The Rundown with Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:01:41 -0500 http://www.kslpa.org en-us © 2026 The Rundown with Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit yes 474dc1bb-8017-5793-9741-57fe20f3e012 Legislative Post Audit episodic false Buzzsprout (https://www.buzzsprout.com) Post Audit, LPA, Performance Audits, IT Security Legislative Post Audit https://storage.buzzsprout.com/i5pz20gxmssa2lgnbu0akbovtpen?.jpg The Rundown with Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit http://www.kslpa.org Reviewing the Reporting Accuracy and Fiscal Effects of Industrial Revenue Bonds [July 2026] Reviewing the Reporting Accuracy and Fiscal Effects of Industrial Revenue Bonds [July 2026] The Legislature created the Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) program in 1961 to promote economic development. Local governments issue IRBs to fund business facilities with the goals of growing the local economy and increasing property tax revenue. Businesses that use IRBs can get a 10-year property tax exemption (IRBX). During 2010-2024, local governments issued about $18.3 billion in industrial revenue bonds and exempted about $1.1 billion in related property taxes, most of which would’ve likely gone to school districts and local governments. 

Statute requires local governments to prepare cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) if they want to offer IRBXs but provides limited guidance on their quality. We compared foregone property tax revenue estimates in 23 CBAs to the actual foregone property taxes reported by county appraisers. The CBA estimates differed greatly from county appraiser amounts (between 94% lower and 6,065% higher). Some CBAs underestimated completed project values, some overestimated how much investment would translate into appraised value, and some used erroneous figures and assumptions when estimating property taxes.

Finally, we identified 3 subsidiaries of foreign businesses that received $282 million in IRB funds in 2024.

]]> The Legislature created the Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) program in 1961 to promote economic development. Local governments issue IRBs to fund business facilities with the goals of growing the local economy and increasing property tax revenue. Businesses that use IRBs can get a 10-year property tax exemption (IRBX). During 2010-2024, local governments issued about $18.3 billion in industrial revenue bonds and exempted about $1.1 billion in related property taxes, most of which would’ve likely gone to school districts and local governments. 

Statute requires local governments to prepare cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) if they want to offer IRBXs but provides limited guidance on their quality. We compared foregone property tax revenue estimates in 23 CBAs to the actual foregone property taxes reported by county appraisers. The CBA estimates differed greatly from county appraiser amounts (between 94% lower and 6,065% higher). Some CBAs underestimated completed project values, some overestimated how much investment would translate into appraised value, and some used erroneous figures and assumptions when estimating property taxes.

Finally, we identified 3 subsidiaries of foreign businesses that received $282 million in IRB funds in 2024.

]]> Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit Buzzsprout-19465861 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:00:00 -0500 1658 full false Reviewing Certain KSHSAA and School District Policies Related to Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities [July 2026] Reviewing Certain KSHSAA and School District Policies Related to Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities [July 2026] KSHSAA and 19 of the 20 school districts we reviewed had written policies that aligned with state law, and 16 of 20 districts said they would also allow participation in non-KSHSAA-regulated activities. The Kansas State High School Activities Association (KSHSAA) regulates 21 activities for 7th – 12th grades. State law requires school districts to allow eligible virtual and nonpublic-school students to participate in KSHSAA-regulated activities and directly related events. To participate in a KSHSAA-regulated activity, virtual and nonpublic-school students apply online to KSHSAA. KSHSAA officials decide whether a virtual or nonpublic-school student is eligible to participate in KSHSAA-regulated activities. During the last 3 school years, KSHSAA officials approved 88% of the 3,200 applications they received from virtual and nonpublic-school students. By contrast, school districts have discretion over whether virtual and nonpublic-school students can participate in non-KSHSAA-regulated activities. We reviewed KSHSAA’s and a selection of 20 school districts’ policies for the 2025-2026 school year to determine whether they align with state law. KSHSAA’s 2025-2026 policy for KSHSAA-regulated activities and directly related events aligns with state law. 19 of the 20 school districts (95%) we reviewed had adopted written policies that align with state law, although 3 adopted their policies after the 2025-2026 school year started. Further, 4 districts hadn’t updated their student handbooks or other guidance documents to align with state law. School district officials we talked to had varying views on the requirements in state law. And although it's not required, 16 of the 20 school districts (80%) we reviewed said they would allow virtual and nonpublic-school student participation in non-KSHSAA-regulated activities. Finally, while reviewing KSHSAA’s data, we saw 4 instances in which school districts told KSHSAA to deny students’ applications for reasons other than residency.

]]> KSHSAA and 19 of the 20 school districts we reviewed had written policies that aligned with state law, and 16 of 20 districts said they would also allow participation in non-KSHSAA-regulated activities. The Kansas State High School Activities Association (KSHSAA) regulates 21 activities for 7th – 12th grades. State law requires school districts to allow eligible virtual and nonpublic-school students to participate in KSHSAA-regulated activities and directly related events. To participate in a KSHSAA-regulated activity, virtual and nonpublic-school students apply online to KSHSAA. KSHSAA officials decide whether a virtual or nonpublic-school student is eligible to participate in KSHSAA-regulated activities. During the last 3 school years, KSHSAA officials approved 88% of the 3,200 applications they received from virtual and nonpublic-school students. By contrast, school districts have discretion over whether virtual and nonpublic-school students can participate in non-KSHSAA-regulated activities. We reviewed KSHSAA’s and a selection of 20 school districts’ policies for the 2025-2026 school year to determine whether they align with state law. KSHSAA’s 2025-2026 policy for KSHSAA-regulated activities and directly related events aligns with state law. 19 of the 20 school districts (95%) we reviewed had adopted written policies that align with state law, although 3 adopted their policies after the 2025-2026 school year started. Further, 4 districts hadn’t updated their student handbooks or other guidance documents to align with state law. School district officials we talked to had varying views on the requirements in state law. And although it's not required, 16 of the 20 school districts (80%) we reviewed said they would allow virtual and nonpublic-school student participation in non-KSHSAA-regulated activities. Finally, while reviewing KSHSAA’s data, we saw 4 instances in which school districts told KSHSAA to deny students’ applications for reasons other than residency.

]]> Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit Buzzsprout-19465817 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:00:00 -0500 1041 full false Evaluating the State Fire Marshal’s Inspection Requirements [May 2026] Evaluating the State Fire Marshal’s Inspection Requirements [May 2026] The Kansas State Fire Marshal's Office (KSFM) is responsible for creating and enforcing regulations related to fire safety. KSFM's regulations adopt the 2006 edition of the International Code Council's International Fire Code, the 2006 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, and other similar standards. KSFM inspects residential facilities, including nursing homes and assisted living facilities, for compliance with the Life Safety Code. KSFM inspects childcare facilities for compliance with the International Fire Code. We found KSFM does inconsistent inspections of residential and childcare facilities. For example, not all inspectors check the same things, and some inspectors don't cite facilities for certain violations. We also found inspectors don't adequately support the violations they cite with references to applicable requirements. These issues were due to the vast number of requirements inspectors are responsible for and inadequately designed controls.

Local fire departments may also inspect residential and childcare facilities for fire safety, either under an agreement with KSFM or independently. We found KSFM and 3 local fire departments (Hays, Olathe, and Newton) had similar processes for inspecting residential and childcare facilities. However, the 3 local departments inspect according to more recent editions of the International Fire Code than KSFM does. KSFM used the 2006 edition, while the 3 departments used editions from between 2015 and 2024. Differences between the editions likely contributed to inspection inconsistencies and stakeholder frustration.

]]> The Kansas State Fire Marshal's Office (KSFM) is responsible for creating and enforcing regulations related to fire safety. KSFM's regulations adopt the 2006 edition of the International Code Council's International Fire Code, the 2006 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, and other similar standards. KSFM inspects residential facilities, including nursing homes and assisted living facilities, for compliance with the Life Safety Code. KSFM inspects childcare facilities for compliance with the International Fire Code. We found KSFM does inconsistent inspections of residential and childcare facilities. For example, not all inspectors check the same things, and some inspectors don't cite facilities for certain violations. We also found inspectors don't adequately support the violations they cite with references to applicable requirements. These issues were due to the vast number of requirements inspectors are responsible for and inadequately designed controls.

Local fire departments may also inspect residential and childcare facilities for fire safety, either under an agreement with KSFM or independently. We found KSFM and 3 local fire departments (Hays, Olathe, and Newton) had similar processes for inspecting residential and childcare facilities. However, the 3 local departments inspect according to more recent editions of the International Fire Code than KSFM does. KSFM used the 2006 edition, while the 3 departments used editions from between 2015 and 2024. Differences between the editions likely contributed to inspection inconsistencies and stakeholder frustration.

]]> Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit Buzzsprout-19182182 Mon, 18 May 2026 13:00:00 -0500 1612 full false Reviewing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Eligibility Processes and Spending, Part 2 [May 2026] Reviewing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Eligibility Processes and Spending, Part 2 [May 2026] Data limitations and federal laws prevented us from evaluating the accuracy of TANF benefit payments. The federal government does not require states to assess the accuracy of their TANF benefit payments. DCF has an employee performance review process that includes reviewing TANF payments for process and accuracy errors. However, the data DCF provided to us from that process is not sufficient or reliable for determining the department's accuracy in making TANF benefit payments. Federal law prohibits us from looking at the application data that would allow us to assess the accuracy of TANF benefit payments.

]]> Data limitations and federal laws prevented us from evaluating the accuracy of TANF benefit payments. The federal government does not require states to assess the accuracy of their TANF benefit payments. DCF has an employee performance review process that includes reviewing TANF payments for process and accuracy errors. However, the data DCF provided to us from that process is not sufficient or reliable for determining the department's accuracy in making TANF benefit payments. Federal law prohibits us from looking at the application data that would allow us to assess the accuracy of TANF benefit payments.

]]> Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit Buzzsprout-19182138 Mon, 18 May 2026 13:00:00 -0500 294 full false Reviewing Admissions to the KSU College of Veterinary Medicine and KU School of Medicine [April 2026] Reviewing Admissions to the KSU College of Veterinary Medicine and KU School of Medicine [April 2026] Unintended preferences didn't appear to ultimately influence who was admitted to either the KSU College of Veterinary Medicine or the KU School of Medicine, but control weaknesses may have allowed preferences at certain points in the process. We looked for certain controls in CVM and SOM's admission processes to determine whether there were significant opportunities for preferential treatment. We also used regression models to analyze CVM and SOM's 2023-2025 admission data to determine whether certain factors might have affected applicants' outcomes.
 
CVM policy is to invite all academically qualified Kansas residents for an interview. We didn’t find any unintended preferences in how the CVM selected applicants for an interview. However, we found several weaknesses in CVM’s process that could allow unintended preference in how applicants are scored at the interview stage. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the application material scoring stage, but this didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. Our models also showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the interview scoring phase, but this also didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. After the interview stage, the CVM calculates applicants’ final scores and rankings, which help decide which applicants will be offered admission. CVM does not have controls over the “not recommended for admission” designation, which can impact some candidates. Although there were small indicators of preferential scoring along the way, we did not find evidence of unintended preferences in which applicants ultimately were offered admission to the DVM program. 
 

SOM policy is to offer an interview to all applicants with Kansas ties who meet certain GPA and MCAT standards. We found several weaknesses in SOM’s file review process that could allow unintended preference in who is invited for an interview. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the interview invitation stage. We also found weaknesses in SOM’s process that could allow unintended preferences in how applicants are scored at the interview stage. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment in how interviews were scored, but this didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. Our models also showed some possibility of preferential treatment in how applicants’ overall suitability was scored, but this also didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. After the interview stage, SOM uses a standardized rubric to determine applicants’ final rankings for admission. Although there were small indicators of preference along the way, we did not find evidence of unintended preferences in which applicants ultimately were offered admission to the MD program.  

















]]> Unintended preferences didn't appear to ultimately influence who was admitted to either the KSU College of Veterinary Medicine or the KU School of Medicine, but control weaknesses may have allowed preferences at certain points in the process. We looked for certain controls in CVM and SOM's admission processes to determine whether there were significant opportunities for preferential treatment. We also used regression models to analyze CVM and SOM's 2023-2025 admission data to determine whether certain factors might have affected applicants' outcomes.
 
CVM policy is to invite all academically qualified Kansas residents for an interview. We didn’t find any unintended preferences in how the CVM selected applicants for an interview. However, we found several weaknesses in CVM’s process that could allow unintended preference in how applicants are scored at the interview stage. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the application material scoring stage, but this didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. Our models also showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the interview scoring phase, but this also didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. After the interview stage, the CVM calculates applicants’ final scores and rankings, which help decide which applicants will be offered admission. CVM does not have controls over the “not recommended for admission” designation, which can impact some candidates. Although there were small indicators of preferential scoring along the way, we did not find evidence of unintended preferences in which applicants ultimately were offered admission to the DVM program. 
 

SOM policy is to offer an interview to all applicants with Kansas ties who meet certain GPA and MCAT standards. We found several weaknesses in SOM’s file review process that could allow unintended preference in who is invited for an interview. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the interview invitation stage. We also found weaknesses in SOM’s process that could allow unintended preferences in how applicants are scored at the interview stage. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment in how interviews were scored, but this didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. Our models also showed some possibility of preferential treatment in how applicants’ overall suitability was scored, but this also didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. After the interview stage, SOM uses a standardized rubric to determine applicants’ final rankings for admission. Although there were small indicators of preference along the way, we did not find evidence of unintended preferences in which applicants ultimately were offered admission to the MD program.  

















]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-18983256 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 10:00:00 -0500 1886 full false Reviewing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates and Benefit Card Transactions, Part 2 [April 2026] Reviewing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates and Benefit Card Transactions, Part 2 [April 2026] Based on the limited information we could review, we identified an estimated $700,000 to $1.2 million in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits paid to recipients who may not live in Kansas in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. SNAP is a federal program that provides monthly funds to low-income families to buy food. There are a few common types of fraud schemes in the SNAP program including skimming, cash-for-card schemes, and imposter fraud. Federal and state law require DCF to take several steps to identify and prevent fraud in the SNAP program. DCF has policies that appear to comply with most of the federal and state requirements we reviewed, but we identified 1 state law DCF has not implemented. We did several tests to identify SNAP benefits that were potentially being misuses, but our analyses were limited by a federal law that prevents DCF from sharing certain SNAP recipient data with us. Based on the data we could review, we estimated that in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 DCF distributed about $700,000 to $1.2 million in SNAP benefits to recipients who may not have lived in Kansas. DCF told us that Kansas's simplified reporting requirements prevent them from quickly identifying when a recipient moves out of state. Making payments to individuals who have potentially left the state could have a small fiscal impact on Kansas.

]]> Based on the limited information we could review, we identified an estimated $700,000 to $1.2 million in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits paid to recipients who may not live in Kansas in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. SNAP is a federal program that provides monthly funds to low-income families to buy food. There are a few common types of fraud schemes in the SNAP program including skimming, cash-for-card schemes, and imposter fraud. Federal and state law require DCF to take several steps to identify and prevent fraud in the SNAP program. DCF has policies that appear to comply with most of the federal and state requirements we reviewed, but we identified 1 state law DCF has not implemented. We did several tests to identify SNAP benefits that were potentially being misuses, but our analyses were limited by a federal law that prevents DCF from sharing certain SNAP recipient data with us. Based on the data we could review, we estimated that in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 DCF distributed about $700,000 to $1.2 million in SNAP benefits to recipients who may not have lived in Kansas. DCF told us that Kansas's simplified reporting requirements prevent them from quickly identifying when a recipient moves out of state. Making payments to individuals who have potentially left the state could have a small fiscal impact on Kansas.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-18983247 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 10:00:00 -0500 723 full false Reviewing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’ Eligibility Processes and Spending, Part 1 [April 2026] Reviewing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’ Eligibility Processes and Spending, Part 1 [April 2026] Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) is a federal program that provides states with funding to serve low-income families. TANF cash assistance provides monthly funds to low-income families to pay for a variety of needs. To be eligible for TANF cash assistance applicants must meet several criteria. TANF applicants must complete multiple forms that include over 250 pieces of information. DCF staff process each application by taking several steeps including verifying certain information and conducting and interview. It took DCF an average of 22 days to approve or deny TANF applications in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, but staff reported only spending about 1 hour actively verifying applications. On average, we estimated it took applicants who completed an online application in one sitting about 1 hour to complete a TANF application in fiscal year 2025. Stakeholders we talked to estimated it takes 15 minutes to 2 hours for individuals to complete the application. Federal and state law require DCF to take several steps to identify and prevent fraud and other misuse in the TANF program. Generally, DCF appeared to comply with the requirements we reviewed but we identified 1 state law DCF has not implemented. Last, we identified transactions at impermissible locations totaling about $23,000 in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, but this number is likely understated.

]]> Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) is a federal program that provides states with funding to serve low-income families. TANF cash assistance provides monthly funds to low-income families to pay for a variety of needs. To be eligible for TANF cash assistance applicants must meet several criteria. TANF applicants must complete multiple forms that include over 250 pieces of information. DCF staff process each application by taking several steeps including verifying certain information and conducting and interview. It took DCF an average of 22 days to approve or deny TANF applications in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, but staff reported only spending about 1 hour actively verifying applications. On average, we estimated it took applicants who completed an online application in one sitting about 1 hour to complete a TANF application in fiscal year 2025. Stakeholders we talked to estimated it takes 15 minutes to 2 hours for individuals to complete the application. Federal and state law require DCF to take several steps to identify and prevent fraud and other misuse in the TANF program. Generally, DCF appeared to comply with the requirements we reviewed but we identified 1 state law DCF has not implemented. Last, we identified transactions at impermissible locations totaling about $23,000 in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, but this number is likely understated.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-18983232 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 10:00:00 -0500 925 full false 2-Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State and Local Entities (2024-2025) [February 2026] 2-Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State and Local Entities (2024-2025) [February 2026] We completed 15 audits on 13 state agencies, 1 school district, and 1 city between CY 2024 and CY 2025. This summary report shows 7 of the 15 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 continuity of operations and disaster recovery plans, as well as incident response plans. Other significant issues included poor security awareness training or failed social engineering tests. More than half the entities had significant management process weaknesses, including inadequate asset inventories, contract issues, or lacking a designated information security officer. Additional security weaknesses included inadequate network, boundary, and data protection processes. We also noted some entities did not adequately protect their electronic backup data. Some entities had poor access or environmental controls for their data centers, and a few entities had inadequate account security control. Lastly, we identified significant security issues within entities' 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 15 entities included insufficient top management attention, inadequate resources, and poor contractor administration.

]]> We completed 15 audits on 13 state agencies, 1 school district, and 1 city between CY 2024 and CY 2025. This summary report shows 7 of the 15 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 continuity of operations and disaster recovery plans, as well as incident response plans. Other significant issues included poor security awareness training or failed social engineering tests. More than half the entities had significant management process weaknesses, including inadequate asset inventories, contract issues, or lacking a designated information security officer. Additional security weaknesses included inadequate network, boundary, and data protection processes. We also noted some entities did not adequately protect their electronic backup data. Some entities had poor access or environmental controls for their data centers, and a few entities had inadequate account security control. Lastly, we identified significant security issues within entities' 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 15 entities included insufficient top management attention, inadequate resources, and poor contractor administration.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-18625759 Wed, 04 Feb 2026 13:00:00 -0600 752 full false Reviewing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates and Benefit Card Transactions, Part 1 [January 2026] Reviewing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates and Benefit Card Transactions, Part 1 [January 2026] DCF’s payment error rate exceeded federal standards in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for multiple reasons including high staff turnover, the complexity of the SNAP eligibility rules, and inconsistent verification efforts. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal program that provides monthly funds to low-income families to buy food. Individuals must submit an application and provide extensive financial and other information to the Department for Children and Families (DCF) to qualify for SNAP benefits. DCF takes several steps to process and verify each application. The SNAP benefit eligibility determination is complex, and errors can occur at many points. The federal government monitors states’ SNAP benefit payments to ensure accuracy. DCF’s SNAP payment error rate has exceeded the federal payment error rate threshold of 6% since 2019. In the 2 years we reviewed, most of the nearly 300 errors that contributed to the payment error rate were related to miscalculating an applicant’s income and resources. Staff turnover, the complexity of SNAP eligibility rules, and inconsistent verification efforts appear to be significant factors in the department’s SNAP payment errors. DCF told us modifications to KEES might reduce SNAP payment errors but it’s unclear how much impact additional actions might have. Across the 2 years we reviewed, we identified several hundred additional errors that were not included in the federal payment error rate because the dollar value of the error was less than the federal reporting threshold. Last, changes in federal law could result in the state paying for a larger share of SNAP costs.

]]> DCF’s payment error rate exceeded federal standards in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for multiple reasons including high staff turnover, the complexity of the SNAP eligibility rules, and inconsistent verification efforts. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal program that provides monthly funds to low-income families to buy food. Individuals must submit an application and provide extensive financial and other information to the Department for Children and Families (DCF) to qualify for SNAP benefits. DCF takes several steps to process and verify each application. The SNAP benefit eligibility determination is complex, and errors can occur at many points. The federal government monitors states’ SNAP benefit payments to ensure accuracy. DCF’s SNAP payment error rate has exceeded the federal payment error rate threshold of 6% since 2019. In the 2 years we reviewed, most of the nearly 300 errors that contributed to the payment error rate were related to miscalculating an applicant’s income and resources. Staff turnover, the complexity of SNAP eligibility rules, and inconsistent verification efforts appear to be significant factors in the department’s SNAP payment errors. DCF told us modifications to KEES might reduce SNAP payment errors but it’s unclear how much impact additional actions might have. Across the 2 years we reviewed, we identified several hundred additional errors that were not included in the federal payment error rate because the dollar value of the error was less than the federal reporting threshold. Last, changes in federal law could result in the state paying for a larger share of SNAP costs.

]]> Buzzsprout-18542893 Wed, 21 Jan 2026 12:00:00 -0600 838 full false Reviewing Tax-Exempt Real Property and Property Donated to Universities [January 2026] Reviewing Tax-Exempt Real Property and Property Donated to Universities [January 2026] Real property taxes are taxes paid on land, minerals, and buildings. They're used to fund state and local governments. Most of the real property taxes collected fund local governments (99%) while the remainder fund state government (1%). However, state law exempts some real property, such as government owned property and property owned by non-profits from real property taxes. This means these properties aren't taxed and governments don't receive tax revenue for these properties. We estimated that in 2024 local governments didn't collect about $1 billion in revenue from exempt real properties. We also estimated that in 2024 the state didn't collect about $12 million in revenue from exempt properties. 

As part of this audit, we also were asked to estimate how much exempt real property was donated to the state's public universities and their foundations. Public universities in Kansas and their foundations owned about $4.4 billion in appraised value of exempt real property in 2024 that they used for things like classrooms, sports, student housing, and research. This was about 98% of the total appraised value of all real property they owned. However, we don't know how much of that real property was donated because most universities don't maintain that information.

]]> Real property taxes are taxes paid on land, minerals, and buildings. They're used to fund state and local governments. Most of the real property taxes collected fund local governments (99%) while the remainder fund state government (1%). However, state law exempts some real property, such as government owned property and property owned by non-profits from real property taxes. This means these properties aren't taxed and governments don't receive tax revenue for these properties. We estimated that in 2024 local governments didn't collect about $1 billion in revenue from exempt real properties. We also estimated that in 2024 the state didn't collect about $12 million in revenue from exempt properties. 

As part of this audit, we also were asked to estimate how much exempt real property was donated to the state's public universities and their foundations. Public universities in Kansas and their foundations owned about $4.4 billion in appraised value of exempt real property in 2024 that they used for things like classrooms, sports, student housing, and research. This was about 98% of the total appraised value of all real property they owned. However, we don't know how much of that real property was donated because most universities don't maintain that information.

]]> Buzzsprout-18542878 Wed, 21 Jan 2026 12:00:00 -0600 1713 full false Reviewing Counties' Costs and Obligations to Meet State Requirements [November 2025] Reviewing Counties' Costs and Obligations to Meet State Requirements [November 2025] We estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $28.8 million providing a selection of 3 services in fiscal year 2024, which was partially offset by $9.7 million in state, federal, and user fee funding. State law requires counties to provide a variety of core services, such as election administration, law enforcement, and motor vehicle registration. Counties are primarily funded by local tax revenue, and they generally use this revenue to cover the costs of providing the services state law requires. We selected 3 core services and 3 counties to review. The services included criminal prosecution, motor vehicle registration, and ad valorem tax collection. The counties included Gove, Johnson, and Labette counties. We worked closely with county officials to determine how much the 3 counties spent to provide the 3 core services during fiscal year 2024. In total, we estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $17.3 million on criminal prosecution in fiscal year 2024, which was slightly offset with $846,000 in grants and user fees. In total, we estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $8.3 million providing motor vehicle registration services in 2024, which was partially offset by $5.0 million in user fees. In total, we estimate the 3 counties spent $3.2 million collecting ad valorem taxes in fiscal year 2024, which was fully offset by $3.9 million in user fees and fines. The 3 counties’ costs for the 3 services we reviewed were generally related to meeting requirements in state law. We estimate it would cost the state $19.1 million to cover the 3 counties’ fiscal year 2024 costs for the services we reviewed, but this likely isn’t consistent each year. Officials from the 3 counties we reviewed told us state process improvements would be more helpful than additional state funding. Other estimates for counties’ motor vehicle registration service costs used reasonable methods but differed from ours because we had more detailed and updated data.

]]> We estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $28.8 million providing a selection of 3 services in fiscal year 2024, which was partially offset by $9.7 million in state, federal, and user fee funding. State law requires counties to provide a variety of core services, such as election administration, law enforcement, and motor vehicle registration. Counties are primarily funded by local tax revenue, and they generally use this revenue to cover the costs of providing the services state law requires. We selected 3 core services and 3 counties to review. The services included criminal prosecution, motor vehicle registration, and ad valorem tax collection. The counties included Gove, Johnson, and Labette counties. We worked closely with county officials to determine how much the 3 counties spent to provide the 3 core services during fiscal year 2024. In total, we estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $17.3 million on criminal prosecution in fiscal year 2024, which was slightly offset with $846,000 in grants and user fees. In total, we estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $8.3 million providing motor vehicle registration services in 2024, which was partially offset by $5.0 million in user fees. In total, we estimate the 3 counties spent $3.2 million collecting ad valorem taxes in fiscal year 2024, which was fully offset by $3.9 million in user fees and fines. The 3 counties’ costs for the 3 services we reviewed were generally related to meeting requirements in state law. We estimate it would cost the state $19.1 million to cover the 3 counties’ fiscal year 2024 costs for the services we reviewed, but this likely isn’t consistent each year. Officials from the 3 counties we reviewed told us state process improvements would be more helpful than additional state funding. Other estimates for counties’ motor vehicle registration service costs used reasonable methods but differed from ours because we had more detailed and updated data.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-18166391 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:00:00 -0600 1130 full false Reviewing Available Options for Acquiring State Office Spaces [November 2025] Reviewing Available Options for Acquiring State Office Spaces [November 2025] Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-18166245 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:00:00 -0600 972 full false Follow Up Audit: Reviewing Agencies’ Implementation of Selected Performance Audit Recommendations [November 2025] Follow Up Audit: Reviewing Agencies’ Implementation of Selected Performance Audit Recommendations [November 2025] This audit evaluated whether entities implemented 9 previous audit recommendations. We determined that 4 of the 9 recommendations have been implemented. The 5 Groundwater Managmeent Districts implemented 1 recommendation from our 2023 audit. of them? The Departments of Revenue and Commerce implemented the recommendation from our 2023 audit of the Rural Opportunity Zones Program. The Secretary of State's Office implemented 1  recommendation,  partially implemented 1 recommendation, and didn't implement the third recommendation from our 2023 audit of election security (part 2). The Department of Revenue implemented 1 recommendation and partially implemented 3 recommendations from our 2024 audit of motor vehicle sales taxes.  

]]> This audit evaluated whether entities implemented 9 previous audit recommendations. We determined that 4 of the 9 recommendations have been implemented. The 5 Groundwater Managmeent Districts implemented 1 recommendation from our 2023 audit. of them? The Departments of Revenue and Commerce implemented the recommendation from our 2023 audit of the Rural Opportunity Zones Program. The Secretary of State's Office implemented 1  recommendation,  partially implemented 1 recommendation, and didn't implement the third recommendation from our 2023 audit of election security (part 2). The Department of Revenue implemented 1 recommendation and partially implemented 3 recommendations from our 2024 audit of motor vehicle sales taxes.  

]]> Buzzsprout-18163086 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 13:00:00 -0600 695 full false Reviewing Tax Credits Awarded and Used through the High Performance Incentive Program and the Kansas Affordable Housing Tax Credit (Limited-Scope) [September 2025] Reviewing Tax Credits Awarded and Used through the High Performance Incentive Program and the Kansas Affordable Housing Tax Credit (Limited-Scope) [September 2025] The High Performance Incentive Program (HPIP) allows qualifying businesses to earn state income tax credits based on their expenditures on employee training and education and on qualifying capital investments. We couldn't report how much HPIP credit businesses earned and used in recent years because of reliability issues with KDOR's HPIP data. We identified inconsistencies in the data that KDOR officials told us they were trying to resolve.

The Kansas Affordable Housing Tax Credit (KAHTC) is a state income tax credit that matches the federal low-income housing tax credit. Both credits help subsidize the creation of affordable rental housing. The Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC) administers both credits. Since 2023, when the KAHTC was first allowed, KHRC has awarded rental housing development projects about $73 million in KAHTC credits. It may award an additional $34 million in tax credits by the time the KAHTC ends in 2028. At the time of our audit, no taxpayers had used the KAHTC to reduce their income tax liabilities. However, they will likely begin doing so soon. Over the next approximately 15 years, taxpayers' use of KAHTC credit awards may result in the state forgoing about $1 billion in income tax revenues.

]]> The High Performance Incentive Program (HPIP) allows qualifying businesses to earn state income tax credits based on their expenditures on employee training and education and on qualifying capital investments. We couldn't report how much HPIP credit businesses earned and used in recent years because of reliability issues with KDOR's HPIP data. We identified inconsistencies in the data that KDOR officials told us they were trying to resolve.

The Kansas Affordable Housing Tax Credit (KAHTC) is a state income tax credit that matches the federal low-income housing tax credit. Both credits help subsidize the creation of affordable rental housing. The Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC) administers both credits. Since 2023, when the KAHTC was first allowed, KHRC has awarded rental housing development projects about $73 million in KAHTC credits. It may award an additional $34 million in tax credits by the time the KAHTC ends in 2028. At the time of our audit, no taxpayers had used the KAHTC to reduce their income tax liabilities. However, they will likely begin doing so soon. Over the next approximately 15 years, taxpayers' use of KAHTC credit awards may result in the state forgoing about $1 billion in income tax revenues.

]]> Buzzsprout-17855039 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 13:00:00 -0500 731 full false Evaluating Access Controls of School District Accounting Systems [September 2025] Evaluating Access Controls of School District Accounting Systems [September 2025] Of the 20 districts we reviewed, only some had adequate access controls for their accounting systems, and very few had adequate written policies. School districts use accounting systems to manage their expenses and report on their financial information. It’s critical that school districts protect their accounting systems against unauthorized access. School districts are not required to follow the state’s IT security policies. We compiled a set of IT security and accounting best practices to evaluate school districts’ access controls for accounting systems. We reviewed accounting system access control policies and practices for 20 judgmentally selected school districts across Kansas. None of the 20 districts we reviewed had adequate IT security access control practices in all 3 categories we evaluated. Almost all school districts we reviewed (19 of 20) lacked all expected account management control practices within their accounting systems. Most school districts we reviewed (16 of 20) also did not have all expected identity management practices in place within their accounting systems. About half of the school districts we reviewed (11 of 20) had all expected controls in place to limit user access to their accounting systems, and most school districts had at least 4 of the 5 controls we reviewed. Finally, very few of the 20 districts we reviewed had adequate written policies related to any access controls for their accounting systems. Smaller school districts tended to lack more access controls for their accounting systems, but all districts could benefit from formalized policies. KSDE told us that districts have been moving to computerized systems quickly, and it was not surprising that districts have very few policies. 

]]> Of the 20 districts we reviewed, only some had adequate access controls for their accounting systems, and very few had adequate written policies. School districts use accounting systems to manage their expenses and report on their financial information. It’s critical that school districts protect their accounting systems against unauthorized access. School districts are not required to follow the state’s IT security policies. We compiled a set of IT security and accounting best practices to evaluate school districts’ access controls for accounting systems. We reviewed accounting system access control policies and practices for 20 judgmentally selected school districts across Kansas. None of the 20 districts we reviewed had adequate IT security access control practices in all 3 categories we evaluated. Almost all school districts we reviewed (19 of 20) lacked all expected account management control practices within their accounting systems. Most school districts we reviewed (16 of 20) also did not have all expected identity management practices in place within their accounting systems. About half of the school districts we reviewed (11 of 20) had all expected controls in place to limit user access to their accounting systems, and most school districts had at least 4 of the 5 controls we reviewed. Finally, very few of the 20 districts we reviewed had adequate written policies related to any access controls for their accounting systems. Smaller school districts tended to lack more access controls for their accounting systems, but all districts could benefit from formalized policies. KSDE told us that districts have been moving to computerized systems quickly, and it was not surprising that districts have very few policies. 

]]> Buzzsprout-17854999 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 13:00:00 -0500 1105 full false Follow Up Audit: Reviewing Agencies’ Implementation of Selected Performance Audit Recommendations Follow Up Audit: Reviewing Agencies’ Implementation of Selected Performance Audit Recommendations This audit evaluated whether agencies implemented 6 previous audit recommendations. We determined that 3 of the 6 recommendations have been implemented. The Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) and Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) implemented 2 recommendations and partially implemented 2 other recommendations from our 2022 audit of foster care services. The Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) implemented the recommendation from our 2022 limited-scope audit of social workers employed by school districts. Finally, KSDE partially implemented the recommendation from our 2022 limited-scope audit of scholarship granting organizations' compliance with distribution requirements for the Tax Credit for Low Income Students Scholarship Program. 

]]> This audit evaluated whether agencies implemented 6 previous audit recommendations. We determined that 3 of the 6 recommendations have been implemented. The Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) and Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) implemented 2 recommendations and partially implemented 2 other recommendations from our 2022 audit of foster care services. The Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) implemented the recommendation from our 2022 limited-scope audit of social workers employed by school districts. Finally, KSDE partially implemented the recommendation from our 2022 limited-scope audit of scholarship granting organizations' compliance with distribution requirements for the Tax Credit for Low Income Students Scholarship Program. 

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-18061003 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 21:00:00 -0500 930 full false Reviewing BASE 1.0 and BASE 2.0 Grant Program Matching Contributions (Limited-Scope) [July 2025] Reviewing BASE 1.0 and BASE 2.0 Grant Program Matching Contributions (Limited-Scope) [July 2025] The Building a Stronger Economy 1.0 and 2.0 grant programs (or BASE grant programs) awarded almost $150 million in federal funds to Kansas businesses for infrastructure development. The Department of Commerce selected which program applicants would be awarded funding. It required BASE grant recipients to provide matching funds equal to at least 25% of the project cost. We reviewed the planned matching expenditures in all 72 BASE grant award agreements. Commerce approved planned matching expenditures in 3 main categories, with construction costs (including materials, labor, and site work) being the largest. Commerce approved almost half of planned matching expenditures for costs recipients incurred prior to signing a BASE grant agreement. Department officials told us they allowed pre-award matching expenditures to give recipients credit for project expenses incurred prior to the BASE grant award. Finally, we identified several issues with the accuracy and completeness of the BASE grant award agreements that could not be reconciled by the department.

]]> The Building a Stronger Economy 1.0 and 2.0 grant programs (or BASE grant programs) awarded almost $150 million in federal funds to Kansas businesses for infrastructure development. The Department of Commerce selected which program applicants would be awarded funding. It required BASE grant recipients to provide matching funds equal to at least 25% of the project cost. We reviewed the planned matching expenditures in all 72 BASE grant award agreements. Commerce approved planned matching expenditures in 3 main categories, with construction costs (including materials, labor, and site work) being the largest. Commerce approved almost half of planned matching expenditures for costs recipients incurred prior to signing a BASE grant agreement. Department officials told us they allowed pre-award matching expenditures to give recipients credit for project expenses incurred prior to the BASE grant award. Finally, we identified several issues with the accuracy and completeness of the BASE grant award agreements that could not be reconciled by the department.

]]> Buzzsprout-17523131 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:00:00 -0500 868 full false Reviewing Select Cities’ Use of Transient Guest Tax Revenues [July 2025] Reviewing Select Cities’ Use of Transient Guest Tax Revenues [July 2025] From 2021 – 2023, Manhattan, Overland Park, and Wichita appeared to use most of their transient guest tax revenue appropriately, but a small portion was inappropriate or unclear. Kansas statute allows cities and counties to charge guests at hotels or other short-term lodgings a tax (called a transient guest tax), which local governments can then use to fund tourism-related expenditures. Most cities with a transient guest tax charge more than the 2% rate in statute because they use the home rule provision in the Kansas Constitution to exempt themselves. The 3 cities we reviewed spent transient guest revenues differently from 2021 to 2023 but most of their spending appeared to be appropriate. All 3 cities used transient guest tax revenues to pay the local convention and visitors bureaus to promote tourism. All 3 cities appeared to use transient guest tax revenues to finance tourism and convention related bonds. Wichita appeared to use transient guest tax revenues to maintain and operate existing tourism facilities. Manhattan and Wichita used transient guest tax revenues on direct grants or sponsorships for tourism. In 2023, Manhattan transferred $100,000 of its transient guest tax revenue to the general fund, but we could not determine if it was used appropriately because of a lack of documentation. Wichita spent $16,000 of guest tax revenue from 2021 – 2023 to cover city administrative and audit fees, which is inappropriate because the expenses are not related to tourism and conventions. Finally, we also found a difference between certain definitions in Wichita's transient guest tax ordinances and state law. As a result, since 1992, KDOR may have collected and Wichita may have received transient guest tax revenues from guests at some hotels and other lodging entities that aren’t authorized in Wichita’s charter ordinance. 

]]> From 2021 – 2023, Manhattan, Overland Park, and Wichita appeared to use most of their transient guest tax revenue appropriately, but a small portion was inappropriate or unclear. Kansas statute allows cities and counties to charge guests at hotels or other short-term lodgings a tax (called a transient guest tax), which local governments can then use to fund tourism-related expenditures. Most cities with a transient guest tax charge more than the 2% rate in statute because they use the home rule provision in the Kansas Constitution to exempt themselves. The 3 cities we reviewed spent transient guest revenues differently from 2021 to 2023 but most of their spending appeared to be appropriate. All 3 cities used transient guest tax revenues to pay the local convention and visitors bureaus to promote tourism. All 3 cities appeared to use transient guest tax revenues to finance tourism and convention related bonds. Wichita appeared to use transient guest tax revenues to maintain and operate existing tourism facilities. Manhattan and Wichita used transient guest tax revenues on direct grants or sponsorships for tourism. In 2023, Manhattan transferred $100,000 of its transient guest tax revenue to the general fund, but we could not determine if it was used appropriately because of a lack of documentation. Wichita spent $16,000 of guest tax revenue from 2021 – 2023 to cover city administrative and audit fees, which is inappropriate because the expenses are not related to tourism and conventions. Finally, we also found a difference between certain definitions in Wichita's transient guest tax ordinances and state law. As a result, since 1992, KDOR may have collected and Wichita may have received transient guest tax revenues from guests at some hotels and other lodging entities that aren’t authorized in Wichita’s charter ordinance. 

]]> Buzzsprout-17523145 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:00:00 -0500 1045 full false Evaluating Aging and Disability Resource Center Contract Changes (Limited-Scope) [July 2025] Evaluating Aging and Disability Resource Center Contract Changes (Limited-Scope) [July 2025] The Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) oversees Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) services to help older adults and people with disabilities. Until 2024, KDADS contracted with Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) to provide ADRC services. In 2024, KDADS split the one AAA contract for ADRC services into 2 contracts, one for the Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) assessments and one for the remaining ADRC services. KDADS officials told us they changed the ADRC services contract to mitigate the appearance of a conflict-of-interest and to address longstanding performance issues with HCBS waiver assessments. 

]]> The Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) oversees Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) services to help older adults and people with disabilities. Until 2024, KDADS contracted with Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) to provide ADRC services. In 2024, KDADS split the one AAA contract for ADRC services into 2 contracts, one for the Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) assessments and one for the remaining ADRC services. KDADS officials told us they changed the ADRC services contract to mitigate the appearance of a conflict-of-interest and to address longstanding performance issues with HCBS waiver assessments. 

]]> Buzzsprout-17523140 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:00:00 -0500 472 full false Reviewing Outcomes of the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General’s Investigations (Limited-Scope) [July 2025] Reviewing Outcomes of the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General’s Investigations (Limited-Scope) [July 2025] This limited-scope audit evaluated the outcomes of the Kansas Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) investigations and audits from calendar years 2021 through 2024, with a focus on financial recoveries and prosecutorial results. The OIG is an independent entity within the Kansas Attorney General’s Office and is tasked with increasing accountability and oversight of Kansas medical (and other) assistance programs through audits, reviews, and investigations. To assess the impact of OIG’s work, we examined summary data on 280 investigations initiated during the review period, consulted relevant district court records, and conducted follow-up interviews with OIG officials. Our analysis found that 2 of the 280 investigations have led to prosecutions, which have resulted in the recovery of less than $1,000 to date. Additional legal actions may be possible given the number of still open investigations. We also reviewed all 9 audits and reviews OIG published between 2021 and 2024. Of these, we confirmed the recovery of $1.3 million documented in 1 report.

]]> This limited-scope audit evaluated the outcomes of the Kansas Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) investigations and audits from calendar years 2021 through 2024, with a focus on financial recoveries and prosecutorial results. The OIG is an independent entity within the Kansas Attorney General’s Office and is tasked with increasing accountability and oversight of Kansas medical (and other) assistance programs through audits, reviews, and investigations. To assess the impact of OIG’s work, we examined summary data on 280 investigations initiated during the review period, consulted relevant district court records, and conducted follow-up interviews with OIG officials. Our analysis found that 2 of the 280 investigations have led to prosecutions, which have resulted in the recovery of less than $1,000 to date. Additional legal actions may be possible given the number of still open investigations. We also reviewed all 9 audits and reviews OIG published between 2021 and 2024. Of these, we confirmed the recovery of $1.3 million documented in 1 report.

]]> Buzzsprout-17523121 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:00:00 -0500 711 full false Evaluating State Agencies’ Registries of Perpetrators of Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of Persons with Disabilities [July 2025] Evaluating State Agencies’ Registries of Perpetrators of Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of Persons with Disabilities [July 2025] 3 state agencies are responsible for taking and investigating allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Those agencies are the Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS), the Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), and the Department of Children and Families (DCF). These agencies may refer alleged perpetrators to 3 state licensure boards: the Board of Healing Arts, the Board of Nursing, and the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board. The state's process for investigating allegations and identifying perpetrators is complicated and fragmented. State law is also unclear about agencies' responsibilities. We found KDADS and DCF keep registries of perpetrators, but KDHE does not. KDHE doesn't investigate allegations of ANE because KDHE officials believe they lack the authority to do so. We also identified issues with how agencies refer allegations to each other. These issues suggest not all suspected perpetrators get investigated and that agencies' registries may be incomplete.

]]> 3 state agencies are responsible for taking and investigating allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Those agencies are the Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS), the Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), and the Department of Children and Families (DCF). These agencies may refer alleged perpetrators to 3 state licensure boards: the Board of Healing Arts, the Board of Nursing, and the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board. The state's process for investigating allegations and identifying perpetrators is complicated and fragmented. State law is also unclear about agencies' responsibilities. We found KDADS and DCF keep registries of perpetrators, but KDHE does not. KDHE doesn't investigate allegations of ANE because KDHE officials believe they lack the authority to do so. We also identified issues with how agencies refer allegations to each other. These issues suggest not all suspected perpetrators get investigated and that agencies' registries may be incomplete.

]]> Buzzsprout-17523093 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:00:00 -0500 1403 full false Reviewing Free-Lunch Student Counts Used as the Basis for At-Risk Funding [July 2025] Reviewing Free-Lunch Student Counts Used as the Basis for At-Risk Funding [July 2025] The federal government reimburses school districts for meals they serve to students through the National School Lunch Program. Students receive a free or reduced-price lunch through the National School Lunch Program if they meet 1 of several criteria including participating in certain federal programs, being a migrant student, and having household income of 130% or less than the federal poverty line. In Kansas, the state provides at-risk funding to school districts based on the number of students who are eligible for a free lunch and meet a few other criteria.

We chose a random and projectable sample of students who qualified for a free lunch in the 2023-24 school year to verify their eligibility for the free lunch program. We estimated that 54% to 72% of all Kansas students who qualified for free lunches because they submitted a National School Lunch Program application were likely ineligible in the 2023-24 school year. However, only about 16% of all students who qualified for a free lunch qualified by submitting an application. For most of the remainder of students we were not able to verify their eligibility because their eligibility was determined by the Department for Children and Families, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, or by their school district. Because of time and data constraints, we could not determine whether those agencies and districts correctly determine student eligibility. As a result, we could not assess the overall accuracy of the free lunch count.

Federal rules significantly limit school districts' and KSDE's ability to verify the eligibility of students who receive a free lunch. As a result, the free lunch program is at high risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.

]]> The federal government reimburses school districts for meals they serve to students through the National School Lunch Program. Students receive a free or reduced-price lunch through the National School Lunch Program if they meet 1 of several criteria including participating in certain federal programs, being a migrant student, and having household income of 130% or less than the federal poverty line. In Kansas, the state provides at-risk funding to school districts based on the number of students who are eligible for a free lunch and meet a few other criteria.

We chose a random and projectable sample of students who qualified for a free lunch in the 2023-24 school year to verify their eligibility for the free lunch program. We estimated that 54% to 72% of all Kansas students who qualified for free lunches because they submitted a National School Lunch Program application were likely ineligible in the 2023-24 school year. However, only about 16% of all students who qualified for a free lunch qualified by submitting an application. For most of the remainder of students we were not able to verify their eligibility because their eligibility was determined by the Department for Children and Families, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, or by their school district. Because of time and data constraints, we could not determine whether those agencies and districts correctly determine student eligibility. As a result, we could not assess the overall accuracy of the free lunch count.

Federal rules significantly limit school districts' and KSDE's ability to verify the eligibility of students who receive a free lunch. As a result, the free lunch program is at high risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.

]]> Buzzsprout-17522404 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:00:00 -0500 1133 full false Reviewing the Department of Commerce's Process for Reviewing Building a Stronger Economy (BASE) 1.0 Grants Reviewing the Department of Commerce's Process for Reviewing Building a Stronger Economy (BASE) 1.0 Grants The Department of Commerce evaluated BASE 1.0 grant program applicants using a standardized scoring rubric, but it didn’t consistently follow its process or document the Secretary’s final award decisions. The Building a Stronger Economy 1.0 grant program (or BASE 1.0) awarded almost $100 million in federal funds to Kansas entities for infrastructure development. Commerce received 445 BASE 1.0 grant applications requesting a total of about $1.7 billion. Of the $99 million Commerce awarded to 35 recipients, about half went to 10 projects in Butler and Johnson counties. Commerce reviewed applications to the BASE 1.0 grant program and determined which applicants would receive funding using 3 main steps: eligibility review, application scoring, and final selection. Commerce completed an eligibility review for all 10 applications we reviewed and eliminated 1 that wasn’t eligible. Commerce didn’t consistently follow its application scoring process for the 9 eligible applications we reviewed. We couldn’t review the Secretary of Commerce’s final award decisions because this process wasn’t documented.

]]> The Department of Commerce evaluated BASE 1.0 grant program applicants using a standardized scoring rubric, but it didn’t consistently follow its process or document the Secretary’s final award decisions. The Building a Stronger Economy 1.0 grant program (or BASE 1.0) awarded almost $100 million in federal funds to Kansas entities for infrastructure development. Commerce received 445 BASE 1.0 grant applications requesting a total of about $1.7 billion. Of the $99 million Commerce awarded to 35 recipients, about half went to 10 projects in Butler and Johnson counties. Commerce reviewed applications to the BASE 1.0 grant program and determined which applicants would receive funding using 3 main steps: eligibility review, application scoring, and final selection. Commerce completed an eligibility review for all 10 applications we reviewed and eliminated 1 that wasn’t eligible. Commerce didn’t consistently follow its application scoring process for the 9 eligible applications we reviewed. We couldn’t review the Secretary of Commerce’s final award decisions because this process wasn’t documented.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-17145404 Mon, 12 May 2025 11:00:00 -0500 819 full false Reviewing the Kansas Department of Transportation’s Response to Great Bend’s Historic Dragstrip Cost Share Project (Limited-Scope) [March 2025] Reviewing the Kansas Department of Transportation’s Response to Great Bend’s Historic Dragstrip Cost Share Project (Limited-Scope) [March 2025] The Kansas Department of Transportation created the Cost Share Program in 2019 to help fund transportation projects in local communities. In Fall 2019, KDOT awarded $1.19 million in Cost Share Project funds to the City of Great Bend to reconstruct the historic dragstrip and shutdown area (this includes both the track and the portion of the racetrack after the finish line where cars slow down). The dragstrip project was completed in May 2021, but within a couple months, stakeholders raised concerns with the quality of the track such as "high spots" and later reported chipping and flaking of the track's surface. As a result of the dragstrip's quality issues, the track was closed for the 2023 racing season and it has not been reopened since. Under the Cost Share program contract, the city had the responsibility of overseeing the dragstrip project. KDOT was authorized to enforce penalties if the city didn't use the project as it was intended by contract. KDOT was authorized to recapture up to 90% of the Cost Share project funds based on the track closure in 2023, but they did not enforce this penalty. KDOT officials told us this was because they wanted the city to get the dragstrip back into racing condition, and they were satisfied with the city's efforts to do so. KDOT officials told us that moving forward, they would consider enforcing the claw-back penalty if Great Bend didn't get the dragstrip reconstructed in a reasonable time, but KDOT didn't set a specific timeframe for this possibility. 

]]> The Kansas Department of Transportation created the Cost Share Program in 2019 to help fund transportation projects in local communities. In Fall 2019, KDOT awarded $1.19 million in Cost Share Project funds to the City of Great Bend to reconstruct the historic dragstrip and shutdown area (this includes both the track and the portion of the racetrack after the finish line where cars slow down). The dragstrip project was completed in May 2021, but within a couple months, stakeholders raised concerns with the quality of the track such as "high spots" and later reported chipping and flaking of the track's surface. As a result of the dragstrip's quality issues, the track was closed for the 2023 racing season and it has not been reopened since. Under the Cost Share program contract, the city had the responsibility of overseeing the dragstrip project. KDOT was authorized to enforce penalties if the city didn't use the project as it was intended by contract. KDOT was authorized to recapture up to 90% of the Cost Share project funds based on the track closure in 2023, but they did not enforce this penalty. KDOT officials told us this was because they wanted the city to get the dragstrip back into racing condition, and they were satisfied with the city's efforts to do so. KDOT officials told us that moving forward, they would consider enforcing the claw-back penalty if Great Bend didn't get the dragstrip reconstructed in a reasonable time, but KDOT didn't set a specific timeframe for this possibility. 

]]> Buzzsprout-16850912 Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:00:00 -0500 641 full false Reviewing Veterans’ Claims Assistance Program Matching Requirements [March 2025] Reviewing Veterans’ Claims Assistance Program Matching Requirements [March 2025] The Kansas Office of Veterans Services allowed participating Veteran Service Organizations to take fundamentally different approaches in reporting VCAP matching obligations, which may or may not comply with state law. The state’s Veterans Claims Assistance Program (VCAP) is meant to provide claims assistance to veterans in Kansas through congressionally chartered veteran service organizations. The Legislature appropriates annual funds for VCAP which is administered by the Kansas Office of Veterans Services. The VCAP grant program operates under a reimbursement model that’s overseen by KOVS. To participate in VCAP, veteran service organizations must also meet annual matching obligations. The veteran service organizations reported using VCAP funds primarily for VCAP-related salaries and wages for fiscal years 2022 to 2024. During this time, the American Legion reported between 28% and 34% in matching support related to the VCAP program. Most (76%) of the matching support we reviewed in more detail for the American Legion appeared to be related to VCAP, but we couldn’t verify the rest. The VFW reported that it greatly exceeded its matching obligations between fiscal year 2022 and 2024. More than half (55%) of our sample of VFW matching support was not related to the VCAP program, and we couldn’t verify the rest. 

We found that KOVS hasn’t provided sufficient guidance to participating veteran service organizations to ensure they understand the requirements related to matching support. KOVS’s oversight may be inadequate to ensure the veteran service organizations are meeting their matching obligations. Lax KOVS oversight in other areas may cause additional misunderstandings between KOVS and the veteran service organizations and their supporters. 

It was also unclear whether statute allows veteran service organizations to use the estimated rental values of the offices provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as their own in-kind matching support.

]]> The Kansas Office of Veterans Services allowed participating Veteran Service Organizations to take fundamentally different approaches in reporting VCAP matching obligations, which may or may not comply with state law. The state’s Veterans Claims Assistance Program (VCAP) is meant to provide claims assistance to veterans in Kansas through congressionally chartered veteran service organizations. The Legislature appropriates annual funds for VCAP which is administered by the Kansas Office of Veterans Services. The VCAP grant program operates under a reimbursement model that’s overseen by KOVS. To participate in VCAP, veteran service organizations must also meet annual matching obligations. The veteran service organizations reported using VCAP funds primarily for VCAP-related salaries and wages for fiscal years 2022 to 2024. During this time, the American Legion reported between 28% and 34% in matching support related to the VCAP program. Most (76%) of the matching support we reviewed in more detail for the American Legion appeared to be related to VCAP, but we couldn’t verify the rest. The VFW reported that it greatly exceeded its matching obligations between fiscal year 2022 and 2024. More than half (55%) of our sample of VFW matching support was not related to the VCAP program, and we couldn’t verify the rest. 

We found that KOVS hasn’t provided sufficient guidance to participating veteran service organizations to ensure they understand the requirements related to matching support. KOVS’s oversight may be inadequate to ensure the veteran service organizations are meeting their matching obligations. Lax KOVS oversight in other areas may cause additional misunderstandings between KOVS and the veteran service organizations and their supporters. 

It was also unclear whether statute allows veteran service organizations to use the estimated rental values of the offices provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as their own in-kind matching support.

]]> Buzzsprout-16850838 Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:00:00 -0500 1627 full false Reviewing Ford County’s Ballot Reconciliation Process During the 2024 General Election [March 2025] Reviewing Ford County’s Ballot Reconciliation Process During the 2024 General Election [March 2025] The Ford County election office administers elections in Ford County, Kansas. This audit was a follow up to a 2024 audit that reviewed Ford County’s ballot reconciliation process for the 2024 primary election. In that audit, we found poll workers at 1 polling site did not follow the proper processes by allowing a poll worker to vote without signing the poll book as required by state law. For this audit we reviewed Ford County's ballot reconciliation process for the 2024 general election and found that Ford County’s ballot reconciliation process ensured the number of voted ballots reconciled with the number of voters in the 2024 general election. However, the county did not ensure all poll books were signed and ballots were sealed as state law requires. Ford County’s poll book logs, ballot reconciliation sheets, and result tapes reconciled with each other for regular voters and provisional voters in the 2024 general election, but 2 provisional voters did not sign the provisional poll book before voting as state law requires. We also found a voted provisional ballot that wasn’t sealed as statutorily required. However, we think the ballot was counted in the election results because the ballots cast reconciled with poll book signatures and ballot reconciliation sheets.

]]> The Ford County election office administers elections in Ford County, Kansas. This audit was a follow up to a 2024 audit that reviewed Ford County’s ballot reconciliation process for the 2024 primary election. In that audit, we found poll workers at 1 polling site did not follow the proper processes by allowing a poll worker to vote without signing the poll book as required by state law. For this audit we reviewed Ford County's ballot reconciliation process for the 2024 general election and found that Ford County’s ballot reconciliation process ensured the number of voted ballots reconciled with the number of voters in the 2024 general election. However, the county did not ensure all poll books were signed and ballots were sealed as state law requires. Ford County’s poll book logs, ballot reconciliation sheets, and result tapes reconciled with each other for regular voters and provisional voters in the 2024 general election, but 2 provisional voters did not sign the provisional poll book before voting as state law requires. We also found a voted provisional ballot that wasn’t sealed as statutorily required. However, we think the ballot was counted in the election results because the ballots cast reconciled with poll book signatures and ballot reconciliation sheets.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-16726268 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:00:00 -0600 510 full false Reviewing Ford County’s Tabulation Machine Testing Process During the 2024 General Election [March 2025] Reviewing Ford County’s Tabulation Machine Testing Process During the 2024 General Election [March 2025] The Ford County election office administers elections in Ford County, Kansas. We previously reviewed Ford County’s tabulation machine testing practices during the 2022 general election and found their practices were inadequate because they didn't use pre-audited test ballots with predetermined outcomes that tested for overvote rejection. This audit is a follow up to that review. For this audit, we reviewed Ford County’s tabulation machine testing process for the 2024 general election and found it was generally adequate to ensure the accuracy of tabulation machines before and after the 2024 general election. However, it wasn’t completed within statutory timelines. Ford County performed 3 separate tests on their voting equipment for the 2024 general election using pre-audited test ballots that tested for overvote rejection. Ford County conducted a limited pre-election public test for the 2024 general election within the statutory timeline but didn’t include all tabulation machines. Ford County also conducted 2 comprehensive tabulation machine tests on all tabulation machines before and after the 2024 general election that included the required elements, but they didn’t conduct either test within statutory timelines. We also identified 1 error during the comprehensive post-election test that wasn’t resolved by the county election officer.

]]> The Ford County election office administers elections in Ford County, Kansas. We previously reviewed Ford County’s tabulation machine testing practices during the 2022 general election and found their practices were inadequate because they didn't use pre-audited test ballots with predetermined outcomes that tested for overvote rejection. This audit is a follow up to that review. For this audit, we reviewed Ford County’s tabulation machine testing process for the 2024 general election and found it was generally adequate to ensure the accuracy of tabulation machines before and after the 2024 general election. However, it wasn’t completed within statutory timelines. Ford County performed 3 separate tests on their voting equipment for the 2024 general election using pre-audited test ballots that tested for overvote rejection. Ford County conducted a limited pre-election public test for the 2024 general election within the statutory timeline but didn’t include all tabulation machines. Ford County also conducted 2 comprehensive tabulation machine tests on all tabulation machines before and after the 2024 general election that included the required elements, but they didn’t conduct either test within statutory timelines. We also identified 1 error during the comprehensive post-election test that wasn’t resolved by the county election officer.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-16726259 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:00:00 -0600 799 full false Evaluating Adult Virtual School Funding [March 2025] Evaluating Adult Virtual School Funding [March 2025] The state provides funding to school districts for adult students earning a high school diploma through a virtual program. KSDE established a process for districts to submit adult virtual student credits for funding. We reviewed about 5,900 credits that 9 school districts submitted for funding across 2 years to determine if those credits complied with state statute. Nearly all (99%) the credits the districts submitted appeared to comply with the criteria set in state law, but there were a few exceptions. In total, districts submitted about 55 credits (out of nearly 5,900) that did not comply with statute.

KSDE audits the credits that districts submit for adult virtual school funding each year. For half of the districts we reviewed, KSDE did not approve the number of adult virtual credits that were statutorily compliant. KSDE lacked adequate written policies and procedures to help auditors review adult virtual school credits consistently. The department does not consistently follow some of the written policies they do have. The department also lacks written policies for some important audit best practices such as policies to require supervisory review of audit work.

The Central Plains school district raised concerns with the results of KSDE’s audit of the adult virtual credits they submitted for the 2021-22 school year. We noted a couple problems with how Central Plains creates and monitors transcripts that contributed to some of the issues with the district’s audit. Based on our review of Central Plains 2021-22 credits, we determined there were about 500 credits that appeared statutorily compliant that the department did not fund. The difference in our results and the department’s is largely because we took different approaches. 

]]> The state provides funding to school districts for adult students earning a high school diploma through a virtual program. KSDE established a process for districts to submit adult virtual student credits for funding. We reviewed about 5,900 credits that 9 school districts submitted for funding across 2 years to determine if those credits complied with state statute. Nearly all (99%) the credits the districts submitted appeared to comply with the criteria set in state law, but there were a few exceptions. In total, districts submitted about 55 credits (out of nearly 5,900) that did not comply with statute.

KSDE audits the credits that districts submit for adult virtual school funding each year. For half of the districts we reviewed, KSDE did not approve the number of adult virtual credits that were statutorily compliant. KSDE lacked adequate written policies and procedures to help auditors review adult virtual school credits consistently. The department does not consistently follow some of the written policies they do have. The department also lacks written policies for some important audit best practices such as policies to require supervisory review of audit work.

The Central Plains school district raised concerns with the results of KSDE’s audit of the adult virtual credits they submitted for the 2021-22 school year. We noted a couple problems with how Central Plains creates and monitors transcripts that contributed to some of the issues with the district’s audit. Based on our review of Central Plains 2021-22 credits, we determined there were about 500 credits that appeared statutorily compliant that the department did not fund. The difference in our results and the department’s is largely because we took different approaches. 

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-16726231 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:00:00 -0600 913 full false Evaluating SOFTwarfare, LLC’s Use of Building a Stronger Economy (BASE) 1.0 Grant Funding (Limited-Scope) Evaluating SOFTwarfare, LLC’s Use of Building a Stronger Economy (BASE) 1.0 Grant Funding (Limited-Scope) The Building a Stronger Economy 1.0 grant program (or BASE 1.0 grant program) awarded almost $100 million in federal funds to Kansas businesses for infrastructure development. The Department of Commerce awarded SOFTwarfare a BASE 1.0 grant in April 2022 to build a data center in Great Bend, Kansas. SOFTwarfare’s grant agreement allowed them to use grant funds for construction and equipment costs and matching funds for permitting, inspection, and administrative costs. As of September 30, 2024, SOFTwarfare spent grant funds and matching contributions on the types of items allowed in the award agreement. Some of the expenditures differed from the specifics in the award agreement but Commerce staff accepted the deviations. However, SOFTwarfare didn’t spend all the grant funds by July 6, 2024 as the contract required and Commerce officials did not proactively adjust the deadline.

]]> The Building a Stronger Economy 1.0 grant program (or BASE 1.0 grant program) awarded almost $100 million in federal funds to Kansas businesses for infrastructure development. The Department of Commerce awarded SOFTwarfare a BASE 1.0 grant in April 2022 to build a data center in Great Bend, Kansas. SOFTwarfare’s grant agreement allowed them to use grant funds for construction and equipment costs and matching funds for permitting, inspection, and administrative costs. As of September 30, 2024, SOFTwarfare spent grant funds and matching contributions on the types of items allowed in the award agreement. Some of the expenditures differed from the specifics in the award agreement but Commerce staff accepted the deviations. However, SOFTwarfare didn’t spend all the grant funds by July 6, 2024 as the contract required and Commerce officials did not proactively adjust the deadline.

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-16639204 Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:00:00 -0600 832 full false Evaluating the State's Water Systems and Wastewater Treatment Operator Certification Program (Limited-Scope) [February 2025] Evaluating the State's Water Systems and Wastewater Treatment Operator Certification Program (Limited-Scope) [February 2025] In Kansas, state law requires that all water supply systems and wastewater treatment facilities are supervised by a certified water operator. Kansas Department of Health and Environment is responsible for administering Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Operator certifications, which include certifying examinations. Within both certification programs, operators can be certified at five different classes: Small Systems (“base level”), Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4. Kansas regulations require that KDHE administers certification exams at least twice annually, which it does. Between calendar years 2022 and 2024, only about half of individuals passed their Water Supply or Wastewater Treatment Operator examinations. Those taking the Small Systems exams in either program had higher pass rates. KDHE officials think low pass rates are largely due to examinees not adequately preparing for the exam, but don’t indicate poor exam quality. Although the contents of the exams have not changed much over time, KDHE does look for ways to improve them. 

]]> In Kansas, state law requires that all water supply systems and wastewater treatment facilities are supervised by a certified water operator. Kansas Department of Health and Environment is responsible for administering Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Operator certifications, which include certifying examinations. Within both certification programs, operators can be certified at five different classes: Small Systems (“base level”), Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4. Kansas regulations require that KDHE administers certification exams at least twice annually, which it does. Between calendar years 2022 and 2024, only about half of individuals passed their Water Supply or Wastewater Treatment Operator examinations. Those taking the Small Systems exams in either program had higher pass rates. KDHE officials think low pass rates are largely due to examinees not adequately preparing for the exam, but don’t indicate poor exam quality. Although the contents of the exams have not changed much over time, KDHE does look for ways to improve them. 

]]> Legislative Post Audit Buzzsprout-16555342 Mon, 03 Feb 2025 12:00:00 -0600 463 full false