currently employs about 18,000 employees across 81 state executive branch agencies, boards, or commissions. State agencies have discretion to create their own work-from-home policies. State agencies reported about 30% of state employees currently work from home all or part of the time. They also estimated that an additional 15% of state employees could also work from home going forward. Some state jobs are better suited for working from home than others. Permanent work-from-home options could help the state hire and retain staff, have limited impact on productivity, and have a mixed impact on costs. Cost increases could be offset by reducing office space, but this has yet to occur in Kansas.

Evaluating the Rural Opportunity Zones Program [August 2023] Aug 22, 2023

The Rural Opportunity Zones (ROZ) program incents individuals to move to rural Kansas counties. Currently, 95 of the state's 105 counties qualify as rural opportunity zones. The program incents individuals to move by providing up to 2 benefits: up to $15,000 in student loan repayment assistance over 5 years and, for individuals who relocate from out-of-state, a 100% state income tax credit for up to 5 years.
As part of this audit, we used program data to estimate how often the ROZ program incented program participants to move to rural counties. We also used data from the U.S. Census Bureau to help estimate to extent to which the ROZ program counteracted rural depopulation. Based on our estimates, the ROZ program had limited effects on rural depopulation on a statewide basis. However, the program had more significant effects on the extent to which 19 counties gained or lost population.

Information Systems: Reviewing Specific IT Security Controls Across State Agencies and School Districts [July 2023] Jul 06, 2023

This audit determined whether selected state agencies and school districts adequately complied with certain IT security standards and best practices. State agencies must follow state IT security standards to protect sensitive information against data loss and theft. Local entities are not required to follow the state's policies.
9 of 15 entities we audited did not substantively comply with IT standards and best practices in at least 2 of 3 subject areas we evaluated. Specifically, 8 of 15 entities did not substantively comply with selected security awareness training controls. 10 of 15 entities did not substantively comply with selected account security controls. Lastly, 8 of 15 did not substantively comply with selected incident response controls. The findings demonstrate a poor "tone at the top" at many entities--meaning lack of top management oversight and supervision.

Evaluating At-Risk Expenditures and Statutory Compliance [July 2023] Jul 06, 2023

In 2021-22, the state provided $406.3 million in dedicated funding for school districts to deliver additional services to students at-risk of academic failure. State law requires that district spend money from their at-risk fund only on programs approved by the State Board of Education. Kansas Department of Education (KSDE) officials told us the State Board has delegated the task of approving at-risk programs to the department. None of the KSDE-approved programs we reviewed met the statutory criteria necessary to be included on the list. Further, most of the approved programs we reviewed had little to no evidence of effectiveness. Additionally, many KSDE-approved programs did not appear to meet the purpose of at-risk programs, which is to provide above and beyond opportunities to at-risk students. The problems we identified with KSDE's approved at-risk list are the result of several factors. This includes things such as, KSDE's process for approving at-risk programs does not include some statutorily required criteria, the department does not follow it's own process, and the board does not provide any oversight to the department. This audit showed the same problems as in our 2019 at-risk audit, and none of our recommendations have been adequately implemented.
Most of the $176 million in at-risk expenditures we reviewed for 20 districts was spent on salaries and benefits. About 30% of the $5.2 million in expenditures we reviewed did not adhere to statutory spending rules. Further, it is unclear how much of the districts' at-risk spending targets at-risk students or provides them an "above and beyond" opportunity. Problems with the at-risk spending guidance KSDE provided to school districts may contribute to some of the unallowable spending we found.
Over the last 6 years, students eligible for free lunch have consistently performed worse on state assessments than students who are not eligible for free lunches. All 3 cohort groups we evaluated performed worse over time, but this trend was more pronounced for students eligible for free lunch. Additionally, the graduation rates and ACT scores of students eligible for free lunch were also lower than other students.

Reviewing Kansas's Procedures for Election Security, Part 2 [July 2023] Jul 06, 2023

This audit reviewed a selection of county election offices' policies and practices to ensure the accuracy and security of voting machines, ballots, storage units, and tabulators.
State law gives county election officials discretion over how to run elections in their counties, so election processes vary across counties. We identified and reviewed election security best practices from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the federal election agency. They fall into 5 general security categories: overall process, election management computer, ballot, voting and tabulation, and transfer and movement security. Kansas only has a few high-level election security-related laws and regulations related to these 5 best practice categories.
We reviewed whether 13 counties had policies and practices that aligned with 55 best practices and state laws during the 2022 primary or general elections. These counties generally had adequate overall process and election management computer security practices. Ballot security practices were weaker overall, but county results varied. Most of the 13 counties we reviewed had inadequate voting and tabulation machine security practices except for physical security practices. And the 13 counties we reviewed had some adeqate transfer and movement security practices, but others that were generally inadequate. Overall, larger counties generally had stronger security practices than smaller counties because of their greater security needs and resources. But these results don't necessarily mean elections aren't secure.
Finally, none of the counties we reviewed had adequate written election security policies or guidance.

Evaluating Whether Services to Collect Child Support Payments in Kansas are Effective and Timely [April 2023] Apr 25, 2023

We couldn’t determine how effective or timely the state’s child support services system is due to data limitations, but we saw several signs it’s not working as well as it could. Federal law requires states to assist parents in collecting monthly childcare payments. In Kansas, the Department for Children and Families is the primary state agency responsible for administering the state’s child support program. Kansas court trustees also can provide child support services, but they generally only provide enforcement services. A small number of parents we talked to expressed frustration and a lack of communication, regardless of whether they were served through DCF or court trustees. Kansas’s dual track child support system may create unequal costs for some Kansas parents. It also prevented us from evaluating the state’s child support system as a whole. DCF’s outdated computer system prevented us from determining how timely and effective its services are. We relied on 4 federal performance benchmarks as indicators of DCF’s child support performance. In recent years, DCF performed well on federal requirements to establish child support cases, but not on requirements to enforce those cases. DCF officials told us the difficult nature of their cases and certain administrative hurdles make it difficult to enforce child support payments. DCF and its contractors don’t have the tools to quickly identify and address delinquent payments. DCF’s use of federal performance measures to monitor contractors’ performance is too simplistic to identify poor performance.
Kansas’s low national rankings in child support enforcement may be due to the state’s unique system and outdated technology. Kansas’s child support services through DCF and its contractors performed worse on federal enforcement benchmarks than most other states. Kansas’s trustee option appears to be unique compared to other states, which may skew its national performance metrics. Kansas’s DCF child support services did not have key computer system features and collection tools that some other states had.

Follow up Audit: Reviewing Agencies’ Implementation of Selected Performance Audit Recommendations [April 2023] Apr 25, 2023

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.

Reviewing Kansas's Procedures for Election Security, Part 1 [February 2023] Feb 15, 2023

This audit reviewed three aspects of elections in Kansas, including training, electronic vote records, and policies and processes in long-term care facilities.
With regard to training, we couldn't tell whether county election officers received adequate training and we found most counties either didn't or coun't show they had trained all election workers before the 2022 general election. Each of Kansas’s 105 counties has a county election officer responsible for overseeing all elections in the county. This includes appointing election workers who perform frontline election duties. But state law has almost no requirements related to training county election officers and workers, and no one tracks county election officers’ training. However, county election officers we surveyed still reported feeling well prepared to oversee federal elections.
With regard to electronic vote records, we found that 6 Kansas counties we reviewed use scanners to record and tally voters’ paper ballots that are also capable of producing digital copies of those ballots. But nothing requires county election officials in Kansas to create or use digital copies, which meant some counties created and used them and others didn't. None of the counties we reviewed made digital copies public. We compared Kansas to 5 other states. Those states generally used digital copies similar to Kansas. However, some other states made them public.
Finally, with regard to processes for protecting voting in long-term care facilities, facility and county election officials described having a few basic practices. The national literature on this topic is sparse and much of it dated, but it identified a few practices to address fraud and undue influence. Kansas has a few basic laws related to fraud and undue influence, but nothing specifically for long-term care.

Evaluating Groundwater Management Districts' Efforts to Conserve Water [February 2023] Feb 15, 2023

In Kansas, groundwater is managed by multiple state and local agencies, including the Kansas Water Office, the Department of Agriculture, and groundwater management districts. In 1972, the legislature established the process by which local voters can form groundwater management districts. Local voters have established 5 districts in central and western Kansas. Groundwater management districts provide input but have little independent authority over many important state groundwater policies and actions. State law only requires groundwater management districts to do a few things, including having and reviewing a management program. All 5 groundwater management districts had a management program as required by state law, but we identified a few concerns with how those programs are reviewed and revised. Groundwater management districts currently operate programs related to data collection, research, and public education which appear reasonable for the purposes of groundwater management districts. In 2021, the 5 districts spent a total of $6.1 million, mostly on salaries and benefits and professional services. Overall, an estimated 75% of districts' expenditures were for programs related to an area of concern the district identified. In the last 10 years, 3 of the 5 groundwater management districts experienced overall water level declines but we could not evaluate water quality. Last, we could not determine the impact district programs had on these trends but some research suggest some positive results.

Evaluating the Department of Commerce’s Major Economic Development Incentive Programs [January 2023] Jan 18, 2023

The Department of Commerce has 5 major incentive programs that it uses to incent economic development in Kansas. Those programs are the High Performance Incentive Program (HPIP), Job Creation Fund (JCF), Kansas Industrial Training (KIT), Kansas Industrial Retraining (KIR), and Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK).
As part of this audit, we used a research-based model to estimate the economic impacts, tax effects, and total return on investment for 28 projects that we selected. Based on model results from those 28 projects, we estimate all 5 of Commerce’s major economic development incentive programs will generate positive total returns on investment. However, we estimate they won’t cover their own costs to the state through higher tax revenues. For example, all 5 programs appeared to generate economic impacts that are greater than their costs. But none of the programs appear to generate enough tax effects to cover their costs.

3 Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State and Local Entities (2020-2022) [December 2022] Dec 12, 2022

We completed 21 audits on 16 agencies and 4 school districts between CY 2020 and 2022 (1 entity was audited twice during this time period). This summary report shows 10 of the 21 entities did not substantially comply with applicable IT security standards and best practices. Entities struggled with properly scanning and patching their computers. Entities 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. Almost half the entities had significant management, contract, or policy-related weaknesses. Additional security weaknesses included inadequate account security controls, poor encryption, back up, or destruction processes of sensitive data. We also noted several entities had inadequate network boundary protection or had poor access or environmental controls for their data centers. Lastly, we identified significant security issues within agencies’ specific IT systems. The findings in this report are similar to those in previous summary IT reports. The main reasons for compliance problems across the 20 entities included insufficient top management attention and inadequate resources.

Reviewing Connectivity Emergency Response Grants (CERG) for Broadband Development (September 2022) Sep 14, 2022

To increase connectivity in unserved and underserved areas in Kansas in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Kansas Department of Commerce (Commerce) and other stakeholders developed the Connectivity Emergency Response Grants program in 2020. The program received $50 million in funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. Commerce awarded about $48.5 million of that funding in connectivity grants to the internet service providers and Kansas communities that applied. 66 grants went to 39 entities across seven regions of Kansas. South Central Kansas received about $14 million. Southwest Kansas received about $11 million. Northeast Kansas received about $9 million. Southeast and East Central Kansas received just over $5 million each. North Central and Northwest Kansas received around $550,000 or less. The North Central and Northwest regions also requested the least in CERG funding.

A Comparison of Virtual School Expenditures and Outcomes in Kansas and Other States (September 2022) Sep 14, 2022

Virtual school programs are an alternative to traditional brick-and-mortar schools. Most of the state-run virtual school programs we identified still allowed local districts to operate virtual school programs, but we could not compare student outcomes or expenditures between states. In Kansas, local school districts operate virtual school programs. 105 school districts out of the 286 Kansas school districts spent at least $50 million on virtual school programs in the 2020-21 school year. We reviewed 4 state-run models, 3 of which also offered district operated virtual school programs like Kansas. A lack of data limited our comparison of other states' virtual school program expenditures and outcomes. Data reliability issues prevented us from evaluating outcomes for virtual students in Kansas.

COVID Relief Funding Distribution (September 2022) Sep 14, 2022

In response to the COVID pandemic, the federal government enacted six major relief bills totaling over $5 trillion. The federal government allocated about $34 billion to the state of Kansas. Out of that, the state had discretion on how to spend about $2.6 billion. In May 2020, the governor established the Office of Recovery and created a taskforce to distribute and administer certain COVID relief funds. The state distributed CARES Act discretionary funding through a 3 round proess that involved the SPARK taskforce and the State Finance Council. About $1.6 billion in ARPA funds are currently being distributed thorugh legislative appropriation and the SPARK taskforce.
The state's distribution of CARES Act funding appeared appropriate and reasonable. Most of the CARES Act expenditures we reviewed were likey allowable under federal spending rules. However, some expenditures appeared wasteful or raised other concerns even though the expenditure may be allowable under federal rules. Federal rules likely contibuted to the problems we encountered.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

The Rundown with Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected