Recommendation NumberRecommendation
2.4.2The Department should build additional service capacity for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, both to increase access to services and improve quality. Additional investment would lead to significant savings in medical, nursing home, and criminal justice costs, producing interventions that “pay for themselves” in cost offsets from other essential State services.
3.0.1The Department should develop a statewide strategy for sustained support of integrated care across mental health, substance abuse and primary care delivery systems.
3.0.2The Department should integrate Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams into the State’s delivery and payment systems.
5.5.2The Department should consider retaining an attorney to process commitments statewide, or at least for Anchorage-area hospitals, in exchange for an increase in inpatient psychiatric beds.
6.1.5The Department should continue to develop division-level workgroups within the Department’s Results-Based Accountability core services structure to address the needs of neglected subpopulations.
8.3.1The Department should develop automated reporting for both MMIS and AKAIMS behavioral health data.
10.2.1The Department should continue to encourage tribal providers to develop greater service capacity for meeting the needs of Alaska Natives with SMI.
NameTitleSummaryCategoriesLinkFile SizeAuditYearType
06-30095-21

SUMMARY OF:A Special Review of the Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) Compliance with Foster Care Reform Laws, Part 1 Why DLA Performed This Audit This audit reviews the Department of Health and Social Services’ compliance with House Bill 151 foster care reform laws effective September 5, 2018, or December 4, 2018, including the requirements to search for relatives and family friends, provide training on the reasonable and prudent parent standard, and refer families to community organizations when child protective services are not needed and community services are necessary and available. Report Conclusions The audit concluded OCS procedures do not require supervisors to certify in writing whether a search for relatives and family friends was performed; however, auditors generally found searches were conducted. The audit also found that training regarding the reasonable and prudent parent standard was not consistently provided to foster parents. Further, OCS staff did not formally identify and document foster parent training needs.Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, auditors were unable to obtain the documentation necessary to identify whether OCS staff sought parental consent to refer families to community organizations when child protective services were not needed, or for those families that provided consent, whether referrals were timely. Additionally, auditors were unable to calculate the degree families provided consent because OCS staff did not track the referrals when child protective services were not needed. Findings and Recommendations OCS’s director should implement supervisor certification procedures for relative and family friend searches.OCS’s director should improve procedures to ensure foster parents and caregivers in residential child care facilities are provided reasonable and prudent parent standard training.OCS’s director should consider amending regulations to require written training plans.OCS’s director should improve security over access to the Online Resource for Children of Alaska …

Download646.8 KBOffice of Children's Services Compliance with Foster Care Reform Laws, Part 12021
02-40020-20

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019   Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $4.5 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Uniform Guidance. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 19, findings and recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions With the exception of General Fund accounts rents and royalties and due to other funds, and Note 2 relating to the State’s Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund, the basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide assurance over tax revenues. Department of Revenue management denied auditors access to relevant financial records and the department’s commissioner refused to provide written representations over the financial statement preparation and fair presentation of tax revenue accounts, and the completeness of information provided to auditors. With the exception of the United States Forest Service Fire Suppression program, the Bureau of Land Management Fire Suppression program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cluster, the Medicaid cluster, and the Children’s Health Insurance program, the State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain findings regarding material noncompliance with the provisions of laws and regulations, and material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial reporting and internal control over federal compliance.   Findings and Recommendations This report contains 89 findings, of which 35 are unresolved issues from last year. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of prior financial and federal program related audit findings not resolved as of June 30, …

Download17.5 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY 192020
10-20121-20

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Natural Resources, Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Federal Areas Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit determines whether there is a need for the commission’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The commission is set to terminate June 30, 2021, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that, from the date of the prior audit in February 2015 through the time CACFA was defunded in June 2017, the commission operated effectively and did not significantly duplicate the efforts of other entities. During this period, the commission actively monitored the effects of federal regulation and management decisions in accordance with statutory duties. The audit also concluded that there is a continuing publicneed for the commission. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(10), the commission is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2021. We recommend the legislature extend the commission’s termination date eight years, to June 30, 2029. Findings and Recommendations The audit makes no …

Download238.2 KBCitizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas2020
08-20122-20

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Public Accountancy Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit’s purpose was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2021, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes that the board served the public’s interest by conducting meetings in accordance with state laws, amending certain regulations to improve the public accountancy occupation, and effectively licensing and regulating certified public accountants and partnerships/corporations engaged in the practice of public accountancy. Additionally, the audit found board operations were impacted by travel limitations and improvements to the board’s investigative process are needed to limit periods of inactivity. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(1), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2021. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date eight years to June 30, 2029. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s chief investigator should ensure investigations are completed …

Download762.1 KBBoard of Public Accountancy2020
41-20119-20

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Alaska Court System, Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit determines whether there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether the board’s termination date should be extended. The board is set to terminate on June 30, 2021, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes that the board served the public’s interest by effectively admitting qualified members to the Bar and investigating complaints made against Bar members. The audit also found the mandatory three hours of continuing legal education required of Bar members was far below the standard of 12 hours required by 37 other states. (See Recommendation 3) Further, the audit identified the need for administrative improvements. (See Recommendations 1 and 2) In accordance with AS 08.30.010(c)(2), the board is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2021. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date eight years, to June 30, 2029. Findings and Recommendations The executive director should encourage public participation at board meetings. The board should improve internal controls over the Bar’s online admissions system and case management database. The board should recommend an increase in mandatory continuing legal education for …

Download941.7 KBBoard of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association2020
08-30098-20

SUMMARY OF: A Special Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, FY 19 Annual Report Purpose of the Report In accordance with AS 24.20.271(11), the audit evaluates the accuracy of RCA’s FY 19 annual report concerning statutory timelines, timeline extensions, and performance measures. The audit does not evaluate the effectiveness of RCA’s decisions. Report Conclusions RCA publishes its utility and pipeline activities in one annual report, including information regarding compliance with its statutory timelines and other performance measures. Performance measures are established annually by the commission and included in the annual report. RCA’s FY 19 performance measures are noted below. Target 1: Review all utility and pipeline filings within applicable timelines.Target 2: Review all utility and pipeline dockets within applicable timelines.Target 3: Complete disposition of all informal complaints within established timelines.Target 4: Participate in outreach opportunities to consumers. The audit concluded RCA’s annual report was materially accurate. Specifically, RCA accurately reported its compliance with statutory timelines covered in performance measures 1 and 2. Additionally, information supporting performance measure 3, covering timelines for informal complaints, and performance measure 4, covering outreach opportunities to consumers, was accurately reported. Accuracy of information in RCA’s annual report depends on the reliability of the data maintained in RCA’s data management system. Auditors found that the data maintained in the system was reliable; however, auditors found instances where activity that occurred after FY 19 was incorrectly included in the FY 19 annual report. The inclusion of FY 20 activity did not impact conclusions regarding FY 19 compliance with statutory timelines. Findings and Recommendations RCA’s chair should ensure staff are trained to accurately present regulatory data in the annual report. RCA’s chair should develop written procedures for preparing the annual …

Download442.5 KBRegulatory Commission of Alaska, FY 19 Annual Report2020
01-20124-20

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Office of the Governor, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Purpose of the Report The audit was performed to determine if there is a continued need for the commission and whether its termination date should be extended. The commission is set to sunset June 30, 2021, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded the commission met its statutory responsibilities by analyzing the effects of sentencing laws and criminal justice practices on the criminal justice system, and recommending improvements. Additionally, the commission conducted specific studies and reported results, as required by law. The commission was effective as an advisory agency from 2015 through 2017 and its recommendations served as the basis for comprehensive criminal justice reform passed in 2016 (SB 91). Further, its recommendations helped policy makers amend SB 91. However, beginning in 2018, criminal justice policy decisions were not rooted in commission recommendations and the commission’s effectiveness waned. As of April 2020, the commission no longer routinely recommends improvements; however, it continues to analyze criminal justice data and evaluate the impact of commission recommendations and other changes on the criminal justice system. As required by statutes, several agencies submit data to the commission. The data is reviewed by commission staff, commission members, and/or other agencies under an agreement with the commission. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(12), the commission is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2021. We do not recommend extending the commission’s termination date. Rather than extend the commission in its current form, the need for and expectations of a criminal justice advisory commission should be reevaluated. Although we recommend sunsetting the commission, we do not recommend terminating its data collection and analysis functions. Objective evidence regarding the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and laws governing the system are critical to future policy decisions. Legislation will be required to maintain the commission’s data collection and analysis functions if the commission sunsets. Findings and Recommendations The Alaska Judicial Council’s executive director should improve procedures to ensure commission meetings are properly publicly noticed and …

Download727.1 KBAlaska Criminal Justice Commission2020
04-30093-20

SUMMARY OF: A Special Review of the Department of Revenue, Mustang Operations Center 1 LLC Loan Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit reviews DOR’s tax credit-backed loan to MOC 1. Specifically, the audit evaluates DOR’s compliance with Alaska statutes, policies, and procedures, and the loan agreements. Additionally, auditors determine whether tax credit-backed loans were offered to other entities, whether the MOC 1 loan was accurately recorded in the State’s financial statements, whether there were any conflicts of interest related to the loan, and whether the legislature was notified of the loan. Report Conclusions The audit concludes that the MOC 1 loan was, in substance, an advance payment of MOC 1’s 2015 tax credits, legally permissible under DOR’s statutory investment authority. Although the loan was legal, DOR management did not comply with all statutes governing the investment function. The loan was not adequately collateralized for a period of 19 months. Additionally, the loan was made outside DOR’s established investment processes and not subject to procedures designed to meet investment objectives and minimize risk. Further, the loan was not properly managed, which led to inaccurate financial accounting and reporting. Although DOR obtained an opinion regarding the legality of establishing a tax credit-backed loan program, a “program” was never created. DOR management could not explain why tax credit loans were only offered to MOC 1. The MOC 1 loan created two conflicts of interest. The DOR commissioner’s interest in collecting payment on the MOC 1 loan conflicted with duties to represent the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) in matters relating to MOC 1 as part of AIDEA’s board of directors. Secondly,the DOR commissioner’s statutory duty to ensure the MOC 1 loan was collateralized conflicted with the commissioner’s authority over the valuation and approval of tax credits. DOR recorded a gain of $4.29 million over the life of the MOC 1 loan, however, AIDEA’s assumption of the loan from DOR resulted in a decrease to AIDEA’s net income of $1.77 million. AIDEA management estimates the loss will decrease AIDEA’s FY 21 state dividend by $885.5 thousand. Given the decline in oil prices, it is possible AIDEA will record a significant allowance for loan loss, write off, or substantially write down the amounts owed to AIDEA on the Mustang project by Caracol Petroleum LLC, independent of assuming the DOR MOC 1 loan. Any loss incurred will reduce net income and further reduce AIDEA’s dividend. Overall, the audit found the DOR commissioner’s decision to loan up to $22.5 million to MOC 1 under the authority of the department’s investment statutes was inappropriate when compared with behavior that a prudent person would consider reasonable. In support of this conclusion, auditors noted the following: the loan was made outside of DOR’s established investment procedures and DOR management failed to adequately document consideration of the associated risks when making the loan; adequate internal controls were not implemented over the accounting, reporting, and management of the loan; and the loan created conflicts of interest that were not sufficiently mitigated. These facts demonstrate the need for additional oversight of DOR’s investment functions. Findings and Recommendations DOR’s commissioner should ensure investments are made in accordance with established investment objectives and procedures. DOR’s commissioner should ensure collateral is required in accordance with AS 37.10.071(b)(5). DOR’s commissioner should ensure conflicts of interest are avoided or prevented when carrying out the department’s duties and responsibilities. The legislature should consider enhancing oversight of DOR’s investment …

Download1.1 MBMustang Operations Center 1 LLC Loan2020
05-20120-20

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Education and Early Development, and the Department of Health and Social Services, Special Education Service Agency Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was performed to determine if there is a continued need for SESA and whether its termination date should be extended. The agency is set to sunset June 30, 2021, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concludes the Special Education Service Agency (SESA) served the public’s interest by assisting school districts in providing students affected by low incidence disabilities (LID) an education to meet the children’s unique needs; providing opportunities to enhance teachers’ and paraprofessionals’ capabilities; and providing LID and special education resources. As part of this audit, a survey was sent to the 51 school district special education directors served by SESA. Thirty district directors responded (59 percent response rate). In general, survey respondents viewed SESA services, staff availability, and expertise favorably. Survey questions and responses are included as Appendix C of this report. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(6), SESA is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2021. We recommend the legislature extend SESA’s termination date to June 30, 2029, which is the eight year maximum allowed per statute. Findings and Recommendations SESA’s executive director should implement written procedures to ensure reclassification of a student’s referred disability is adequately supported and communicated to school district …

Download679.8 KBDEED & DHSS - Special Education Service Agency2020
06-30094-20

SUMMARY OF: A Special Review of the Department of Health and Social Services, Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Eligibility Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was requested in recognition of the State’s declining fiscal condition and the high amount of State general funds spent on Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits. Audit objectives included determining whether Department of Health and Social Services staff properly determined eligibility and timely enrolled beneficiaries, terminated benefit coverage for individuals no longer eligible for benefits, and preserved and maximized the use of Medicaid and CHIP funds. Auditors were directed to estimate the amount that the State of Alaska paid for benefits on behalf of ineligible beneficiaries and to review the extent eligibility determination best practices were implemented. Report Conclusions The audit found that 42 percent of Division of Public Assistance (DPA) eligibility determinations tested were not accurate and 43 percent were not made in a timely manner. Many of the errors were procedural in nature with no fiscal impact, while some errors resulted in ineligible costs. Based on the testing results, the audit estimates $102 million of federal funds and $28 million of State general funds were spent on FY 19 benefits for ineligible recipients. The estimate is likely understated because DPA has no procedures for verifying household size, a critical component of eligibility, and auditors were unable to test the accuracy of household size. The widespread errors were attributed to inadequate staffing and training. According to management, Medicaid expansion and an economic recession created a large backlog of applications. During this time, processing applications was prioritized over quality control activities, such as supervisory reviews and training. As a result, the accuracy and timeliness of eligibility determinations declined. A new eligibility system implemented in 2014 to meet requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) further contributed to eligibility errors. Rather than streamlining the eligibility process as envisioned by the ACA, the system was plagued with problems that created inefficiencies. At the time of the audit, the system continued to have material control weaknesses. The audit identified several system-related “best practices” that may reduce workload, streamline the application process, and improve accuracy. Implementing the best practices will require information technology expertise and adequate funding. Findings and Recommendations DPA’s director should improve Medicaid and CHIP eligibility training and reestablish a case review process. DPA’s director should continue to resolve system weaknesses in Alaska’s Resource for Integrated Eligibility Services System. DPA’s director should update Medicaid and CHIP regulations for modified adjusted gross income eligibility …

Download1.1 MBMedicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program Eligibility2020
06-30089-20

SUMMARY OF: A Special Review of the Department of Health and Social Services, Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Transportation Costs Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was requested to identify total Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) travel costs from FY 14 through December 2019, and ways to reduce costs. Audit objectives include identifying the most significant travel vendors and whether the State leveraged its purchasing power to reduce costs; reviewing the prior authorization process and system edits to ascertain whether the controls were operating effectively; testing a sample of travel transactions for reasonableness and proper support; and determining whether telehealth was used to reduce travel when possible. Report Conclusions The audit noted that a 2016 change in federal guidance allowed 100 percent federal reimbursement for services received by Alaska Native recipients through facilities operated by federal Indian Health Services or Tribes under specific circumstances. Prior to the change, the cost of Medicaid and CHIP transportation was shared equally between the state and federal governments. After the State implemented changes per the new federal guidance, the federal share of transportation expenditures grew to 92 percent during FY 17. The audit concluded that Medicaid reforms were not implemented to expand the use of telehealth as required by statutes. Regardless, use of telehealth did increase; however, the increase was not significant. Regulations to expand the use of telehealth were considered, but notpublished. The most significant State-funded transportation vendor was Corporate Travel Management North America Inc. (CTM), the State’s travel contractor. Most of the payments to CTM were for airfares. Other than a contract with Alaska Airlines, which included certain discounts, no procurement efforts to reduce Medicaid and CHIP transportation costs were identified. A total of 145 State-funded Medicaid and CHIP transportation claims were tested by auditors covering airfare, lodging, ground transportation, air ambulance, and ground ambulance. Testing found claims were generally supported, the prior authorization process was followed, and existing system edits appeared to be adequately designed to prevent improper transportation payments. However, the following unallowable or unreasonable costs were detected.• A Medicaid State Plan amendment approved in July 2016 authorized government-operated facilities to be reimbursed at federal per diem rates. This change was not federally required and allowed tribal owned lodging to be paid significantly higher rates than non-tribal owned lodging.• Ten percent of taxi claims tested were overbilled.• Three percent of ground ambulance claims tested were paid an incorrect rate. In addition, analysis of all ground ambulance claims during the audit period found 52 claims billed mileage in addition to an all-inclusive rate.• Eleven percent of airfare claims tested found medical services may have been available in the home community. The Division of Health Care Services’ (DHCS) prior authorization process did not document an evaluation of whether services were available in a recipient’s home community. The audit identified the following potential opportunities to reduce transportation costs:• establishing fixed rates for certain taxi routes/areas;• expanding access to transportation through ride sharing companies and/or through contracting for bus or shuttle services;• allowing and promoting the use of public transportation;• restructuring air and ground ambulance fees;• reconsidering higher rates paid to lodging facilities owned by tribal organizations; and• incentivizing the advance scheduling of non-urgent appointments to allow for the advance purchase of airfare. Findings and Recommendations DHCS’s director should adopt regulations and implement written procedures to encourage the advance purchase or airfare. DHCS’s director should consider alternatives to the taxi voucher system. DHCS’s director should improve controls over ground ambulance claims. DHCS’s director should consider restructuring air and ground ambulance rates. DHCS’s director should adopt regulations and implement controls to evaluate the availability of medical services in a recipient’s home community prior to authorizing travel. DHCS’s director should consider specific opportunities to decrease transportation costs. DHCS’s director should implement regulations to expand the use of telehealth for primary care, behavioral health, and urgent …

Download1.1 MBMedicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program Transportation Costs2020
08-20123-20

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was performed to determine if there is a continued need for the board and if its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset on June 30, 2021, and will have one year from that date to conclude its operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded that the board served the public’s interest by conducting meetings in accordance with state laws and effectively certifying midwives. The board adopted regulatory changes to improve the profession, but failed to pursue statutory changes due to concerns over related costs. Additionally, the audit found the peer review process was not effectively monitored by the board and improvements were needed over the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) investigative process. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(8), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2021. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date two years, to June 30, 2023, which is significantly less than the eight-year maximum allowed in statute. The reduced extension is due to an issue identified during the audit that may impact the board’s ability to protect the public and the board’s reluctance to recommend statutory changes in the public’s best interest. The details of the issue are not included in this report to preserve the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation. The reduced extension reflects the need for continued oversight. Findings and Recommendations The board should recommend statutory changes that benefit the public. DCBPL’s chief investigator should ensure investigations are completed timely. The board should improve oversight of the peer review …

Download773.7 KBBoard of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives2020
08-20114-19

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Big Game Commercial Services Board Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit’s purpose was to determine if there is a need for the council’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The council is set to sunset June 30, 2019, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that the board served the public’s interest by conducting meetings in accordance with applicable laws, amending regulations to improve occupations under the board’s purview, and supporting changes by the Department of Law to improve the timeliness of the disciplinary process. Additionally, the board worked to eliminate the over $1 million deficit reported in the prior 2015 sunset audit. The audit also concluded that board licenses were not consistently supported by adequate documentation, a high number of investigations had unjustified periods of inactivity, and three board positions were vacant for an extended period. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(9), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2019. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination to June 30, 2025, which is two years less than the eight year maximum allowed for in statute. The reduced extension is mainly due to DCBPL staff failing to consistently issue licenses in accordance with laws and failing to conduct investigations in a timely manner. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) director should improve management oversight procedures to ensure required documentation is obtained, reviewed, and retained to support licensure. DCBPL’s chief investigator should increase oversight to improve the timeliness of investigations. The Office of the Governor, Boards and Commissions director should work with the board to identify potential applicants in a timely …

Download1.3 MBBig Game Commercial Services Board2019
08-30088-19

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation Select Financial Issues Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was requested to examine and report on the corporation’s appropriations, spending, and available balances. Additionally, auditors were asked to determine whether appropriated funds were spent in compliance with legislative restrictions and whether significant spending decisions were approved by the board of directors. Report Conclusions The audit addresses the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation’s (corporation) funding and spending in terms of its two gas development projects: the integrated interstate gas infrastructure project (AK LNG) and the small diameter in-state pipeline project (ASAP). Since establishment in May 2010, the legislature appropriated to the corporation a net total of $479.8 million for the two projects which earned an additional $5.7 million in interest. From these revenues, the corporation expended $433.3 million and, as of July 24, 2018, had an estimated available balance of $52.2 million. The corporation’s statutes and appropriation bills impose two main conditions on funding: (1) appropriations should be spent to carry out the corporation’s purposes, powers, and duties, and (2) funding for the two projects should not be comingled. The audit found that the corporation’s spending generally complied with these restrictions, with one exception. The audit identified $150,000 of ASAP costs that were incorrectly coded to the AK LNG fund. This error was corrected once identified by auditors. The audit also found the corporation’s procurement procedures lacked an Alaska veterans’ preference. (Recommendation 1) The audit evaluated board approval of spending decisions in three operational areas: contracts, budgets, and hiring decisions. Prior to April 2016, there was no requirement for the board to approve contracts. Beginning in April 2016 large dollar contracts should have been either approved by or communicated to the board. The audit found no evidence the board approved or was specifically notified of the large dollar contracts, including those of embedded contractors and consultants. (Recommendation 2) In accordance with corporation bylaws and procedures, the board was required to approve operating and capital budgets. The audit found two operating and several capital budgets were not properly approved. The corporation had addressed the deficiencies associated with capital budgets prior to the audit, but deficiencies related to operating budget approval were not corrected. (Recommendation 3) Corporation bylaws only require the board approve the hiring of the corporation’s president. The audit found the board approved hiring decisions in accordance with bylaws. Findings and Recommendations The corporation’s board should include an Alaska veterans’ preference in its procurement procedures. The corporation’s president should create procedures to ensure contracts are approved by, or communicated to, the board in accordance with board bylaws. The corporation’s board should formally approve the operating budget …

Download1.4 MBAlaska Gasline Development Corporation Select Financial Issues2019
02-40019-19

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $4.3 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Uniform Guidance. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 18, findings and recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions With the exception of General Fund accounts rents and royalties and due to other funds, and Note 2 relating to the State’s Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund, the basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. With the exception of the United States Forest Service Fire Suppression program, the Bureau of Land Management Fire Suppression program, the 1332 State Innovation Waivers program, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cluster, the State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain findings regarding material noncompliance with the provisions of laws and regulations, and material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial reporting and internal control over federal compliance. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 74 findings, of which 28 are unresolved issues from last year. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of prior financial and federal program related audit findings not resolved as of June 30, …

Download13.1 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY 182019
20-20116-19

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Corrections, Board of Parole Why DLA Performed This Audit This audit determines whether there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether the board’s termination date should be extended. The board is set to terminate June 30, 2020, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that the board responded in an effective and efficient manner to significant changes in parole laws. During the audit period, the board conducted its meetings, made parole decisions, set parole conditions, and held revocation hearings in accordance with state law. The audit also concluded that administrative improvements are needed to ensure regulations are accurate and up to date, and all revocations are performed within statutory timelines. Additionally, the audit found that technological improvements may improve board operations. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(2), the board is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2020. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date five years to June 30, 2025, which is three years less than the eight year maximum allowed for in statute. The reduced extension is mainly in acknowledgment of recent changes to the board’s statutes as well as anticipated changes and the need for continued oversight. Findings and Recommendations The board’s executive director should improve procedures to ensure final revocation hearings are performed timely. The board’s executive director should work with the Department of Corrections’ commissioner to improve the quality of telephonic hearings. The board’s executive director should take steps to ensure regulations are properly …

Download720.2 KBBoard of Parole2019
10-20117-19

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit’s purpose was to determine if there is a need for the commission’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The commission is set to sunset June 30, 2020, and will have one year from that date to conclude its operations. Report Conclusions The audit found that there continues to be a public policy need for the commission’s existence. The commission brings together volunteer experts in earthquake-related fields (i.e. engineering and geology) and members of key government agencies to provide advice to policy makers on disaster preparedness and seismic hazard mitigation. Its activities during the audit period included establishing mitigation priorities, issuing recommendations to state agencies, providing advice to local governments and the governor, and helping school districts secure federal grant funding to assess the vulnerability of older buildings to significant structural damage during an earthquake. The commission also helped coordinate classes to train individuals on how to assess buildings and structures in the aftermath of a significant seismic event. One of the classes was held in September 2018, just a few months before southcentral Alaska experienced a magnitude 7.0 on-land earthquake. The audit also concluded that not all commission meetings were adequately public noticed and the commission’s strategic plan should be updated to incorporate the knowledge gained through recent seismic events. (Recommendations 1 and 2) In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(8) the commission is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2020. We recommend that the legislature extend the commission’s termination date to June 30, 2028. Findings and Recommendations The commission’s chair should ensure procedures are implemented to publish meeting notices timely and accurately. The commission’s chair should update its strategic plan to reflect current goals and priorities based on …

Download669.2 KBAlaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission2019
08-20118-19

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State Medical Board Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was performed to determine if there is a continued need for the board and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2020, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concluded the board served the public’s interest by effectively licensing physicians, osteopaths, podiatrists, physician assistants, and paramedics. The board monitored licensees and worked to ensure only qualified individuals practiced in Alaska. Furthermore, the board developed and adopted certain regulatory changes to protect the public, improve the licensing process, and improve the delivery of services. The audit also concluded the board did not serve the public interest by inconsistently reporting board license actions to the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). In addition, the board did not adopt regulations to require licensees register in the controlled substance prescription database and did not adequately monitor licensees to ensure those with a DEA number registered with the controlled substance prescription database. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(13), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2020. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2025, which is three years less than the eight year maximum allowed per statute. The reduced extension is mainly due to the failure of the board to consistently report license actions to the FSMB, adopt regulations governing registration in the controlled substance prescription database, and monitor compliance with the registration requirement. Findings and Recommendations The board should adopt regulations to provide guidance for registering with the controlled substance prescription database. The board should develop procedures to ensure licensees with a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) number register in the controlled substance prescription database. The board chair should work with DCCED’s Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s director to establish and implement procedures to ensure the board reports disciplinary actions in accordance with state …

Download860.6 KBState Medical Board2019
11-30085-19

SUMMARY OF: A Special Review of the Department of Fish and Game, Board of Game Regulatory Process Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was requested to address concerns about the Board of Game’s (BOG) regulatory outcomes and decision process. The audit evaluated whether the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), BOG, and Advisory Committees (AC) followed established procedures and whether BOG decisions were made in compliance with State law. The audit also determined the extent DFG complied with legislative intent by making comments, reports, data, and recommendations available prior to a BOG meeting and prior to ACs’ consideration of proposals. Further, the audit determined the degree to which AC regulatory recommendations agreed with DFG recommendations and the degree to which BOG decisions were upheld by the courts. Satisfaction with, and knowledge of, the BOG regulatory process was evaluated by surveying AC and BOG members. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that BOG, ACs, and DFG followed established procedures and complied with State laws governing the regulatory process. AC member survey respondents generally believed BOG’s decision making process was effective, but were less satisfied with the transparency, objectivity, and thoroughness of BOG deliberations. The audit found AC meetings were consistently conducted in accordance with laws and procedures, except for public noticing. (Recommendation No. 1) Over a ten year period, few BOG regulatory decisions were challenged in court. The courts upheld the majority of board decisions. The audit also concluded that DFG comments, reports, data, and recommendations were not routinely made available to ACs via BOG’s website at the time ACs considered proposals; however, a biologist was generally in attendance at AC meetings. Auditors noted that information on BOG’s website may be updated without clearly identifying the update. (Recommendation 2) For most of the recommendations reviewed by auditors, ACs agreed with DFG recommendations. Philosophical differences between DFG staff and AC members may lead to different proposal recommendations regardless of the availability of DFG information. Findings and Recommendations BOG’s executive director should update the AC manual to define “reasonable public notice” and provide training to AC members. BOG’s executive director should ensure information updates are clearly identified on BOG’s …

Download2.4 MBBoard of Game Regulatory Process2019
08-20101-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Tourism Marketing Board Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes the board operated in the public’s interest by cooperating with DCCED to plan and execute a destination tourism marketing campaign and making recommendations regarding tourism marketing and development. Additionally, as directed by the legislature, the board worked with the Alaska Travel Industry Association to develop a plan to phase out reliance on unrestricted general funds. Although the board served the public’s interest during the audit period, the board’s advice to DCCED regarding tourism marketing and development is no longer needed as responsibility for those activities has shifted to industry. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(11), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We do not recommend extending the board’s termination date. Findings and Recommendations There were no recommendations as part of the sunset …

Download343.3 KBAlaska Tourism Marketing Board2018
08-20108-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Social Work Examiners Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that the board operated in the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating social workers. Board meetings were conducted in compliance with law, investigations were generally processed timely, and the board issued or changed regulations to improve the profession. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(21), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination to June 30, 2026. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s director should improve procedures to ensure board required documentation is obtained prior to licensure.  The Office of the Governor, Boards and Commissions director should work with the board to identify potential applicants for the board’s vacant clinical social worker …

Download626.5 KBBoard of Social Work Examiners2018
08-20099-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In all areas except licensing, the audit found the board was operating in the public’s interest. Meetings were conducted effectively, investigations were processed timely, and the board developed and adopted regulations necessary to implement statutes. The audit concluded the board should improve its procedures for issuing renewals, recreational site licenses, and beverage dispensary licenses that encourage tourism. Testing found these licenses were not consistently issued in accordance with statutes. Additionally, operational improvements are needed in enforcing laws, monitoring board-related local law enforcement activity, and processing refunds to municipalities. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(1), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2022. Findings and Recommendations The authority to renew licenses should be limited to the board. The board should issue recreational site licenses in accordance with statutory requirements.  The board should issue beverage dispensary licenses in accordance with statutory requirements.  The board, AMCO director, and enforcement supervisor should work together to formally establish an enforcement plan to direct AMCO’s limited enforcement resources.  The board and AMCO director should implement a process to monitor and track complaints to ensure they are assessed for follow up action and investigated in a timely manner. The board and AMCO director should develop written procedures for updating the statewide database with restricted purchasers.  The board and AMCO director should improve procedures to ensure municipalities report violations of alcoholic beverage laws.  The AMCO director should develop and implement procedures to ensure refunds to municipalities are appropriately …

Download1.0 MBAlcoholic Beverage Control Board2018
08-20104-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Pharmacy Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concluded the board operated in the public interest by effectively licensing pharmacists, pharmacy interns, pharmacy technicians, in-state pharmacies, drug rooms, and wholesale distributors. Board meetings were conducted in accordance with applicable laws and the board was active in amending regulations to improve the industry. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(16), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. In recognition of recent statutory changes that expands the board’s responsibilities in relation to the controlled substance prescription database, we recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination only four years to June 30, 2022. Findings and Recommendations Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) chief investigator should work with the director to improve the timeliness of investigations.  DCBPL’s director should improve procedures to ensure required licensure documentation is appropriately obtained and …

Download589.4 KBBoard of Pharmacy2018
04-30090-18

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Review of the Department of Revenue, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Asset Management and Other Select Issues Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit was requested in response to allegations that the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (Authority) was not managing its assets and conducting its business in compliance with applicable laws. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that the Authority’s board of trustees violated State statutes and terms of the State v. Weiss settlement by diverting $44.4 million in cash principal from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC). Alaska statutes clearly and unambiguously command that cash principal be managed and invested by the APFC. Despite the requirement, the Authority’s board of trustees suspended transfers of cash principal to the APFC for almost 10 years. The board of trustees’ actions appeared to be well intentioned, driven by a desire to maximize revenue for use by beneficiaries. However, the actions did not comply with law and were contrary to the roles and responsibilities outlined in the settlement. Instead of transferring cash principal to the APFC for investment, $39.5 of $44.4 million was directly invested in seven commercial real estate properties (five located out-of-state) using the Trust Land Office (TLO) to facilitate the commercial real estate investment transactions and to manage the properties. Six of the seven properties were mortgaged and the proceeds were used, in part, for additional commercial real estate investments. The audit concluded that the TLO does not have the legal authority to manage commercial real estate investments. In accordance with the settlement and State law, investment is a function of the APFC. Furthermore, in approving these investments, the Authority’s board inflated investment costs and reduced the asset diversification of the Trust portfolio as a whole. It is more appropriate and efficient to carry out commercial real estate investments via the APFC. The remaining $4.9 million in diverted cash principal was used for land development activities, including constructing and developing properties primarily used by beneficiary programs. Because statutes require cash principal be managed and invested by the APFC, the only potential funding mechanism available in statutes for land development activities is Trust income. Development activities funded by cash principal included the mining exploration of Icy Cape. As of FY 17, the TLO had spent a total of $1.6 million in cash principal for Icy Cape mine exploration, and the board of trustees approved another $3 million for additional exploration activities. In 2017, the Authority’s management proposed draft legislation to its board of trustees to allow for the use of cash principal to purchase and develop real estate through the TLO and to ratify similar actions previously taken by the board. Public record provides no evidence that the Authority’s management or board of trustees considered the proposed statutory changes in context of the settlement. The audit concluded that proposed changes to the Authority’s statutes constitute a material change to statutes that present a substantial risk of provoking successful litigation to void the settlement agreement if the proposed changes become law. As part of this audit, an investment firm was hired to evaluate the Authority’s asset management policies for compliance with State investment law and industry best practices. The contractor concluded that the policies fall short in several areas including: lack of an entity-wide perspective that addresses all Trust assets; lack of guidance for the TLO’s commercial real estate investment program; and failure to provide a rationale for using the TLO as a real estate investment manager at the time the investment decisions were made. The audit concluded that the Authority’s board of trustees did not comply with the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, Open Meetings Act, and the Authority’s bylaws when conducting its business. Evidence showed that multiple trustees were, at times, intentionally trying to avoid discussing board business in a public manner. Other times, evidence showed the board failed to recognize the importance of or need for adhering to State laws when conducting and noticing its meetings. The review of Authority activities and relationships did not identify less than arm’s length transactions. However, the audit found several employee and trustee professional and personal relationships that created an appearance of related parties or increased the risk of fraud or abuse. The audit found no indication that Authority financial statements materially misstated TLO-managed assets. Findings and Recommendations The Authority board of trustees should stop investing in commercial real estate through the TLO, consult with the APFC on the treatment of commercial real estate investments acquired to date via TLO, and transfer the Trust Authority Development Account’s cash principal balance to the APFC. The Authority’s board of trustees should fund future program-related investment (PRI) activities from the Trust income account and reconstitute the APFC with cash principal used on PRIs to date. The Authority’s board of trustees should work with the Authority and TLO management to revise the Asset Management Policy Statement and Resource Management Strategy to incorporate industry best practices and facilitate compliance with State investment laws. The Authority’s board of trustees and chief executive officer should design and implement written procedures to ensure trustees comply with the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, the Open Meetings Act, and Authority’s …

Download3.2 MBAlaska Mental Health Trust Authority Asset Management and Other Select Issues2018
02-40018-18

Download10.6 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY 172018
08-30091-18

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) FY 17 Annual Report Why DLA Performed This Audit In accordance with AS 24.20.271(11), the audit evaluates the accuracy of RCA’s FY 17 annual report concerning statutory timelines, timeline extensions, and performance measures. This audit does not evaluate the effectiveness of RCA’s decisions. Report Conclusions RCA’s FY 17 annual report data for dockets, tariff filings, and statutory extensions was materially accurate. An analysis of case management system data and hard copy files concluded that the commission accurately reported its compliance with timeline requirements for utility, pipeline, and regulatory dockets; tariff filings; and statutory extensions. The audit confirmed the performance measures relating to docket and tariff filing timelines, informal complaints, and consumer outreach were materially accurate. Findings and Recommendations The audit makes no …

Download1.1 MBRegulatory Commission of Alaska FY 17 Annual Report2018
08-20112-18

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Marine Pilots Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit’s purpose was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2019, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes the board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing marine pilots and deputy marine pilots and approving trainees and apprentices. Board meetings were conducted in compliance with laws, investigations were processed timely, and the board actively changed regulations to improve the industry and better protect the public. The audit also concludes the board should improve the process for issuing foreign pleasure craft exemptions. Testing found exemptions were not consistently issued in accordance with regulations. Additionally, the audit found one pilot association was not appropriately tracking drug test notifications. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(10), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2019. We recommend that the legislature extend the boards’ termination date to June 30, 2027. Findings and Recommendations The board should ensure applicable documents are aboard foreign pleasure crafts in accordance with regulatory requirements. The board should ensure the Southeast Alaska Pilots’ Association improves its procedures for tracking drug test …

Download461.8 KBBoard of Marine Pilots2018
02-40016-16

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015 (Reissue) Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.1 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 15, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. The State of Alaska did not comply with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed, and the Procurement, Suspension and Debarment requirements applicable to the Distribution of Receipts to State and Local Governments program (DRSLG; CFDA 15.227) administered by the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. Failure to comply with these requirements resulted in material noncompliance for the DRSLG program. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its other major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial reporting and internal control over compliance. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 44 recommendations, of which 12 are unresolved issues from last year. Of the 44 recommendations included in this report, one is made to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and one to the University of Alaska whose audits were performed by other auditors. Also included in this year’s recommendations are eight recommendations made to the Department of Health and Social Services whose major federal programs were audited by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of federal program related prior audit recommendations not resolved as of June 30, …

Download13.1 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY 15 (Reissue)2018
08-20110-18

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Barbers and Hairdressers Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2019, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that the board operated in the public’s interest by effectively licensing the various occupations under the board’s purview. The board monitored licensees and worked to ensure only qualified individuals practice in Alaska. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(4), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2019. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, …

Download709.2 KBBoard of Barbers and Hairdressers2018
08-20113-18

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Nursing Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit’s purpose was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2019, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded the board served the public’s interest by conducting meetings in accordance with State laws, amending certain regulations to improve the nurse and CNA occupations, and effectively licensing nurses and CNAs. The audit also concluded that the board failed to serve the public’s interest by not adequately regulating the distance delivery of nursing services through technology, not adequately monitoring CNA training programs, and not notifying the appropriate entities when a licensee’s prescriptive authority was suspended, revoked, or surrendered. In addition, the audit found improvements were needed in the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) investigative process. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(14) the board is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2019. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date six years to June 30, 2025, which is two years less than the eight year maximum allowed per statute. The reduced extension is mainly due to the failure of the board to regulate the distance delivery of nursing services through technology and the board’s re-approval of CNA training programs without adequate review. Additionally, the board failed to address three of the four prior sunset audit recommendations. Findings and Recommendations The board should adopt regulations to address the distance delivery of nursing services through technology. The board should take steps to ensure the appropriate entities are notified when a licensee’s prescriptive authority is suspended, revoked, or surrendered. The DCBPL chief investigator should ensure nurse investigations are adequately documented and performed timely. The board chair should take steps to ensure the required certified nursing aid (CNA) on-site training program reviews and self-evaluations are conducted prior to reapproving the …

Download668.9 KBBoard of Nursing2018
10-30092-18

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Natural Resources, Matanuska Maid Select Property Disposal Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if applicable statutes, regulations, and best business practices were followed when disposing of the former MatMaid bottling property. The audit also determined whether sale proceeds were appropriately accounted for and reported. Report Conclusions The audit concludes that the Board of Agriculture and Conservation (board) and Division of Agriculture (division) staff adhered to the applicable laws when disposing of the MatMaid bottling property. Specifically, the board followed a public process and properly established terms and conditions for sale. Division staff maintained adequate property disposal files and department staff appropriately accounted for and reported the sale proceeds in the FY 17 Comprehensive Annual Financial …

Download645.7 KBMatanuska Maid Select Property Disposal2018
06-20115-18

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Health and Social Services, Statewide Suicide Prevention Council Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit’s purpose was to determine if there is a need for the council’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The council is set to sunset June 30, 2019, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit found the council operated in the public’s interest by actively broadening the public’s awareness of suicide prevention, and coordinating the efforts of other suicide prevention entities including State agencies, regional groups, coalitions, and local communities. Additionally, the council fulfilled its statutory duty by issuing the 2018-2022 Suicide Prevention Plan and working closely with stakeholders to add and refine the plan’s strategies, resources, and indicators. The audit also concluded that administrative improvements were needed to ensure council meetings are adequately public noticed and the executive director is consistently evaluated on an annual basis. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(7), the council is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2019. We recommend that the legislature extend the council’s termination date to June 30, 2027. Findings and Recommendations The council’s executive director should develop and implement procedures to ensure public notices for meetings are published timely and accurately. The council chair should develop and implement written procedures to ensure performance evaluations are completed annually for the council’s executive …

Download668.4 KBStatewide Suicide Prevention Council2018
08-20111-18

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Health and Social Services, Statewide Suicide Prevention Council Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2019, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes that the board operated in the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants. The board monitored licensees and worked to ensure only qualified individuals practiced in Alaska. Furthermore, the board was active in amending regulations to improve the industry. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(7), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2019. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date eight years to June 30, 2027. Findings and Recommendations The board president should take steps to correct a regulation error. DCCED’s Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s chief investigator, in consultation with the board, should implement controls to ensure the appropriate entities are notified when a licensee’s prescription authority is suspended or …

Download433.4 KBBoard of Dental Examiners2018
12-30084-17

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Public Safety, Alaska Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory , Select Issues Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit of the Crime Lab was requested, in part, to determine if the new crime lab facility had an impact on available forensic services and the extent services were outsourced. The audit evaluates whether evidence control procedures at the new facility are suitably designed to ensure the integrity of evidence, identifies the number of untested Sexual Assault Response Team kits stored at the Crime Lab, and documents backlogs for all services. The audit determines staff turnover and evaluates personnel practices. Lastly, the audit evaluates and verifies the accuracy of the Crime Lab’s performance measures. Report Conclusions The audit concludes that the new Crime Lab facility has not expanded the forensic services provided or reduced the process time for service requests. Despite the completion of the new Crime Lab facility, no additional forensic services have been added. Toxicology related to traffic offenses is the only forensic service consistently outsourced. The cost of outsourcing traffic-related offenses is partially covered by a federal grant. The audit was unable to evaluate the costs versus benefits of expanding the Crime Lab to provide additional forensic services due to a lack of cost data. A survey of law enforcement agencies identified a demand for additional forensic services, especially toxicology. The audit found that from July 2007 through April 2016, backlogs existed in most services; however, backlogs have been reduced in 2016. According to a survey of Crime Lab forensic scientists and technicians, the primary reason for backlogs has been a lack of forensic scientists. The audit identified that 20 forensic scientist and technician positions were vacant in excess of six months during the audit period. There were 122 Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) kits stored at the Crime Lab as of July 20, 2016. Of the 68 SART kits awaiting analysis by the Crime Lab, 74 percent were in backlog status (older than 30 days). The total number of untested kits maintained by law enforcement agencies statewide is unknown, as Crime Lab management lacks a method for tracking the number of kits distributed or used. The audit concludes that Crime Lab evidence control procedures do not adequately protect against evidence theft or loss. Furthermore, improvements are needed in building security and access controls to adequately protect sensitive areas of the Crime Lab. A comparison to national benchmarks was not possible; however, the audit provides processing information to help gauge productivity between fiscal years. Fifty-five percent of the forensic analysis service requests received between July 2015 and April 2016 were completed within 30 days. The audit concludes that performance measures were not accurately reported by Crime Lab management. Additionally, turnaround time from the date evidence was received by the Crime Lab to the date results were provided to the requesting agency was not tracked or reported. The audit also found unreliable information was used to calculate performance measures related to the DNA database. The Crime Lab experienced consistent staff turnover from July 2007 through April 2016. The turnover rate does not appear excessive except for the FY 10 rate showing that 44 percent of physical discipline forensic staff left the lab. Review of personnel practices found improvements were needed over staff supervision and hiring. Findings and Recommendations 1. DPS’ commissioner should ensure building security and evidence control procedures minimize the potential for evidence loss and theft. 2. The Crime Lab manager should develop policies and procedures to ensure access to the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) is granted based on users’ business needs. 3. The Crime Lab manager should develop and follow detailed written procedures to ensure all employees complete security clearance verification prior to accessing LIMS. 4. The Crime Lab manager should comply with policies and procedures over drug standards. 5. DPS’ commissioner should develop policies and procedures to ensure performance measures are accurate, relevant, complete, and based on an appropriate …

Download5.7 MBDPS Alaska Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, Select Issues2017
06-20098-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Health and Social Services,Alaska Health Care Commission Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a need for the commission’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The commission is set to sunset on June 30, 2017, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit found the commission failed to operate in the public’s interest by not developing a statewide health plan. The prior sunset audit dated May 6, 2013, concluded that, without a statewide health plan, the actions of the commission may not effectively impact health care in Alaska. The prior audit recommended the commission coordinate with DHSS on development of a plan and to clearly define roles and responsibilities of the commission. Subsequent to the audit, no significant progress was made towards development of an actionable plan. The commission has been inactive since July 2015 due to a lack of funding. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(9), the commission is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2017. We do not recommend extending the commission’s termination date. Findings and Recommendations There were no new recommendations as part of the current sunset …

Download1.1 MBDHSS Alaska Health Care Commission2017
02-40017-17

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $4.1 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Uniform Guidance. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 16, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial reporting and internal control over compliance. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 63 recommendations, of which 15 are unresolved issues from last year. Of the 63 recommendations included in this report, 11 recommendations are made to the Department of Health and Social Services whose major federal programs were audited by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of financial and federal program related prior audit recommendations not resolved as of June 30, …

Download10.4 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY 162017
08-20102-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Professional Counselors Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating professional counselors and certified counselor supervisors. The board monitors licensees and works to ensure only qualified individuals practice in Alaska. Furthermore, the board develops and adopts regulations to improve the professional counselor occupation. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(6), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2026. Findings and Recommendations All prior audit recommendations were resolved and there were no new recommendations as part of the current sunset …

Download415.9 KBBoard of Professional Counselors2017
08-20103-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Marital and Family Therapy Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating marital and family therapists and approving marital and family therapist supervisors. The board monitors licensees and works to ensure only qualified individuals practice in Alaska. Furthermore, the board develops and adopts regulations to improve the marital and family therapist occupation. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(11), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2026. Findings and Recommendations All prior sunset audit recommendations were either resolved or the issues still outstanding were considered insignificant. There were no new recommendations as part of the current sunset …

Download457.6 KBBoard of Marital and Family Therapy2017
08-20105-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Real Estate Commission Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if the commission should continue to exist and to what extent its termination date should be extended. The commission is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes the commission is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating real estate licensees and offices. The commission monitored licensees and worked to ensure only qualified individuals practice in Alaska. Furthermore, the commission developed and adopted regulations to improve the real estate industry and better protect the public. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(19), the commission is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend that the legislature extend the commission’s termination date to June 30, 2026. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s chief investigator should continue to improve oversight to ensure cases are actively investigated and completed …

Download564.7 KBReal Estate Commission2017
08-20106-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes the board is serving the public’s interest by certifying and licensing real estate appraisers. The board monitored certificate holders and licensees, and worked to ensure only qualified individuals were issued certificates and licenses in Alaska. Furthermore, the board developed and adopted regulations to comply with federal requirements, improve the real estate appraisal industry, and better protect the public. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(20), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2026. Findings and Recommendations Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) director should continue to improve administrative support to the board. DCBPL’s director, in consultation with the board, should reduce fees to address the …

Download1.1 MBBoard of Certified Real Estate Appraisers2017
08-20107-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concludes the board served the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating psychologists and psychological associates. The board monitored licensees and worked to ensure only qualified individuals practice in Alaska. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(18), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination to June 30, 2026. Findings and Recommendations Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) director, in consultation with the board, should reduce fees. DCBPL’s director should develop and implement procedures to ensure courtesy licensees comply with monthly reporting …

Download558.0 KBBoard of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners2017
08-20100-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Marijuana Control Board Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing marijuana establishments and developing and adopting regulations necessary to implement statutes that allow for the cultivation, manufacture, and sale of marijuana in Alaska. The audit makes four recommendations for operational improvements. In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(13), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2024. Findings and Recommendations The board members, Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO) director, and enforcement supervisor should work together to formally establish an enforcement plan to direct limited enforcement resources. The board and the AMCO director should implement a process to monitor and track complaints to ensure they are assessed for follow up action and investigated in a timely manner. The AMCO director should develop written procedures for establishing the expiration dates of marijuana handler permits and ensure staff receive the appropriate training. The AMCO director should develop and implement procedures to segregate the duties for calculating and remitting fees to local …

Download1.0 MBMarijuana Control Board2017
08-20109-17

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Massage Therapists Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2018, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In all areas except licensing, the audit found the board was operating in the public’s interest. In general, meetings were conducted effectively, investigations were appropriately processed, and the board actively issued or changed regulations to improve the industry and better protect the public. The audit concluded the board and DCBPL staff should improve its licensing procedures. Testing found that applicants were not consistently issued licenses in accordance with statutes, regulations, and/or procedures. Additionally, improvements are needed to comply with the federal standards over criminal history record information obtained as part of the licensing process. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(12), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2022. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) director, in consultation with the board, should take action to improve procedures to ensure licensure requirements are met. DCBPL’s director should address the Federal Bureau of Investigations audit findings and concerns.  The director of the Office of the Governor, Boards and Commissions should work to fill the public member …

Download515.0 KBBoard of Massage Therapists2017
04-30083-16

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department Of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development and Department Of Revenue Commercial Passenger Vessel (CPV) Tax Program Why DLA Performed This Audit In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development’s and the Department of Revenue’s Commercial Passenger Vessel Tax Program. Report Conclusions The State has received approximately $271 million of CPV tax receipts since the program began in 2007 through FY 15. Of those receipts, $99 million (37 percent) was distributed back to port communities as part of the shared tax program. Another $130 million (48 percent) was appropriated as grants to communities or other recipients, and $35 million (13 percent) was appropriated as grants to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Department of Natural Resources. The audit concluded that the CPV tax structure could allow CPV tax receipts to fall short of the amounts to be distributed. To date, CPV receipts have been sufficient to fund the amounts required to be distributed to port communities. However, significant increases to the number of passengers that visit a high number of ports would threaten the solvency of the CPV fund. The audit also concluded that shared tax revenues spent by communities to improve port facilities and harbor infrastructure were spent in compliance with State law. However, CPV funds expended by communities for services other than port facilities and harbor infrastructure often lacked the documentation necessary to verify the expenditures complied with State law. One instance was found where CPV shared taxes were spent on unallowable activities. Additionally, the unspent balance of shared taxes was determined to be reasonable based on community efforts to initiate or complete CPV projects. Furthermore, the audit concluded that unexpended CPV grants are supported by ongoing projects. However, the audit noted grants have been provided to ineligible recipients. Findings and Recommendations Municipality of Skagway Borough management should only use CPV shared tax revenues for allowable purposes. Ketchikan Gateway Borough management should ensure CPV shared tax revenues are only used for allowable purposes. City and Borough of Sitka management should ensure CPV shared tax revenues are only used for allowable …

Download4.0 MBDCCED DOR Commercial Passenger Vessel Tax2016
08-20094-16

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Veterinary Examiners Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2017, and will have one year from the date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The board is serving in the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating veterinarians and veterinary technicians. The board monitors licensees and works to  ensure only qualified individuals practice. Furthermore, the board develops and adopts regulations  to improve the veterinarian and veterinary technician occupations in Alaska. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(22), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2017. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2025. Findings and Recommendations 1. The board chair should review the annual report for accuracy and completeness before final submission to the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic …

Download285.3 KBDCCED Board of Veterinary Examiners2016
08-20095-16

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2017, and will have one year from the date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating certified direct-entry midwives and apprentice midwives. The board monitors licensees and works to ensure only qualified individuals practice. Furthermore, the board adopts regulations to improve the practice of midwifery. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(8), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2017. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2021. Findings and Recommendations 1. Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) management, in conjunction with the board, should increase licensing fees to eliminate the board’s operating deficit. 2. The DCBPL director should take steps to ensure license records are accurately recorded. 3. The legislature should consider alternate forms of regulating the midwifery …

Download814.5 KBDCCED, State Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives2016
08-20096-16

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors (board) Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit was to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2017, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The board is serving the public’s interest by effectively registering and regulating architects, engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects. The board monitors registrants and works to ensure only qualified individuals practice in Alaska. Furthermore, the board develops and adopts regulations to improve the architect, engineer, land surveyor, and landscape architect occupations. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(3), the board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2017. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2025. Findings and Recommendations All prior year recommendations were resolved and there were no new recommendations as part of the current sunset …

Download482.5 KBDCCED State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors2016
08-30087-16

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska FY 15 Annual Report Why DLA Performed This Audit In accordance with AS 24.20.271(11), the audit evaluates the accuracy of RCA’s FY 15 annual report concerning statutory timelines, timeline extensions, and performance measures. This audit does not conclude on the effectiveness of RCA’s decisions. Report Conclusions The Regulatory Commission of Alaska’s (RCA) FY 15 annual report data for dockets, tariff fi lings, and statutory extensions was materially accurate. An analysis of case management system data and hard copy files concluded that the commission accurately reported its compliance with timeline requirements for utility, pipeline, and regulatory dockets; tariff filings; and statutory extensions. The auditors confirmed the performance measures relating to docket and tariff fi ling timelines,informal complaints, and consumer outreach were materially accurate. Findings and Recommendations The audit does not make new recommendations and considers the prior audit recommendation …

Download420.1 KBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska FY 15 Annual Report2016
02-30082-16

SUMMARY OF: A Special Review of the Department of Administration (DOA), State Travel Office (STO) Why DLA Performed This Audit This audit of the State Travel Office was requested to determine whether centralizing travel procurement for the executive branch has resulted in effi ciencies and lower travel costs, to evaluate the relevance and reliability of reported travel information, and to make recommendations to reduce travel costs. This audit also evaluates whether the State has appropriately received their contractual discounts in airfare rates, and reports the status of prior STO audit recommendations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes centralizing travel procurement has reduced non-Medicaid travel costs and increased the efficiency of the procurement process. Non-Medicaid air travel costs were reduced in FY 15 by almost $700,000 through purchasing travel through the STO. Additionally, with minor exceptions, airfares tested as part of the audit reflected the correct contractual discount rates. Improving travel practices can further reduce State travel costs. The audit recommends revising travel policies to clearly communicate the expectation for advance purchase, enhancing the reporting of travel information to help reduce the expiration of air tickets, and limiting the number of agencies exempt from using the STO. The audit found discounted airfare rates reduced Medicaid airfare costs in FY 15, however the $1.9 million in booking fees charged by the State’s travel vendor significantly exceeded the savings of $990,000. It is the Department of Health and Social Services’ (DHSS) standard practice to purchase one of the most expensive types of airfare, the fully refundable class of airfare, for its Medicaid recipients in need of travel. Furthermore, the audit found 75 percent of the FY 15 Medicaid airfares were purchased less than seven days in advance of travel. Both of these actions increased DHSS travel costs. When evaluating Medicaid travel, the audit identified that $3 million in Medicaid airfare refunds were due the State; however, because of problems with the Medicaid system, DHSS has not been able to process those refunds. Improvements are needed to ensure the STO travel information is both relevant and reliable. The audit found important information was excluded from STO’s saving rate calculation and in STO’s monthly travel reports. Increasing the relevance and reliability of travel information may assist State agencies in actively managing travel costs. Two of the previous STO audit recommendations were resolved or no longer apply to current processes. Two prior recommendations to improve reporting of travel activity for management purposes have not been resolved. One prior recommendation for a statuary change is being worked on but has not been fully addressed.   Findings and Recommendations 1. DOA’s Division of Finance (DOF) director should revise the savings rate calculation methodology for airfare to ensure expenditures and revenues are appropriately included in the savings rate. 2. DHSS’ commissioner should revise procurement practices to reduce Medicaid travel costs. 3. DOA’s DOF director should collect the $3 million due from its travel contractor. 4. DOA’s DOF director should revise State travel policies to encourage advance purchase of airfares. 5. DOA’s DOF director should improve the reporting of travel activities. 6. DOA’s DOF director should reconsider agency STO …

Download1.1 MBDOA State Travel Office2016
45-30086-16

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the University of Alaska (UA) Travel Why DLA Performed This Audit The audit of the university’s travel was requested to identify potential savings and efficiencies. This audit reports travel expenditures, identifies opportunities for reducing costs and gaining efficiencies, provides recommendations to reduce the university’s travel expenditures, and provides a status of prior travel audit recommendations. Report Conclusions The university’s travel expenditures fluctuated between $22.1 million in FY 12 and $21.9 million in FY 14 with a significant decrease to $18.6 million in FY 15. According to management, the number of trips was intentionally decreased in FY 15 to contain costs. Further savings could be realized if UA implements changes recommended in this audit. A review of UA’s procurement practices found UA did not leverage its buying power and did not take advantage of the State’s contracts to achieve the best possible price for travel. Numerous State of Alaska contracts are available to the university that would help reduce travel costs. The audit estimates that the university could have reduced travel costs in FY 15 by $257,000 in airfares and $132,000 in car rentals if the State’s contracts had been utilized. Although the State’s airfare contracts were not utilized, the university did take advantage of savings offered through the Alaska Airlines EasyBiz program. In FY 15, the university redeemed 3.6 million EasyBiz miles for 234 tickets. Using the EasyBiz program reduced UA airfare costs; however, internal controls over EasyBiz mileage need improvement to ensure the efficient and authorized use of miles. The audit found UA’s travel scheduling and purchasing processes are decentralized with no single system used by all departments. The system-wide use of a travel booking tool and a single university credit card account would improve efficiency, transparency, and reduce costs. In FY 15, UA implemented a new electronic travel and expense management system. Despite its benefits, several University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) departments opted out of using the new system and did not realize the improved efficiency and transparency provided by the system. The audit identifies four opportunities to reduce costs. First, purchasing airfares 14 days in advance would allow travelers to take advantage of the best rates available. Second, requesting the government lodging rate would have reduced UA’s lodging expenses by an estimated $44,000 in FY 15. Third, denying reimbursement of avoidable lodging taxes would have saved approximately $167,000. Finally, using campus lodging in the summer months would reduce lodging costs. In the transactions tested, using campus lodging during summer months could have reduced lodging costs by $24,000 in FY 15. To be effective, travel policy changes recommended by this audit should be codified in the university’s travel regulations. The audit found improvements were needed in the review of travel transactions. Testing of 140 travel transactions processed in FY 15 found 23 instances of noncompliance with UA regulations. The errors affected transportation, lodging, and per diem, resulting in incorrect calculations or reimbursements, inadequate approvals, and lack of documentation.   Findings and Recommendations 1. UA’s chief financial officer (CFO) should implement a consistent system-wide accounting structure to record travel. 2. UA’s CFO should take full advantage of State of Alaska travel related contracts to reduce travel costs. 3. UA’s president should consider acquiring a booking tool to obtain discounts and improve management of travel. 4. UA’s president should establish regulations to improve internal controls over EasyBiz accounts and mileage. 5. UA’s president should require the travel and expense management system be implemented by all UAF departments. 6. UA’s president should consolidate the three UA-issued credit cards into a single corporate account and limit use of personal credit cards for travel. 7. UA’s president should improve travel regulations to reduce travel costs. 8. UA’s CFO should work with each campus’ management to improve the review of travel …

Download933.4 KBUA Travel2016
08-30073-16

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Regional Development Organizations Why DLA Performed This Audit An audit of the ARDOR program was requested in recognition of the significant changes to the State’s economic landscape since the ARDOR program was created in 1988. The audit evaluated whether the program has stimulated economic development in the different regions of the state, including if ARDORs were successful in meeting their established goals, and if economic development projects conducted by the ARDORs served the regional needs. Additional audit objectives included identifying ARDOR program costs, amounts granted to ARDORS, and ARDOR director and staff salaries; identifying duplication of activities between ARDORs and other economic development organizations; and determining the extent DCCED is helping ARDORs fi nd addition fundingand advance projects. Report Conclusions The audit concluded that ARDORs encouraged economic development in their respective regions; however, the economic benefit was indeterminable due to nonspecific goals and a lack of performance measures. The audit found ARDORs implemented State grant projects based on the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS), which outlined the economic priorities and needs for each region. These activities are in line with the legislative intent of the program; however, barriers to regional economic development remain. While there are numerous entities pursuing economic development in the state, ARDORs are the only entities within the State that collaborate with local communities and businesses to develop and maintain a regional CEDS. Furthermore, the audit determined that DCCED staff predominately managed the ARDOR program in accordance with legislative intent, statutes, and regulations. Recommended improvements to DCCED’s program administration are discussed in Recommendation 1. The need to update ARDOR regulations is discussed in Recommendation 2. State ARDOR program expenditures increased from $649 thousand in FY 08 to $956 thousand in FY 15. Throughout the audit period ARDORs successfully matched State ARDOR grants with private contributions, service revenues, and federal grant funds. ARDOR organization director and staff salaries typically reflect the size and complexity of the respective organizations. Findings and Recommendations 1. DCCED Division of Economic Development’s (DED) director should evaluate procedures to improve administration of the ARDORs program. 2. DCCED DED’s director should review ARDOR regulations to determine if updates are necessary to ensure program requirements are relevant and in line with current program …

Download966.5 KBDCCED Alaska Regional Development Organizations2016
02-40015-15

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2014 Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.1 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 14, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification, except for the Governmental Activities and General Fund financial statements which are qualified. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on the expenditures for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program services and related revenues as of June 30 2014. Medicaid information systems controls were not effective during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. (See Recommendation No. 2014-021.) We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the State of Alaska’s compliance with the Allowable Costs and Eligibility requirements applicable to the Medicaid Cluster and Children’s Health Insurance Program administered by the Department of Health and Social Services. (See Recommendation No. 2014-019.) Failure to comply with these compliance requirements resulted in a material weakness for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The State has substantially complied with applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its other major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 43 recommendations, of which 17 are unresolved issues from last year. Three of the 43 recommendations are made to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, one is made to the University of Alaska, and two are made to the Department of Environmental Conservation whose audits were performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities, and therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 14 statewide single …

Download8.2 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY 142015
02-30072-15

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Administration, Alaska Public Offices Commission Why DLA Performed This Audit In an effort to address concerns regarding the Alaska Public Offices Commission’s (APOC) performance, fairness, and integrity, an audit of the agency was requested. This audit examines and reports on the select APOC operations. Report Conclusions The audit concludes that APOC is operating within its statutory duties; however, operational improvements are needed. Implementing internal controls such as comprehensive written procedures and improving documentation will help promote fair and objective operations. The audit was unable to conclude as to the objectivity and fairness of APOC’s auditing process due to a lack of documentation. APOC’s audit process is made less objective by the agency’s inability to meet its statutory mandate to audit 100 percent of filings given that the determination of which filings to audit is left up to staff with no comprehensive written guidance. Comprehensive written procedures should be implemented to improve the audit process. (See Recommendation 1.) This report concludes that APOC’s methodology for assessing civil penalties is objective and defined in statute. However, mitigating factors used to reduce the penalty amount were not applied consistently. (See Recommendation 2.) The audit found that APOC experienced significant and consistent staff turnover during the six-year period 2009 through 2014. APOC management and the Commission took limited actions to address turnover. Complaint investigations, advisory opinions, and civil penalty assessment notices were not consistently issued within required timelines. Missed timelines were partially attributed to staff turnover. (See Recommendation 3.)   Findings and Recommendations APOC’s executive director, in consultation with the Commission, should develop and implement comprehensive written audit procedures. APOC’s executive director, in consultation with the Commission, should develop and implement comprehensive written procedures for the civil penalty assement and appeal processes. APOC’s executive director should consider automating certain workload tasks as a way to obtain efficiencies and meet …

Download5.6 MBDOA Alaska Public Offices Commission2015
06-20090-15

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Health and Social Services,Alaska Commission on Aging Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the commission’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. Currently the commission will terminate on June 30, 2016, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded that the Alaska Commission on Aging (commission) is serving the public’s interest by helping older Alaskans lead dignified, independent, and useful lives through advocacy, outreach, and education. Furthermore, the commission meets the federal requirement that each state establish an advisory council to advise the state on aging matters. We recommend that the commission’s termination date be extended eight years to June 30, 2024. Analysis of Public Need The commission has operated in the public’s interest by formulating and approving a comprehensive statewide plan — the State Plan for Senior Services. The plan identifies and addresses the concerns and needs of older Alaskans, and fulfills a federal requirement necessary to receive Administration on Aging grant funding. The commission has also operated in the public’s interest by serving as an advocate for, and educator on, the needs of older Alaskans. The commission submitted over 50 recommendations to the legislature and governor regarding legislation and appropriations for programs or services that benefit older Alaskans. Furthermore, the commission collaborated with several state and local organizations on commission projects including development of the State Plan for Senior Services and sponsoring educational and outreach events. The audit identified two operational changes that would allow the commission to better serve the public’s interests. Findings and Recommendations The commission’s executive director should implement and follow procedures to public notice all commission meetings. The commission’s chairperson should review and approve the legislation watch list prior to …

Download2.6 MBDHSS Alaska Commission on Aging2015
20-20092-15

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Corrections, Board of Parole Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the Board of Parole’s (board) continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2016, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded that the board is serving the public’s interest by acting as the parole authority for the State. As such, the board fulfills the constitutional requirement that the State establish a parole system. Additionally, the audit concluded that the board conducts its business in a professional and efficient manner. Although there are several operational improvements needed, the audit found a demonstrated public need for the board’s continuing operation. We recommend the board’s termination date be extended six years to June 30, 2022. Analysis of Public Need The board operated in the public’s interest by making parole decisions including granting and denying discretionary parole, authorizing parole revocations or rescissions, and establishing conditions of parole. These decisions were made in the context of both maintaining public safety as well as promoting cost-effective incarceration. The board actively worked towards achieving the following key objectives: Serving as the parole authority for the State by considering applications for discretionary and special medical parole as needed; Imposing parole conditions for offenders scheduled to be released from prison custody and providing for supervision of those offenders; Taking action against parolees who violate conditions of their release; and Suggesting changes to regulatory requirements administered by the board. Findings and Recommendations The board’s executive director should improve procedures to ensure required documentation for parole hearings is accurate and consistently included in parole files. The board’s executive director in coordination with Department of Corrections (DOC) management should implement documentation standards to ensure all offender and victim notifications are made in accordance with statutory requirements. The board should ensure proposed regulations address all statutory requirements related to its duties. DOC’s Administrative Services Division director should take steps to ensure the Alaska Corrections Offender Management System complies with state information technology security standards and national best …

Download703.6 KBDOC Board of Parole2015
08-20091-15

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Real Estate Commission Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a need for the commission’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The commission is set to sunset on June 30, 2016, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded that the Real Estate Commission is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing real estate brokers, associate brokers, and salespersons. The commission has worked to improve operations and industry practices by modifying and adopting regulations. We conditionally recommend the commission’s termination date be extended six years to June 30, 2022. If the commission does not obtain a master errors and omissions insurance policy by January 2016, we recommend an extension of no more than four years. The lack of a master policy essentially removes the insurance requirement from all real estate licensees, thereby exposing consumers to financial losses suffered as a result of errors and omissions in real estate transactions. Findings and Recommendations The commission’s chair and the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Administrative Services director should work together to procure a master errors and omissions insurance policy for real estate licensees.  The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s chief investigator should take action to ensure cases are actively investigated and completed …

Download734.7 KBDCCED Real Estate Commission2015
10-30079-15

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Natural Resources, Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Federal Areas Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of this audit was to determine if the commission has ably met its statutory mandate as established in AS 41.37. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded that the Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (commission) had met its statutory mandates and objectives by monitoring management plans for federal lands within Alaska and providing comments to decision makers concerning federal land management plans. The commission has operated in the public’s interest by reviewing federal land management plans for consistency with current laws and holding hearings on the effect of federal regulations and decisions within the State of Alaska. Furthermore, on behalf of Alaska citizens, the commission provides written comments to federal organizations concerning federal land management plans within the state. The commission submitted 62 comment letters during the audit period. Comment letters were directed to federal agencies, congressional delegations, state legislators, and the governor.   Findings and Recommendations The commission’s executive director should strengthen procedures to ensure public notice requirements are met. The commission’s executive director should implement procedures to ensure commission meeting minutes are recorded and …

Download784.9 KBDNR Citizens? Advisory Commission on Federal Areas2015
02-30080-15

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Alaska Agricultural and Fisheries Products Preference – Use by State Entities Why DLA Performed This Audit This audit was performed to determine whether the seven percent price preference designed to promote the purchase of Alaska agricultural and fisheries products is accomplishing its objective. Report Conclusions The Alaska agricultural and fisheries products preference does not significantly influence state entities’ decisions to purchase in-state products because food is rarely purchased directly from Alaska producers. State entities either purchase food products from wholesalers or through contracts with service organizations. To the extent in-state products are available, the audit recommends encouraging the purchase of in-state products through contractual requirements with wholesalers and service organizations. A survey of 12 state entities identified several factors that impede the purchase of Alaska agricultural and fisheries products directly from producers. Product availability is the most common barrier. Ordering and delivery systems also limit direct purchases from local producers. The audit reviewed the food procurement process and found that, with two exceptions, the Alaska agricultural and fisheries products preference was correctly applied in large procurements. The audit also found that three state entities incorrectly applied small procurement rules to large dollar food purchases. An evaluation of the Nutritional Alaskan Foods in Schools program, which offers grants to school districts for Alaska food product purchases, found the program was more successful at promoting the purchase of local products than the seven percent Alaska agricultural and fisheries products preference. Findings and Recommendations The Department of Administration’s chief procurement officer should promote the purchase of Alaska agricultural and fisheries products by educating and training state entities to include the seven percent preference in food-related contracts. The University of Alaska’s chief procurement officer should update procurement policies to include the seven percent Alaska agricultural and fisheries products price preference. The Department of Natural Resources’ administrative services director should use the formal large procurement solicitation process for Mt. McKinley Meat and Sausage Plant boxed meat purchases. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s administrative services director should use the formal large procurement solicitation process when aggregate Alaska Vocational Technical Center food expenditures are likely to exceed $100,000. The Department of Health and Social Services’ assistant commissioner should use the formal large procurement solicitation process when aggregate Division of Juvenile Justice food expenditures are likely to exceed …

Download2.1 MBDOA Alaska Agricultural and Fisheries Products Preference ? Use by State Entities2015
11-30081-15

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Why DLA Performed This Audit This audit was requested to determine whether efficiencies and cost savings could be achieved by consolidating CFEC within existing state agencies, while still meeting legislative intent for limited entry. Report Conclusions The audit concluded significant efficiencies could be achieved; however, efficiencies were not predicated on eliminating the agency and merging its functions with other state agencies. The audit recommends merging only the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission’s (CFEC) administrative functions with the Department of Fish and Game. There was no compelling reason to move its other functions. Alternately, $1.2 million of annual savings could be achieved by reorganizing CFEC and maintaining its status as an independent agency. The audit also concluded that, in general, its commissioners have not adequately managed CFEC’s daily operations. Two projects, the licensing system upgrade and the archival of agency documents, have not been prioritized or properly managed. Finishing these agency-wide projects would greatly improve workflow and allow for significant reductions in staff. Furthermore, the audit found that the agency’s workload no longer justifies full-time commissioner positions. The audit recommends: (1) hiring an executive director to manage daily operations and facilitate an agency-wide restructure; (2) prioritizing the completion of CFEC’s licensing system upgrade; and (3) properly managing the archival project. These three recommendations should improve operations and result in significant savings while maintaining an independent agency capable of responding to future needs.   Findings and Recommendations CFEC’s commission chair should hire an executive director to facilitate an agency-wide restructure to improve operational efficiency. CFEC’s commission chair should prioritize the licensing system upgrade to ensure it is completed in a timely manner. CFEC’s commission chair should ensure the archiving project meets agency needs and proceeds in a cost-effective …

Download9.1 MBDFG Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission2015
06-30077-15

SUMMARY OF: A Performance Audit of the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Alaska Pioneer Homes (DAPH) Why DLA Performed This Audit In an effort to address concerns over the costs of operating the Alaska pioneer homes, an audit of the agency was requested. This audit examines the division’s operating costs and effectiveness of cost containment efforts, DHSS’ Medicaid waiver rate setting methodology, and the status of the prior audit recommendations. The audit was also directed to compare the degree of care required by residents in privately-owned assisted living homes to the degree of care required by residents in pioneer homes. Report Conclusions This audit concludes that pioneer homes are heavily subsidized by the State’s general fund. Total general fund subsidy for the five-year period, FY 10 through FY 14, was $191.7 million. Monthly resident rates have not been reviewed for adequacy since FY 09. Except for pharmacy operations, the audit found a general lack of fiscal accountability in administering the pioneer homes and a lack of efforts toward containing costs. Efforts to collect accounts receivable were minimal, and staff did not have an accurate accounting of amounts owed by residents. The audit also found certain grants made to residents were not within DAPH’s statutory authority. Furthermore, pioneer homes residents were allowed to apply and receive general funded payment assistance without first applying for payment assistance through Medicaid. No formal analysis has been conducted to ensure staffing levels are reasonable and efficient. The methodology for establishing the proposed Medicaid reimbursement rate was reviewed and found to be consistently applied and capture all allowable costs. The prior 1999 pioneer homes audit report contained seven recommendations. Five of the seven recommendations were implemented or resolved. The prior recommendation regarding compliance with federal regulations in the handling of controlled substances was partially implemented. The pioneer homes’ pharmacist established procedures for tracking prescribed controlled substances, including those sent to each home. However, the Sitka Pioneer Home registered nurse has not complied with these procedures. The prior recommendation directing the DAPH director to select the most effective method of providing pharmacy services to residents was not addressed. However, audit fieldwork found no compelling reason to privatize pharmacy operations. The audit was unable to examine the degree of care required for residents in the privately-owned assisted living homes due to the confidentiality requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the lack of authority to examine the records of privately-owned homes. However, the audit did compare the average age of pioneer homes residents to the average age of residents of private assisted living homes with more than 17 beds. Pioneer homes residents’ average age was 86 years, compared to private homes residents’ average age of 80 years. Findings and Recommendations DAPH’s director should obtain assistance from DHSS’ Financial Management Services accountants to properly deploy QuickBooks so that it can correctly function as a subsidiary accounting system. DAPH management should allocate resources to actively pursue collection of past due amounts. DAPH management should enforce all requirements for the payment assistance program. DAPH’s director should discontinue unauthorized grants to pioneer home residents. DHSS’ commissioner should annually review the pioneer homes’ monthly rates. DAPH’s director should ensure all pioneer homes comply with the pharmacy’s policies for controlled …

Download274.7 KBDHSS Division of Alaska Pioneer Homes2015
08-20093-15

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development,Big Game Commercial Services Board Why DLA Performed This Audit The purpose of the audit is to determine if there is a need for the board’s continued existence and whether its termination date should be extended. The board is set to sunset June 30, 2016, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concludes the board has provided reasonable assurance that individuals licensed to guide and/or outfit hunts, as well as transport hunters to and from hunt locations, in Alaska are qualified to do so. Additionally, the board’s regulation and licensing of qualified guides, guide-outfitters and transporters benefited the public’s safety and safeguarded the state’s wildlife resources. In recognition that the board reported an operating deficit of over $1 million as of April 30, 2015, we recommend extending the board only three years under the condition that the board demonstrate the ability to address its deficit during the legislative sunset review process. The board believes proposed regulations that increase licensing fees and create new record processing fees will address its deficit by the end of FY 17. If the board fails to demonstrate the ability to address its operating deficit, we recommend it be considered for termination. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) director should ensure staff adhere to procedures designed to provide efficient and effective support to the board.  DCBPL’s director should take steps to improve the timeliness of investigations.  DCBPL’s director, in coordination with the board, should increase licensing fees to address the board’s operating deficit.  DCBPL’s director should ensure the transporter license renewal application form complies with …

Download443.6 KBDCCED Big Game Commercial Services Board2015
02-40014-14

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013 Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.3 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 13, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United   States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 13 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. The State of Alaska did not comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements applicable to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG; CFDA 93.667) administered by the Department of Health and Social Services. Failure to comply with FFATA reporting requirements resulted in a material weakness and material noncompliance for the SSBG program. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its other major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 53 recommendations, of which 20 are unresolved issues from last year. One of the 53 recommendations is made to Alaska Energy Authority whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 13 statewide single audit.         …

Download8.2 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY132014
08-20089-14

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, June 30, 2014 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development’s (DCCED) Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives (board). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the board’s continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(8), the board will terminate on June 30, 2015, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit concluded that the board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing certified direct-entry midwives (CDM) and apprentices. Furthermore, the board worked to improve the profession by modifying and adopting midwifery regulations to conform with current standards of care. The audit also concluded that Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) staff failed to operate in the public’s interest by not pursuing timely disciplinary sanctions related to four CDM investigations. We recommend the board’s termination date be extended only two years to June 30, 2017. The reduced extension recommendation is due to significant deficiencies by DCBPL staff in pursing disciplinary sanctions. Findings and Recommendations DCCED’s commissioner should take immediate action to pursue disciplinary sanctions for CDM cases when warranted. DCBPL, in consultation with the board, should increase licensing fees to eliminate the board’s operating deficit. The board should communicate certificate requirements to continuing education providers to facilitate compliance with centralized licensing regulations. The board should approve apprentice permit applications in accordance with statutes. …

Download680.8 KBDCCED Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives2014
04-30074-14

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Revenue, Oil and Gas Tax Audit Process, June 20, 2014 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) oil and gas tax audit process. This audit evaluates the effectiveness of DOR’s oil and gas production tax audit group (audit group) by comparing audit processes used for relevant tax structures and by comparing the current process to industry best practices. Impediments to the audit process were identified and recommendations for improvements were made. The audit also examined DOR staff’s professional qualifications and assessed whether resources were sufficient to address the audit backlog. Report Conclusions In summary, the audit concluded that under Petroleum Production Tax (PPT) and Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), fewer tax return audits were conducted, and audits took an average of 2.5 times longer to complete than under the Economic Limit Factor. Despite fewer completed audits, PPT and ACES audits continued to cover a significant portion of annual tax liabilities and resulted in $488 million in assessments for the 2006 and 2007 tax years. The audit found that oil and gas auditors were qualified to perform audit functions and auditors met the minimum education and experience requirements for their positions. However, productivity and effectiveness could be improved by implementing a formal training program. As of March 31, 2014, the audit group had a backlog of 55 tax return, 023 credit, and 025 credit audits. While DOR’s backlog of credit audits can be addressed by current resources, it is unclear if DOR will be able to address the backlog of tax return audits. DOR management is confident of its ability to address the backlog. However, our audit does not support management’s level of confidence. Given the number of planned audits and the impediments to the audit process identified as part of this audit, there is a risk that DOR will not be able to meet its audit mandate. This risk can be mitigated by implementing improvements to the audit process. Overall, the audit concluded that the audit group’s processes do not follow best practices applied by the auditing profession and other states in five areas: project management, risk assessment, materiality, audit documentation, and taxpayer communication. Implementing auditing best practices could improve DOR’s audit quality and timeliness. (See Recommendation No. 1.) The Tax Division is implementing the Tax Revenue Management System (TRMS) which could address several findings identified above. However, because the system is in the early development stages and the oil and gas production tax configurations have not been defined, the TRMS’ success in addressing these issues is difficult to predict. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Tax Division director should ensure the procedures for conducting oil and gas audits incorporate best practices. DOR audit and review procedures do not reflect auditing best practices in the following areas: project management, risk assessment, materiality, audit documentation, and taxpayer communication. Applying best practices may help the audit group comply with the statutory time limit by improving audit efficiency and …

Download1.4 MBDOR Oil and Gas Tax Audit Process2014
04-30076-14

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Revenue, Alaska Film Production Incentive Program, July 14, 2014 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Alaska Film Production Incentive Program (film credit program). This performance audit evaluates the Alaska Film Office’s (AFO) compliance with statutes and regulations in conducting the activities of the film credit program from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. The audit also provides the current status of recommendations from the prior two performance audits. Report Conclusions The audit concludes: Statutory dollar limits for the film credit program were not exceeded. Except for the statutory requirement to obtain names of the proposed cast, applications for qualification were approved or rejected in accordance with statutes. The related internal controls were found to be operating effectively. Final applications for film tax credits subject to the original statutory framework were approved in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. The related internal controls were found to be operating effectively. Except for the statutory requirement for film productions to include the AFO logo and required verbiage, final applications for film tax credits subject to the new framework were approved in accordance with applicable statutes. The related internal controls were found to be operating effectively.   Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Department of Revenue’s (DOR) AFO executive director should continue efforts to ensure qualification applications contain names of the proposed cast as required by statute. All 29 qualification applications approved since July 1, 2013, were examined to determine if the applications included names of the producers, directors, and proposed cast. Seven of the 29 qualification applications were incomplete in listing talent or persons highlighted in the film production. Recommendation No. 2 DOR’s AFO executive director and the film commission should ensure that film credit productions include the AFO logo and the required statutory verbiage. Film productions related to the two final applications approved after July 1, 2013, and subject to the new statutory framework did not include the AFO logo and the words “Filmed in Alaska with the Support of the State of Alaska” as required by …

Download928.3 KBDOR Alaska Film Production Incentive Program2014
08-20088-14

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, May 30, 2014 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development’s (DCCED) Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (board). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(1), the board will terminate on June 30, 2015, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that the board’s termination date should be extended. The board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating the manufacture, barter, possession, and sale of alcoholic beverages in Alaska. The board has demonstrated a need for its continued existence by protecting the general public through the issuance, renewal, revocation, and suspension of alcoholic beverage licenses. Protection has also been provided through investigations of suspected licensing violations and enforcement of the State’s alcoholic beverage control laws and regulations. We conditionally recommend that the board’s termination date be extended five years to June 30, 2020. If the marijuana voter initiative passes, we recommend a shorter extension of no more than three years as the initiative significantly expands the board’s duties. Findings and Recommendations The prior sunset audit included three recommendations. Two prior recommendations have been resolved, and the other has been partially resolved and is reiterated as parts of Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2. This report makes three new recommendations. The board’s director should ensure that all board meetings are properly published on the State’s Online Public Notice System. The board should notify local governing bodies of applications for new and transfer licenses within 10 days of receipt.  The board should issue catering permits in accordance with statutory requirements. The board should issue recreational site licenses in accordance with statutory requirements. The board should implement a process to monitor and track all complaints to ensure they are resolved in a timely …

Download3.7 MBDCCED Alcoholic Beverage Control Board2014
08-30075-14

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska FY 13 Annual Report, May 16, 2014 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska’s (commission or RCA) FY 13 annual report. Report Conclusions Overall, the audit found the commission accurately reported on the status of utility dockets, pipeline dockets, statutory extensions, and complaint resolution and consumer outreach performance measures. Data reported in the FY 13 annual report for tariff filings, regulatory dockets, and the timeline performance measure was not reliable due to errors in the underlying case management system data. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The RCA chair should continue to implement and enforce written procedures to ensure case management system data is consistent, complete, and accurately reflected in the annual report. RCA’s FY 13 annual report contains errors in tariff filing and regulatory docket information.  An examination of 75 of 318 tariff filings and two of 12 regulatory dockets open or opened during FY 13 found case management system data error rates of 21 percent and 50 percent respectively. Although commission management developed written procedures for entering tariff filing and docket data during FY 12, testing results showed procedures were not consistently applied. The data errors can be attributed to a lack of adequate training and documentation of data review and lack of ongoing quality …

Download2.7 MBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska, FY 13 Annual Report2014
02-30069-13

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Administration (DOA), Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), Select Procurement Issues, October 19, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of OPA. The audit objectives were to: Evaluate OPA’s compliance with state law when procuring professional services; Evaluate whether OPA’s professional service contracts were prudently administered; and Identify whether OPA’s professional service contactors were appropriately classified as contractors rather than as employees. Report Conclusions OPA has not complied with the State Procurement Code. From FY 06 through FY 12, over $17.8 million in state funds were paid for improperly obtained professional services. Additionally, OPA has not prudently administered its contracts. An evaluation of OPA’s contracts and invoices identified administrative deficiencies including: contract amendments that were not supported; contract prepayments that were not made in accordance with state rules; novations used incorrectly to increase contract amounts; and contract invoices that were not adequately supported. Additionally, OPA did not use the compensation requirements established in regulations. The deficiencies were caused by a number of factors including insufficient understanding of state laws by OPA personnel and inadequate oversight by DOA’s Division of Administrative Services (DAS) management. The deficiencies limited fair and open competition, led to overspending state resources, and increased the potential for fraud, waste, and abuse. OPA’s professional service contractors were appropriately classified as contractors rather than as employees. Findings & Recommendations DAS’ director should ensure that OPA professional services are obtained in accordance with state law. As a part of improvements, OPA management should not procure large contracts as they do not have large procurement authority. DAS’ director should ensure that OPA complies with small procurement rules. As a part of improvement, DAS’ director should consider limiting OPA’s small procurement authority until OPA personnel is sufficiently trained. DAS’ director should improve oversight of OPA’s contract administration to ensure compliance with the State Procurement Code and the Alaska Administrative …

Download1.9 MBDOA Office Public Advocacy Select Procurement Issues2013
08-20076-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Marine Pilots (BMP or board), November 5, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed BMP’s activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the board’s continued existence and if the board has been operating in an effective manner. This audit also addresses the recommendations made in the prior sunset audit. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(10), BMP will terminate on June 30, 2013, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that BMP’s termination date should be extended. Regulating and licensing qualified marine pilots benefits the public’s safety and welfare, and protects the marine environment. The board provides reasonable assurance that individuals licensed to pilot passenger and cargo ships in Alaskan waters are qualified. We recommend that the board’s termination date be extended to June 30, 2019. The board has successfully resolved many of the issues identified in the prior sunset audit. This report makes one new recommendation to improve BMP operational activities. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The marine pilot coordinator should improve administration of BMP operational activities. While the board has successfully resolved many of the issues identified in the prior sunset audit, current analysis of BMP operational activities showed administrative deficiencies regarding public meeting notifications, licensing documentation, and oversight of the pilot associations’ drug and alcohol …

Download644.4 KBDCCED Board of Marine Pilots2013
25-30068-13

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.4 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 12, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 12Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. All borrowing from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) was completely repaid in FY 10 and no borrowing activity from the CBRF occurred during FY 11 or FY 12. The State of Alaska did not comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements applicable to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG; CFDA 93.667) administered by the Department of Health and Social Services. Failure to comply with FFATA reporting requirements resulted in a material weakness and material noncompliance for the SSBG program. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its other major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 41 recommendations, of which 17 are unresolved issues from last year. One of the 41 recommendations is made to Alaska Energy Authority whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 12 statewide single …

Download6.9 MBDOT Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority- Knik Arm Crossing Project2013
02-40013-13

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.4 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 12, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 12Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. All borrowing from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) was completely repaid in FY 10 and no borrowing activity from the CBRF occurred during FY 11 or FY 12. The State of Alaska did not comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements applicable to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG; CFDA 93.667) administered by the Department of Health and Social Services. Failure to comply with FFATA reporting requirements resulted in a material weakness and material noncompliance for the SSBG program. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its other major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 41 recommendations, of which 17 are unresolved issues from last year. One of the 41 recommendations is made to Alaska Energy Authority whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 12 statewide single …

Download4.7 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY122013
12-20085-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Public Safety, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, May 21, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault’s (council or CDVSA) activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the council should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(5), the council will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The council is serving in the public’s interest by funding and monitoring Alaskan domestic violence and sexual assault response programs and prevention activities. Additionally, the council effectively served as the central coordinator for related services throughout the State. However, areas for operational improvements were noted as discussed in the Findings and Recommendations. CDVSA is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2014. We recommend the council’s termination date be extended eight years to June 30, 2022. Findings and Recommendations The council should address its statutory responsibility to consult with the Department of Health and Social Services to formulate standards and procedures as required by AS 18.66.300. The council’s executive director should implement written procedures to ensure public notices are posted timely. The council’s executive director should improve grant award and monitoring policies and …

Download792.7 KBDPS Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault2013
08-20084-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers, June 10, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers’ (board or BCREA) activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(19), the board will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that BCREA’s termination date should be extended. Regulating and licensing real estate appraisers benefits the public’s interest. The board provides reasonable assurance that individuals licensed as real estate appraisers are qualified. We recommend the board’s termination date be extended only four years to June 30, 2018, which is half of the maximum allowed in state law. The reduced extension is in recognition of the increase in the board’s federally mandated responsibilities. In the upcoming years, federal law requires the board to expand its regulation responsibilities to include appraisal management companies. The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) materially addressed the prior sunset audit recommendations; however, additional deficiencies were noted. This audit makes two recommendations to improve the administrative support to the board. Findings and Recommendations DCBPL’s director should continue efforts to improve the investigative case management system’s integrity and confidentiality. DCBPL’s director should take steps to improve administrative support to …

Download976.0 KBDCCED Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers2013
08-20083-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board, June 17, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board’s (board) activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine whether there is a demonstrated public need for the board’s continued existence and whether it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(16), the board will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that the board’s termination date should be extended. The board is protecting the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating physical therapists, physical therapy assistants, occupational therapists, and occupational therapy assistants. The board monitors licensees and ensures that only qualified individuals practice. Furthermore, the board develops and adopts regulatory changes to improve the physical and occupational therapy professions in Alaska. We recommend that the board’s termination date be extended to June 30, 2022. The prior sunset audit included one recommendation which has been resolved. This report makes one new recommendation to the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) to address various deficiencies in its investigations case management system. Findings and Recommendations DCBPL’s director should continue to improve the investigative case management system’s integrity and …

Download458.0 KBDCCED State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board2013
08-20082-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Marital and Family Therapy, June 19, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy (board or BMFT). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the board’s continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BMFT should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(11), the board will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that BMFT’s termination date should be extended. Regulating and licensing marital and family therapists benefits the public’s safety and welfare. The board provides reasonable assurance that individuals licensed as marital and family therapists are qualified. We recommend that the board’s termination date be extended four years to June 30, 2018, which is half of the eight-year maximum extension provided in Alaska Statutes. The reduced extension recommendation is mainly due to the board not fully addressing the prior sunset audit recommendation to pursue regulation changes that are necessary to protect the public’s interest. Although the board has initiated one regulatory revision, it has not addressed the need for distance therapy and distance supervision. Findings and Recommendations BMFT should develop a strategy to address the need for distance therapy and distance supervision. The Office of the Governor and BMFT should work together to fill vacant board seats in a timely …

Download851.8 KBDCCED Board of Marital and Family Therapy2013
08-20081-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Examiners in Optometry, June 30, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Examiners in Optometry (board or BEO). The purpose of this audit was to determine whether there is a demonstrated public need for BEO’s continued existence and whether it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(14), the board will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that the board’s termination date should be extended. BEO is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating optometrists. The board monitors licensees and ensures that only qualified individuals practice. The board also develops and adopts regulatory changes to improve the optometry profession in Alaska. We recommend that the board’s termination date be extended to June 30, 2022. The prior sunset audit included two recommendations which have been resolved. This report makes one new recommendation to the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL or division) regarding its investigative support to the board. Improvements are needed to address various investigative case management system deficiencies. Findings and Recommendations DCBPL’s director should continue efforts to improve the investigative case management system’s integrity and …

Download648.7 KBDCCED Board of Examiners in Optometry2013
08-20080-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, June 6, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the Board of Chiropractic Examiners’ (board or BCE) activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the board’s continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BCE should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(5), the board will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that BCE’s termination date should be extended. The board is protecting the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating chiropractors. BCE monitors licensees and ensures that only qualified individuals practice. Furthermore, the board develops and adopts regulatory changes to improve the chiropractic profession in Alaska. We recommend that the board’s termination date be extended eight years to June 30, 2022. The prior sunset audit included one recommendation which has been resolved. This report makes two new recommendations for improving board operations. Findings and Recommendations The Office of the Governor should make board appointments in compliance with statutory requirements. The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s director should continue efforts to improve the investigative case management system’s integrity and …

Download843.9 KBDCCED Board of Chiropractic Examiners2013
08-20079-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, July 19, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the Regulatory Commission of Alaska’s (commission or RCA) activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the commission should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(3), RCA will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, RCA is operating in the public’s interest. In our opinion, the commission fulfills a public need and is serving Alaskans by: Assessing utility and pipeline companies’ capabilities for safely serving the public; Evaluating regulated entities’ tariffs and charges; Verifying charges passed through to consumers from electric and natural gas utilities; Adjudicating disputes between ratepayers and regulated entities; and Providing consumer protection services. We recommend the legislature extend RCA’s termination date until June 30, 2022. Although the commission partially addressed case management system data deficiencies noted in the audit of RCA’s FY 11 annual report, continuing deficiencies were noted and further improvements are recommended. We also recommend the legislature consider clarifying the statutory timeline for rulemaking proceedings. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 RCA’s chair should improve and enforce written procedures to ensure case management system data is accurate, consistent, and complete. Although RCA management developed written procedures for tariff filing and docket data entry during FY 12, testing results showed procedures were not consistently applied. The data errors can be attributed to a lack of adequate training and documentation of data review, and a lack of ongoing quality reviews to ensure case management system data is accurate, consistent, and complete. Recommendation No. 2 The legislature should consider clarifying AS 42.05.175(e) to ensure RCA fulfills legislative intent when processing regulatory dockets. The legislature should consider clarifying AS 42.05.175(e) to ensure RCA fulfills legislative intent when processing regulatory dockets. Currently, RCA interprets AS 42.05.175(e) to allow for two separate dockets during the regulatory process. If the legislature intends the entire regulatory deliberative process to be subject to the 730-day timeline, the legislature should consider clarifying Alaska …

Download1.2 MBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska2013
06-20086-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Health and Social Services, Alaska Health Care Commission, May 6, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Alaska Health Care Commission (commission). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the commission should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(9), the commission will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the commission is operating in the public’s interest, but improvements in the development of a statewide health plan are needed to justify its continued existence. Without a statewide health plan, the actions of the commission may not effectively impact health care in Alaska. (See Recommendation No 1.) Deficiencies related to public notices and annual reports were also noted. (See Recommendation Nos. 2 and 3.) We recommend the commission’s termination date be extended three years to June 30, 2017, to provide adequate time to develop a statewide health plan. Findings and Recommendations The commission should coordinate with DHSS’ commissioner to identify each agency’s roles and responsibilities regarding developing a statewide health plan and pursue development accordingly. The commission chair should implement a policy to utilize DHSS public noticing procedures for commission meetings. The commission chair should implement procedures to ensure annual reports include all statutorily required …

Download2.0 MBDHSS Alaska Health Care Commission2013
10-30071-13

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources, Agriculture Revolving Loan Fund, Selected Issues, June 24, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Agriculture Revolving Loan Fund (fund or ARLF). The purpose of this audit is to examine the fund’s performance and administration and compare fund administration to other loan programs and industry best practices. The goal of the evaluation is to identify how the fund’s performance could be improved and how efficiencies could be gained with an emphasis on whether the fund should be administered by a different state agency. Report Conclusions We conclude that ARLF’s fiscal condition is the result of agricultural policy decisions made over the past 30 years by executive and legislative branches of government. Many lending and management decisions were made in favor of supporting the agricultural industry over maintaining the fund’s fiscal health. Since inception, ARLF’s fund equity has declined by 69 percent, and it annually loses over $118,000 from operating Mount McKinley Meat and Sausage Company (MMM&S). Although ARLF’s default rate was found to be reasonable at the program level when compared to other agricultural loan programs, the audit identified numerous administrative deficiencies that, if not corrected, will likely contribute to future losses. Examples of deficiencies include ineffective and inefficient processes for loan evaluation and approval, property management, and loan management. Additionally, this audit found regulations do not promote fiscally responsible decisions on a consistent basis. Our review of comparable loan programs found that boards similar to the Board of Agriculture and Conservation (BAC) are not commonly used for lending decisions. It is more common for lending decisions to be made by professional lending staff or by a committee with lending expertise. Based on administrative deficiencies and opportunities for increased efficiency, we conclude that moving ARLF administration and loan decisions to the Division of Economic Development may improve the loan program’s efficiency and effectiveness, and help ensure the fund’s future solvency. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The legislature should consider moving the ARLF administration to the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development’s Division of Economic Development. Report conclusions outline examples of deficiencies in the Division of Agriculture’s processes for evaluating and approving loans, managing property, and managing loans. Decisions to promote agriculture and support Alaskan farmers through the use of ARLF assets have not always been fiscally prudent. While BAC diligently works to serve the agricultural industry, improvements have not effectively eliminated the types of deficiencies noted in the audit. Recommendation No. 2 ARLF administrators should revise ARLF’s regulations to promote industry best practices. ARLF’s regulations do not promote consistent fiscally responsible decisions. Specifically, regulations do not include criteria for approving loans and do not provide sufficient guidelines for evaluating collateral. Recommendation No. 3 ARLF administrators should pursue disposal of business properties and revise property leasing rates to provide a return on ARLF assets. ARLF currently owns two active business properties, the MMM&S and the Alaska Farm Cooperative (cooperative). Operating businesses such as the MMM&S and the cooperative is not within ARLF’s statutory authority. ARLF’s statutory purpose is to promote more rapid development of agriculture as an industry by means of long-term low-interest …

Download2.4 MBDNR Agriculture Revolving Loan Fund, Selected Issues2013
10-20087-13

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission, September 19, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (commission or ASHSC). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the commission’s continued existence and if the commission has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the commission should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(8), the commission will terminate on June 30, 2014, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, we conclude the commission is operating in the public’s interest, but improvements are needed to increase effectiveness. During the audit period, the commission served the public’s interest by issuing eight seismic hazards mitigation recommendations. As the State’s designated seismic hazard mitigation advisory commission, the ASHSC relies on other organizations to implement recommended actions. Six recommendations were issued to the State and legislature, and two were issued to other entities. The commission also gathered, analyzed, and disseminated information and assisted with seismic hazards safety mitigation training efforts. The audit identified several areas for operational improvements. (See Recommendation Nos. 1 through 4.) Recommendations include improving strategic planning documents; replacing chronically absent commission members; filling vacant positions in a timely manner; and ensuring commission recommendations identify the required actions and organizations responsible for implementation. Findings and Recommendations The commission should improve prioritization and accountability within its strategic planning documents. The commission should recommend replacing habitually absent members in a timely manner. The Office of the Governor and the commission should work together to fill all commission vacancies in a timely manner. The commission should ensure recommendations clearly identify the organization responsible for implementing an action and the action to be …

Download1.6 MBDNR Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission2013
02-30070-13

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Administration, Alaska Land Mobile Radio Communications System, September 13, 2013 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Alaska Land Mobile Radio (ALMR) Communications System (system). The purpose of the audit is to report on the ALMR system’s use and degree of interoperability. The audit also identifies system expenditures and funding needs; assesses the condition of the divested assets; identifies ALMR functions required by law; and evaluates the reasonableness of the ALMR feasibility study. Report Conclusions Based on our audit, we conclude there are no federal or state laws that require the State of Alaska to have an interoperable communication system. However, there are federal and state directives that provide guidance for such systems. During 2012, ALMR assets at 41 sites were transferred from the Department of Defense (DoD) to the State. Prior to accepting the transferred assets, Department of Administration (DOA) and DoD representatives conducted an inventory of the assets. Based on the inventory, ALMR assets were determined operational, and $120,000 of upgrades were identified. As a result of the transfer, DOA’s annual budget increased by $1.5 million to operate and maintain the transferred assets. All ALMR system users could not be surveyed as part of this audit, in part, because ALMR management and user agencies do not adequately track equipment. Instead, ALMR system user agencies were surveyed. Survey respondents believed the system provides interoperable communications, but noted certain limitations. Limitations include: (1) the ALMR system does not provide coverage to all areas of the State, and (2) the ALMR system was not always available when needed. Survey respondents also commented on limitations with their handheld radio range and reception. In February 2012, the legislature directed DOA to recover a portion of ALMR costs from federal agencies. In FY 14, a cost share agreement was implemented that requires DoD to reimburse DOA’s Division of Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) for the cost of operating ALMR based on the percentage of ALMR sites owned by DoD. Federal non-DoD agencies are required to reimburse ETS based on system usage. According to DOA management, state agencies, local governments, and nonprofits do not reimburse ETS for their respective ALMR system usage. An ALMR feasibility study, conducted by DOA through a contractor, generally addressed legislative intent. The study identified the State of Alaska as the main funding source for operating and maintaining the system. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The ALMR Executive Council should ensure user agencies conduct an annual inventory of ALMR equipment. Due to a lack of oversight by the ALMR Executive Council and user agencies, an annual inventory of ALMR user agency equipment was not performed by either ALMR management or user agencies. Over half of ALMR user agencies (68 of the 120) stated they do not track ALMR equipment numbers and user names. As a result, there is an increased risk of unauthorized use or monitoring of the ALMR system.       …

Download1.3 MBDOA Alaska Land Mobile Radio Communications System2013
02-40012-12

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.5 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related United States Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statements of the State of Alaska for FY 11, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 11 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. All borrowing from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) was completely repaid in FY 10 and no borrowing activity from the CBRF occurred during FY 11. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs; none of the recommendations are considered material weaknesses. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 35 recommendations, of which eleven are unresolved issues from last year. One of the 35 recommendations is made to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 11 statewide single …

Download4.1 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY112012
10-30064-12

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the University of Alaska (UA), and the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Virus Free Seed Potato Project, March 2, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a special audit of the State’s Virus Free Seed Potato Project (seed project). The audit reports on the seed project’s financial activities and determines if the seed project provides a positive monetary or non-monetary return to the State or private entities. Additionally, the audit determines whether continued state involvement in the seed project will yield positive returns and whether seed potato funding has been used for essential state services. Report Conclusions This audit concludes that no significant monetary or non-monetary returns are being received by the State or private entities as a result of certifying seed potatoes for international export. The export market is stagnant, the number of acres used to grow seed potatoes is not large and the acreage has not increased. Furthermore, seed potato exports have not provided a positive return in terms of regulation costs compared to revenue generated by export sales. These factors are not expected to change. Consequently, the continued use of state resources to certify seed potatoes for international export will act as a subsidy for seed potato farmers. The report conclusions, as they relate to export certifications, should not be interpreted as negating the necessity for state certification. Inspections and certifications of seed potatoes have been conducted by the State since the mid-1960s to reduce the risk of disease. This audit does not conclude that continued state certification of seed potatoes is unwarranted or unnecessary. Whether or not regulation of seed potato crops is an essential state service is subjective and depends on the definition of essential. Diseased seed potatoes may create significant economic losses for producers; however, they do not result in illness or loss of human life. The agriculture industry views the inspection and certification process as essential to the success of the industry. Detailed conclusions regarding seed project funding, expenditures, administration, and monetary and non-monetary returns are listed below. A total of $5.5 million in state and federal funds have been appropriated for the seed project from FY 95 through December 2011. Of the total, $3.4 million (62 percent) were state funds and $2.1 million (38 percent) were federal funds. Seed project expenditures totaling $3.4 million from FY 05 through December 2011 were reasonable and necessary to carry out the purpose of the project. Expenditure activity includes state certification and export certification costs. The only significant UA facility used for the seed project has been the Plant Pathology and Biotechnology Laboratory. UA charged indirect cost rates as part of seed project grants and agreements. The seed project has resulted in minimal monetary returns to the State and private enterprises. Non-monetary returns associated with the seed project include expanding Alaska’s international market relations and expanding the knowledge base of seed potato diseases. Both of these non-monetary returns may yield benefits to the State of Alaska over the long-term. Export certification funding has provided a subsidy to growers. Without significant changes, future state funding for export certification will continue to be a subsidy to potato growers. Findings and Recommendations There were no findings or recommendations for the virus free seed potato project …

Download577.4 KBDOR-UA-DCCED Virus Free Seed Potato Project2012
08-30065-12

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) and the Department of Revenue (DOR), Alaska Film Production Tax Incentive Program (AFPTIP), Financial Compliance, February 29, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a financial compliance audit of the AFPTIP. The AFPTIP is administered by DCCED’s Alaska Film Office (AFO) in cooperation with DOR’s Tax Division. The primary objectives of the audit were to: Identify Alaska Film Production Tax Credits (film tax credits) issued and redeemed by fiscal year, and determine whether the total film tax credits issued have exceeded the statutory cap of $100 million. Determine whether film tax credits were made available to qualified producers and whether the AFO appropriately approved productions after determining the productions were not contrary to the State’s best interests. Determine whether film tax credits were correctly calculated in accordance with AS 44.33.235(b)-(c) and (g) and whether producers spent a minimum of $100,000 in qualified expenditures in an agreed upon 24-month period as supported through verification by an independent certified public accountant (CPA). Determine whether film tax credits were used within three years of being issued to exclusively offset corporate income taxes. Report Conclusions The AFO and Tax Division generally adhere to film tax credit approval, issuance, and redemption statutes and regulations when administering the AFPTIP. Film tax credits are made available to qualified producers, are properly calculated using qualified expenditures, and are appropriately approved. The approved film tax credits included $100,000 or more of qualified expenditures that weregenerally incurred within the qualified 24-month expenditure period. Total film tax credits issued have not exceeded $100 million, and all redeemed AFPTIP credits have been used within three years of being issued to offset corporate income taxes. Detailed schedules of prequalified productions and approved film tax credits are included in the report as Appendices A and B respectively. Although state agencies materially complied with AFPTIP approval, issuance, and redemption statutes and regulations, areas for improvement were identified in the approval and redemption processes. Findings and Recommendations DCCED’s Division of Economic Development director and AFO development specialist should develop clear and measurable criteria to support best interest determinations. The AFO development specialist should ensure that expenditures reported as reviewed by a CPA are within the 24-month qualifying period. The AFO development specialist should ensure that the names of the director and proposed cast are included in the prequalification application as required by statute. The Tax Division director should improve procedures for tracking and reporting the use of tax …

Download542.7 KBDCCED-DOR Alaska Film Production Tax Incentive Program Financial Compliance2012
08-30067-12

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA or commission), FY 11 Annual Report, May 23, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with AS 24.20.271(10), we audited the information in the RCA’s FY 11 annual report. The audit specifically addressed the accuracy of statutory timeline, timeline extension, and performance measure data. This report does not conclude on the effectiveness of RCA’s decisions or its measures. Report Conclusions The commission accurately reported on regulatory docket timelines and statutory timeline extensions. However, the data on tariff filings, utility and pipeline dockets, and performance measures is unreliable or not reported accurately. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 RCA’s chair should implement and enforce written procedures to ensure that case management system data is accurate, consistent, and complete. The commission continues to have unreliable data in the annual report. The reliability issues have resulted from inaccurate and incomplete case management system data. Data errors can be attributed to a lack of: written guidance, adequate training, and ongoing quality reviews necessary to ensure case management system data is entered and maintained accurately, consistently, and …

Download453.9 KBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska FY11 Annual Report2012
06-20074-12

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Health and Social Services, Statewide Suicide Prevention Council (council), June 4, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the council. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the council’s continued existence and if the council has been operating in an effective and efficient manner. As required byAS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the council should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(7), the council will terminate on June 30, 2013, and have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Overall, the council is operating in the public’s interest. The council actively seeks to broaden the public’s awareness of suicide as well as coordinates the efforts of other suicide prevention entities throughout the state. We recommend the council’s termination date be extended to June 30, 2019. The council has experienced notable improvements since its organizational alignment with the Alaska Mental Health Board (AMHB), and the Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (ABADA). The AMHB and ABADA executive director’s leadership as well as staff support under the new structure are significant factors in the council’s improvements. While the council’s current organizational structure has proven beneficial, there is no formal agreement in place to ensure the executive director’s time and abilities will continue to be shared effectively between AMHB, ABADA, and the council. Findings and Recommendations The council should, in accordance with statute, appoint its own coordinator and conduct annual performance reviews. The council should monitor meeting attendance and inform the Office of the Governor of poor member attendance. The council should develop and monitor performance measures that support statutory duties and annually report …

Download1.5 MBDHSS Statewide Suicide Prevention Council2012
41-20075-12

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Alaska Court System, Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association (board), July 11, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the board. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(2), it will terminate on June 30, 2013 and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions We conclude that the board’s termination date should be extended. The board, through the Alaska Supreme Court, protects the public by ensuring that persons licensed to practice law are qualified. It also provides for complaint investigation and has established a disciplinary process designed to promote competence and professionalism in licensed individuals. We recommend that the board’s termination date be extended to June 30, 2021. One recommendation was made to increase continuing legal education (CLE) for attorneys. CLE contributes to lawyer competence and benefits the public and the profession by ensuring that attorneys remain current regarding the law, the profession’s obligations and standards, and the management of their practices. Findings and Recommendations The board should recommend to the Alaska Supreme Court that mandatory minimum CLE for attorneys be …

Download807.8 KBACS Board Governors of the Alaska Bar Association2012
05-20073-12

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED or department) and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Special Education Service Agency (SESA or agency), June 22, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed SESA activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether SESA should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(6), SESA will terminate on June 30, 2013, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, SESA meets a valid public need by: (1) assisting school districts in providing students affected by low incidence disabilities (LID) an education that meets their unique needs; (2) affording opportunities to enhance the capabilities of school district teachers and paraprofessionals; and (3) providing LID and special education resources. We recommend the legislature extend SESA’s termination date until June 30, 2021. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 DEED’s special education director and SESA management should collaborate to ensure SESA is operating and funded as intended by the legislature. DEED management has not actively assessed SESA activities and funding to ensure that the department and the agency are fulfilling legislative intent by providing appropriate services to children affected by LID. DEED management did not fulfill their oversight responsibility and effectively collaborate with SESA. Recommendation No. 2 SESA’s board president should revise board policies and procedures to improve SESA oversight and accountability. SESA’s board did not provide adequate oversight of certain SESA activities. Specific areas include: Lack of oversight of employee-related contracts. Lack of administrative ethics policies. Inadequate public notice of board meetings. Board work meetings are not publicly noticed or documented. Auditor’s Comments SESA’s organizational structure has created confusion regarding the oversight responsibility for funding and monitoring SESA’s LID Outreach Program. The confusion is rooted in SESA’s status as a nonprofit corporation with several oversight entities. Statutes designate DHSS’ Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education (council) as SESA’s governing entity. However, the council does not have budgetary authority over SESA. As a component of special education, SESA’s LID program is funded through DEED as required by statute. Additionally, SESA’s corporate bylaws designate a separate governing board that is made up of no less than five and no more than seven council members. Bylaws also designate DEED’s special education director as a SESA board member. The organizational structure has led to confusion and conflicting opinions regarding which entity is responsible for SESA’s budget and operational oversight. The council does not pursue increasing SESA’s LID program funding through the budgetary process because SESA is statutorily funded by DEED. DEED management does not consider itself authorized to monitor or increase funding for SESA’s LID program because SESA reports to the council. The legislature should consider evaluating statutes relating to SESA to clarify oversight …

Download1.4 MBDEED and DHSS Special Education Service Agency2012
08-30066-12

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) and the Department of Revenue (DOR), Alaska Film Production Tax Incentive Program (AFPTIP), Select Performance Issues, August 8, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the AFPTIP. The AFPTIP is administered by DCCED’s Alaska Film Office (AFO) in cooperation with DOR’s Tax Division. The primary objectives of the audit include: identifying the AFPTIP’s economic impact in Alaska, determining whether the AFO’s application review and approval process adequately protects the State’s interests, evaluating the extent to which the AFO is meeting its statutory duties, and determining whether a production tax credit is the most cost effective method for incentivizing film production activity in Alaska. Report Conclusions The AFPTIP has generated a net positive economic impact in the State. An AFPTIP economic impact study for the period July 2008 through February 2012 indicates direct spending from AFPTIP approved productions has generated $2 in economic output for every $1 in Alaska Film Production Tax Credits (tax credits) issued. While the study highlights a net positive economic impact, the AFPTIP does not generate tax revenues sufficient to pay for credits issued. Additionally, a significant amount of program benefits are realized outside Alaska. The AFO’s eligibility and application review is adequately designed to ensure the State’s best interests are reasonably protected. However, improvements are needed. Necessary improvements include developing written criteria for evaluating whether a production is not in the State’s best interests, and strengthening residency verification and documentation requirements to ensure the State is provided the information necessary to adequately review and approve credit calculations. Except for certifying internship programs, the AFO is meeting its statutory program responsibilities. The AFO is promoting Alaska as a viable film location, cooperating with private entity organizations, and providing production assistance. Although identified as one of its statutory duties, the AFO has not yet certified any internship programs. Whether the AFPTIP, as compared to other states, is the most cost effective method for incentivizing the film industry cannot be determined. The significant variations in design of film production incentive programs and differences in state tax structures make comparisons between states problematic. Available impact analysis reports of other states’ programs indicate that all film production incentive programs create positive economic impacts while in operation. Findings and Recommendations The AFO development specialist should strengthen qualified expenditure documentation requirements to ensure tax credit calculations are adequately supported. DCCED’s Division of Economic Development director should consider amending AFPTIP regulations to more clearly define Alaska residency and provide CPAs a more effective method of verifying expenditures claimed as resident wages. The AFO development specialist should strengthen procedures for collecting and reporting Alaska employment data to ensure reliable information is available for program evaluation. The AFO development specialist should develop film production internship training program certification …

Download2.0 MBDCCED-DOR Alaska Film Production Tax Incentive Program Select Performance Issues2012
08-20078-12

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State Medical Board(board), September 18, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the board. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating effectively. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(12) states the board will terminate on June 30, 2013. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Our audit objectives were as follows. Determine if the board’s termination date should be extended. Determine if the board is operating in the public’s interest. 3. Determine if the board has exercised appropriate, regulatory oversight of osteopaths, podiatrists, physicians, physician assistants, and paramedics. Provide a current status of recommendations made in prior board-related audits. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the board is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating osteopaths, podiatrists, physicians, physician assistants, and paramedics. The board is also serving the public’s interest by monitoring the profession and ensuring only qualified individuals are licensed to practice medicine. The board is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2013. We recommend the board’s termination date be extended seven years to June 30, 2020. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) director should continue to address deficiencies in the investigative case management system. DCBPL’s director should implement procedures to ensure board disciplinary actions are reported in accordance with state and federal law. DCBPL’s director should ensure continuing medical education reviews comply with state …

Download864.9 KBDCCED State Medical Board2012
08-20077-12

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Public Accountancy (BPA or board), June 1, 2012 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed BPA activities. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the board’s continued existence and if it has been operating effectively. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(1) states the board will terminate on June 30, 2013. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BPA should be reestablished. Our audit objectives were as follows. Determine if the board’s termination date should be extended. Determine if the board is operating in the public’s interest. Determine if the board has exercised appropriate, regulatory oversight of certified public accountants (CPA) and licensed public accounting firms. Provide a current status of recommendations made in prior board-related audits. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the board’s termination date should be extended. BPA is serving the public’s interest by effectively licensing and regulating CPAs. The board is also serving the public’s interest by monitoring the profession and ensuring only qualified individuals practice as CPAs. BPA is proactive in shaping the future of the accounting profession through member participation on national committees which set professional standards. Furthermore, the board successfully developed and adopted regulatory changes to improve the public accountancy profession in Alaska. The board is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2013. If no action is taken by the legislature, BPA will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. We recommend the board’s termination date be extended eight years to June 30, 2021. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (division) director should continue to address deficiencies in the investigative case management system. The division has taken steps to address previously noted findings; however, deficiencies in the case management system remain. A review of BPA cases found key information, such as priority codes, case open dates, and resolution codes, was missing from the case management system. Additionally, two cases were listed as open on the system for over a year beyond their actual closure dates. The noted deficiencies hamper the division’s ability to provide adequate investigative support to the …

Download595.1 KBDCCED Board of Public Accountancy2012
08-30060B-11

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP), Part 2, December 29, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit to determine: (1) whether regulatory changes in 11 AAC 112 and 114 limit the establishment of district enforceable policies and whether this limitation is consistent with legislative intent and state law; (2) whether DNR is properly implementing the local concern requirement; (3) whether the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) carveout is being implemented in accordance with legislative intent and how it has affected the scope of the ACMP’s consistency reviews; (4) whether changes to the statewide standards limit the ACMP’s ability to meet the its objectives; (5) whether changes to the ACMP have diminished the State’s rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA); (6) whether DNR is operating the program openly and transparently, whether DNR will allow consultants to be consistency review participants, and whether DNR is an appropriate agency to administer the program; (7) whether the ACMP’s changes have affected participation, decision making, and consensus building; and (8) whether the ACMP is operating in the public’s interest and should be reauthorized. The assessment of the ACMP’s operations and performance was based on criteria set out in AS 44.66.050(c). Criteria set out in this statute relates to the determination of a demonstrated public need. This report is the second of two parts of a special report on DNR, ACMP. In this report, we address the ACMP issues identified above in numbers six through eight. The remaining issues are addressed in Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Coastal Management Program, Part 1, November 26, 2010 (10-30060A-11). Report Conclusions The ACMP is operated openly and transparently in many ways, but is lacking in certain aspects. For instance: the Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) does not generally record minutes for working group meetings; DCOM does not distribute review participant materials to coastal resource district consultants; DCOM management did not respond in writing to ACMP reevaluation comments provided by coastal resource districts, other state agencies, industry, and the public; and DCOM has not kept participants actively informed about the status of the ACMP reevaluation process. DCOM’s policy regarding consultants disregards coastal district autonomy. DCOM’s unwritten policy is that consultants cannot be on consistency review participant lists. Management’s intent is to improve coastal district representation in the ACMP. However, such an unwritten policy denies coastal districts autonomy over what is ultimately a coastal district management decision. DNR is an appropriate agency to administer the ACMP. DNR’s mission and purpose are consistent with the ACMP’s objectives. Other agencies that would be appropriate to administer the ACMP include: DEC, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Office of the Governor. Changes made to the ACMP following the passage of Ch. 24, SLA 03 have centralized in the DNR commissioner’s office decision-making that was formerly the Coastal Policy Council and the resource agency directors or commissioners’ responsibility. The changes have also lessened the consensus-building aspect of the ACMP consistency review. First, the number of coastal resource district enforceable policies was reduced thereby contributing to fewer coastal resource district comments. Second, the movement of the program from the Office of the Governor to a resource agency may have strained relationships among program participants. Third, DEC is not the strong participant that it was before the DEC carveout. The legislature should reauthorize the ACMP program. The ACMP serves the public interest through coordinated consistency reviews by the State and coastal resource districts evaluating certain activities occurring in or having an effect on the State’s coastal zone. Findings and Recommendations DCOM should allow coastal resource districts to designate their own representation. DCOM will not distribute review participant materials to a consultant or allow a consultant to be designated by coastal resource districts as a point of contact for consistency reviews. While the intent of the unwritten policy is to encourage coastal resource district representation in the ACMP, it does not recognize coastal resource districts’ autonomy in determining how that representation is best achieved. DCOM should facilitate coastal resource district participation in the ACMP by allowing coastal resource districts to designate consultants as their point of contact if they decide it is in their best interest to do so. DNR should complete the ABC List revision and ACMP reevaluation it began years ago. Completion of the ABC List revision is three years past the deadline set out in Ch. 31, SLA 05. Additionally, while the ACMP reevaluation does not have a similar statutory deadline, DNR had planned to have a proposal ready for the 26th Legislature’s consideration. With both the ABC List revision and the ACMP reevaluation, lack of consensus was the reason given for not pursuing change. DNR should commit to completing both processes …

Download1.4 MBDNR Alaska Coastal Management Program Part 22011
02-40011-11

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.36 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related OMB Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains: an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for FY 10, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. The legislature appropriated approximately $400 million from the General Fund to the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) during FY 10. This represented the entire General Fund obligation to the CBRF. As of June 30, 2010, the CBRF was fully repaid. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs; none of the recommendations are considered material weaknesses. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 30 recommendations, of which eight are unresolved issues from last year. Also, four of the recommendations are made to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 10 statewide single …

Download5.2 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY102011
02-30058-11

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Administration (DOA), Enterprise Technology Services Division (ETS), Telecommunication Procurement and Pursuit of New Technologies, May 4, 2011 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of ETS’ core telecommunication services contract (core contract). The objective of the audit was to identify and report the annual cost for services covered under historic and current core contracts; compare the current costs to the expected costs; identify and report “solesourced” telecommunication contracts; ascertain whether it is the responsibility of ETS to provide new telecommunication technologies; and identify and describe ETS and state departments’ efforts in exploring new telecommunication technologies. Report Conclusions Core contract expenditures are not specifically tracked in the State’s accounting system to allow for reporting and monitoring costs, but they can be approximated. The approximate annual core contract expenditures were less than the $10 million a year contract maximum and less than the budgeted contract costs. ETS issued 35 solesource contracts between FY 08 and February 28, 2011. Thirty of these contracts were licensing agreements for proprietary software, and five were for telecommunication services. All solesource contracts were approved by the State’s chief procurement officer. There was no solesource contract with the State’s core contract vendor during this period. Alaska Statutes direct ETS to provide a telecommunication infrastructure, but there is no statutory requirement to provide new technologies. A survey of state departments determined that pursuit of new telecommunication technology is occurring both in departments and at ETS. Findings and Recommendations 1. DOA procurement staff should work with the State’s chief procurement officer to ensure compliance with the “not to exceed” provision in the core …

Download511.0 KBDOA Enterprise Technology Services Division Telecommunication Procurement and Pursuit of New Technologies2011
04-30061-11

SUMMARY OF: A special report on the Department of Revenue (DOR), Seafood Industry Tax and Assessment Revenues, May 19, 2011 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit on the DOR Tax Division’s completeness and accuracy of seafood related tax collections. Furthermore, we evaluated the Tax Division’s reconciliation of reported taxed values and volumes to state and federal reports of harvest as well as the Tax Division’s audit process. Report Conclusions DOR’s fisheries tax audits are too limited in scope to provide assurance that tax revenues are complete and accurate. Currently, fisheries-related tax audits are limited to Salmon Product Development (SPD) tax credits. There are no formal or established procedures in place for assessing risks in order to determine where to focus audit resources for fisheries tax programs or selecting taxpayers for audit. Additionally, there are no documented policies or procedures for auditing fisheries tax revenues other than those relating to the SPD tax credit. Regulatory changes are needed to support DOR’s accurate and complete collection of fishery taxes. Specifically, regulations for enforcing the SPD tax credit have not yet been adopted. The Commercial Operator’s Annual Reports can be a valuable tool in ensuring accurate tax payments for Fisheries Business Taxes. On a limited basis, reconciling reported taxed volumes or corresponding values of seafood harvest can be performed to verify components of the Fisheries Business Taxes. This could be an effective tool for identifying high risk taxpayers needing additional evaluations and potential audits. Alternative price reporting information is not available to DOR for comparative purposes. DOR is not permitted to access confidential federal resource managers’ harvest reports. Federal laws governing programs administered by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service prohibits sharing confidential harvest data with outside agencies unless the data is specifically needed for resource management. With the exception of one city, fish taxes collected by local municipalities are not comparable as a tax base to the Fisheries Business Tax. Therefore, local community tax data is not an effective source of outside information for the State to verify reported taxed values and volumes. Furthermore, the data contained in the Alaska Salmon Price Report is not useful to the Tax Division in their mission to collect taxes. This is because the report collects information on wholesale and retail values of processed fish rather than unprocessed values which is the basis for state seafood taxes. Taxpayer audits are necessary to verify that all year-end price adjustments or other bonuses paid to fishermen have been properly reported. Although it is possible to identify all bonus returns filed in a given year, this method would only capture bonuses paid after the original return is filed, thereby producing an incomplete record of actual bonuses paid. Furthermore, this method would not identify taxpayers who paid year-end bonuses, but did not report them to DOR. Findings and Recommendations 1. DOR’s commissioner should diversify audits of fisheries-related tax revenues based on a risk assessment. 2. DOR’s commissioner should adopt regulations to enforce the Salmon Product Development tax …

Download412.4 KBDOR Seafood Industry Tax and Assessment Revenues2011
08-30062-11

A Management Review of the Legislative Affairs Agency, State of Alaska’s Office of the Ombudsman, Management Review, June 15, …

Download1.9 MBLAA Office of the Ombudsman Management Review2011
08-30063-11

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED); Division of Corporations, Business and Professionals Licensing (DCBPL); Select Occupational Licensing and Enforcement Issues, June 29, 2011 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit to determine: (1) whether DCBPL made the appropriate fee adjustments to licensing fees based on the results of the recent fee analysis; (2) whether FY 11 personal service time for occupational licensing and enforcement employees was accurately recorded; and (3) whether DCBPL has reduced its enforcement activities specified in Title 8 of the Alaska Statutes – specifically, in the area of unlicensed activity. Report Conclusions DCBPL did not make all of the appropriate fee adjustments resulting from the most recent fee analysis. In FY 11, personal service time was accurately recorded for occupational licensing and enforcement employees. However, DCBPL used an unreasonable method for allocating indirect costs that result in overcharges to occupations. Additionally, DCBPL no longer tracks costs directly to occupations. Due to a lack of complete and accurate investigation data, we could not reasonably identify all unlicensed activity cases. As a result, we could not determine whether DCBPL has reduced its Title 8 enforcement activities. An issue creating a potential conflict of interest for a Marine Pilot board member was not adequately entered into the public record. Findings and Recommendations 1. DCBPL’s director should ensure occupational licensing fees are adjusted annually in accordance with state law. 2. DCBPL’s director should improve the method for allocating division indirect costs and for tracking occupation direct costs. 3. DCBPL’s director should take immediate action to address deficiencies in the new investigations case management …

Download767.9 KBDCCED Division of Corporations-Business-Professional Licensing Select Occupational Licensing and Enforcement Issues2011
08-30059-11

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED); Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL); State Medical Board (SMB), June 16, 2011 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit to determine: (1) whether SMB complaints are processed in a timely, efficient, and effective manner; (2) whether the SMB applies disciplinary sanctions consistently in both adjudicated and non-adjudicated cases; (3) whether SMB disciplinary actions are reported to the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Practitioners Data Bank (NPDB) as required by state and federal laws; and (4) whether the SMB executive administrator’s decisions to initiate a complaint against a licensee for a license renewal application issue are reasonable. Report Conclusions Based on our audit, we determined: Complaints are not processed in a timely, efficient, and effective manner. SMB disciplinary sanctions are consistently applied to both adjudicated and non-adjudicated cases. SMB disciplinary actions are not reported to FSMB and the NPDB in accordance with state and federal laws. Complaints initiated by the SMB executive administrator regarding license renewal application issues are reasonable. SMB disciplinary sanctions and reporting to FSMB and the NPDB are now similar to other states. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 DCBPL’s director should implement improvements over complaint processing. The DCBPL Investigation Unit’s SMB complaint processing is untimely, has inefficiencies, and, in some cases, is ineffective. In summary, DCBPL’s director should: Establish regulatory timelines for processing complaints. Address inefficiencies in obtaining evidentiary documents. Implement oversight of the Investigation Unit’s workload, including staff assignments. Address the case management system deficiencies. Assess the processing of complaints from external sources. Recommendation No. 2 DCBPL’s director should implement procedures to ensure SMB disciplinary actions are reported in accordance with state and federal laws. Four of 18 cases with SMB disciplinary actions were not reported to one or both national data banks, and most of those reported were not submitted within the 30-day timeframe. Additionally, a board order was reported to FSMB and the NPDB when not required under state and federal …

Download669.7 KBDCCED Division of Corporations-Business-Professional Licensing State Medical Board2011
10-20072-11

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC), June 15, 2011 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the ASHSC. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the ASHSC should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(8), the ASHSC will terminate on June 30, 2012, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The ASHSC’s termination date should be extended until June 30, 2016. Overall, we found the ASHSC is operating in the public’s interest. The ASHSC has gathered and disseminated information; facilitated discussions and partnerships with various members of state, local, and federal government as well as private entities concerning seismic hazards and risk mitigation; encouraged efforts to address seismic risk mitigation; and brought attention to seismic hazards. However, improvements are needed to increase the ASHSC’s effectiveness and efficiency. Although the organization has been active in addressing a number of its statutory objectives, it lacks measureable outcomes to improve seismic hazards risk mitigation that correspond to commission activities. Additionally, the ASHSC has made only two formal policy recommendations in six years. By not analyzing its progress on a regular basis, the commission cannot readily identify areas in need of improvement, ways to efficiently manage its goals, or areas in need of greater attention. Findings and Recommendations 1. The ASHSC should develop a strategic plan to guide its efforts to mitigate seismic hazard risk in Alaska. 2. The ASHSC should develop procedures to ensure meetings are published on the Alaska Public Notice System in a timely manner. 3. The ASHSC should follow the adopted rules of procedure and recommend immediate replacement of habitually absent members. 4. The Office of the Governor and the ASHSC should work to fill appointments to all commission seats in a timely …

Download562.1 KBDNR Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission2011
08-20071-11

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Big Game Commercial Services Board, September 13, 2011 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have evaluated the activities of the Big Game Commercial Services Board (board) to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an efficient and effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(9) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2012, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Our audit objectives were as follows. 1. Determine if the termination date of the board should be extended. 2. Determine if the board is operating in the public’s interest. 3. Determine if the board has exercised appropriate, regulatory oversight of licensed guide-outfitters and transporters. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date of the board should be extended. The regulation and licensing of qualified, registered guide-outfitters and transporters benefits the public’s safety and welfare as well safeguards the State’s wildlife resources. The board has provided reasonable assurance that the individuals licensed to guide and/or outfit hunts as well as transport hunters to and from hunt locations in Alaska are qualified to do so. The board has also successfully developed and adopted regulatory changes to improve the big game commercial services industry in Alaska. In our opinion, the board serves an important public purpose. We recommend the board’s termination date be extended for four years to June 30, 2016. The recommended extension date is half of the eight-year maximum allowed in statute because the department and the board did not fully address the previous sunset audit’s findings and because of other operational support issues identified in the findings and recommendations portion of this report. Except for these deficiencies, the board has met the various statutory sunset criteria. Findings and Recommendations 1. The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s (division) director should ensure procedures are developed and that division staff adhere to them in order to provide efficient and effective support to the board’s day-to-day operations. 2. The division director should ensure staff adhere to investigative case management procedures and develop additional procedures and reporting tools as necessary. 3. The division, in conjunction with the board, should increase licensing fees and/or reduce expenditures to mitigate the board’s current and projected operating deficits. 4. The board should consider modifying regulatory first aid requirements to provide consistency between guide-outfitter licensee types. 5. The board should reconsider the electronic accumulation of information gathered from hunt records and transporter reports. 6. The division director should ensure controls over the database security of hunt records and the physical custody of hunt records and transporter reports are …

Download1.2 MBDCCED Big Game Commercial Services Board2011
01-30056-11

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Office of the Governor, Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR), Selected Operational Issues, September 23, 2011 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of ASCHR to determine: (1) if ASCHR investigates all complaints received; (2) if ASCHR investigates complaints timely; (3) how many and what types of complaints are investigated; how many days it takes to resolve a complaint; and the reasons for delayed resolutions; (4) if complaint investigations take longer for different races; (5) remedies or protections available for retaliated complaints and their effectiveness; (6) if investigators are qualified and trained; and (7) if ASCHR is meeting its statutory obligations and legislative purposes. Report Conclusions Based on our audit, we determined: ASCHR is investigating complaints received, but not timely. Complainants’ race/ethnicity is not a factor in the timeliness of investigations. It is inconclusive if remedies are effective against eradicating or preventing discrimination. ASCHR investigators are qualified and receive on-the-job training. ASCHR is not meeting all of its statutory obligations and legislative purposes. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The legislature should consider establishing statutory timelines for ASCHR. From the calendar years 2008 through 2010, approximately 75% of ASCHR discrimination complaints took over 180 days from the complaint-filed date to the determination date. In addition to the investigation timeframe, complaints were also delayed in the hearing process. We recommend the legislature establish a statutory timeline of 180 days for ASCHR to complete a complaint investigation and for the Office of Administrative Hearing to issue a decision within 120 days. Recommendation No. 2 ASCHR’s executive director should improve and develop comprehensive policies, procedures and regulations to ensure complaint investigations are performed timely, and submit them to the commission for adoption. Many factors contributed to ASCHR not promptly processing complaints. ASCHR should ensure its investigations are operating efficiently and effectively by analyzing and improving processes, updating regulations, developing comprehensive policies and procedures, and using current technologies. Recommendation No. 3 The legislature should consider realigning ASCHR’s mission. Due to length of investigations, ASCHR is not able to operate as “more than a simple complaint taking bureau” as the legislature intended. If ASCHR is unable to find ways to improve the timeliness of investigations to full the legislative mandate “to seek out and eradicate discrimination,” the legislature should consider reevaluating ASCHR’s mission to improve ASCHR’s workload and resource issues. Additionally, ASCHR’s statutes could be modified to improve its annual report by using it to provide ongoing and public monitoring of the timeliness of investigations and the level of activity performed by ASCHR to specifically seek out and eradicate …

Download2.8 MBOOG Alaska State Commission for Human Rights Selected Operational Issues2011
08-30060A-11

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP), Part 1, November 26, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit to determine: (1) whether regulatory changes in 11 AAC 112 and 114 limit the establishment of district enforceable policies and whether this limitation is consistent with legislative intent and state law; (2) whether DNR is properly implementing the local concern requirement; (3) whether the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) carveout is being implemented in accordance with legislative intent and how it has affected the scope of the ACMP’s consistency reviews; (4) whether changes to the statewide standards limit the ACMP’s ability to meet the its objectives; (5) whether changes to the ACMP have diminished the State’s rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA); (6) whether DNR is operating the program openly and transparently, whether DNR will allow consultants to be consistency review participants, and whether DNR is an appropriate agency to administer the program; (7) whether the ACMP’s changes have affected participation, decision making, and consensus building; and (8) whether the ACMP is operating in the public’s interest and should be reauthorized. The assessment of the ACMP’s operations and performance was based on criteria set out in AS 44.66.050(c). Criteria set out in this statute relates to the determination of a demonstrated public need. This report is the first of two parts of the Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Coastal Management Program. In this report, we address the ACMP issues identified above in numbers one through five. The remaining issues will be addressed at a later date in the second report. Report Conclusions Changes to AS 46.40 and the ACMP regulations in 11 AAC 112 and 114 have limited the ability of coastal resource districts to establish enforceable policies. Currently, there are 25 coastal districts with approved plans. Prior to the ACMP’s changes, their plans had over 1,300 enforceable policies. During district plan revision, the coastal resource districts submitted approximately 490 enforceable policies for approval; of these, approximately 210 enforceable policies were approved. The reduction in number is partially due to local concern and designated area requirements as well as the requirement that district enforceable policies relate to statewide standards. Although limiting, these requirements are consistent with statutes and legislative intent. As intended by the legislature, the DEC carveout has excluded air, land, and water quality issues under DEC’s authority from ACMP reviews. It also eliminated district enforceable policies that addressed air, land, and water quality issues under the authority of DEC to avoid regulatory confusion and minimize delays in the ACMP process. The DEC carveout has been positive for industry, but from the coastal resource districts’ perspective, there are disadvantages. Changes to the statewide standards may limit the ACMP’s ability to meet its objectives. A review of the standards indicates that many of the modifications clarified the standards and others eliminated duplicate authorities. However, some federal and state agencies as well as coastal resource districts are concerned that the less robust habitats standard has lessened the ACMP’s ability to achieve some of its objectives. ACMP changes have not diminished the State’s rights under the CZMA. The State still has and does take advantage of its rights to weigh in on federal decisions through the consistency review process. While the State has retained its rights, regulatory changes may have affected the purview of the consistency …

Download1.3 MBDNR Alaska Coastal Management Program Part 12011
02-40011-11

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $3.36 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related OMB Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains: an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for FY 10, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. The legislature appropriated approximately $400 million from the General Fund to the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) during FY 10. This represented the entire General Fund obligation to the CBRF. As of June 30, 2010, the CBRF was fully repaid. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs; none of the recommendations are considered material weaknesses. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 30 recommendations, of which eight are unresolved issues from last year. Also, four of the recommendations are made to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 10 statewide single …

Download209.6 KBSingle Audit Internal Control Project for ARRA of 20092011
08-20067-11

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), October 16, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the RCA. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the RCA should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.050(a)(3), the RCA will terminate on June 30, 2011, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the RCA fulfills a public need and is serving Alaskans by: Assessing the capabilities of utility and pipeline companies to safely serve the public; Evaluating tariffs and charges made by regulated entities; Verifying the pass-through charges to consumers from electric and natural gas utilities; Adjudicating disputes between ratepayers and regulated entities; Providing consumer protection services; and Performing financial reviews of utilities for the State’s power cost equalization program. Under AS 44.66.010(a)(3), the RCA is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2011. We recommend the legislature extend the RCA’s termination date until June 30, 2019. Findings and Recommendations The prior sunset audit recommended improvements in three areas: (1) establishing timelines for matters not covered by statute; (2) establishing standards for certain aspects of discovery; and (3) clarifying terms used in statute that relate to established timelines for certain formal proceedings. In May 2007, HB 209 amended the statutory timelines in AS 42.05.175 to include a new section for other adjudicated matters. The amendment also modified the timeframes from months to days. The concerns related to this part of the prior audit recommendation have substantially been addressed. The concerns related to discovery standards have not been addressed, but the RCA is currently in the process of evaluating industry and public input on discovery regulations. The third part of the prior audit recommendation states that the RCA should clarify terms used in statute that relate to established timelines for certain formal proceedings. Specific terms include complete applications, tariff filings, formal complaints and petitions. The RCA adopted new regulations specific to complete and incomplete applications. The RCA management stated that no regulations were adopted for the terms complete tariff filings, formal complaints, and petitions. The prior recommendation also suggested that an alternative solution could be to clarify terms by developing the practice of issuing an order to memorialize the date when the initial record is considered complete. The RCA did implement this practice by issuing an initiating order on each matter which calculates and identifies the statutory deadline. Parties disputing the calculation of the statutory deadline may petition the RCA for reconsideration within 15 days of the initiating order. Under this revised procedure, the statutory deadline is known and communicated to all parties early in the proceeding. In summary, the overall recommendation has been partially …

Download668.8 KBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska Sunset Review2011
02-40010-10

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $2.81 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for FY 09, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 08 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. No draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) was authorized for FY 09. The Legislature appropriated $1.0 billion from the General Fund to the CBRF during FY 09. Additionally, at the end of FY 09 over $617 million was swept from General Fund surplus and a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts, and transferred to the CBRF. As of June 30, 2009, the CBRF was fully repaid. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 25 recommendations, of which seven are unresolved issues from last year. Also two of the recommendations are made to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 09 statewide single …

Download5.0 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY092010
20-30053B-10

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Corrections (DOC), Selected Health and Safety Issues, Part 2, March 5, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit to determine: (1) the extent of Methicillin-Resistant Staphycoccolus Aureus (MRSA) infections among inmates; (2) the frequency of MRSA infections among the DOC, Division of Institutions’ (DOI) correctional officers (CO); (3) the adequacy of protocols for staff when handling incidents of MRSA among inmates; (4) the validity of DOI’s methodology used for staffing patterns at Alaska’s correctional facilities; and (5) the reasonableness of the staffing policies and procedures, including the minimum level of correctional officers on shift at the correctional facilities. In this report, we address the staffing related issues identified in numbers four and five above. The MRSA-related issues were addressed in a separate report entitled, A Special Report on the Department of Corrections, Selected Health and Safety Issues, Part 1, July 21, 2009, 20-30053A-09. Report Conclusions DOI’s overall approach to determining staffing is a method recognized by the National Institute of Corrections and is used by other states’ correctional facilities. However, there were minor deviations from the national methodology for determining the shift relief factor (SRF). Additionally, for some facilities, DOI’s management did not accurately calculate the number of CO positions needed to implement the 2005 SRF study or the 2007 post study. DOI needs to update its post analysis and address current posts’ efficiency and effectiveness issues. There are deficiencies in staffing policies and procedures as well as each facility’s standard operating procedures. These deficiencies include no written policy identifying the minimum staffing level posts that must be filled on a shift; post orders do not reflect current practices, and some posts do not have a written post order. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The DOI director should address staffing deficiencies due to inaccuracies, update the SRF for each facility using current data, and appropriately apply the SRF to determine the number of CO positions needed. In 2005, DOC used a consultant to calculate a statewide SRF which is used in determining the required number of CO positions. In 2007, DOC engaged the same consultant to analyze the posts in five correctional facilities. DOI utilized the results of the 2005 SRF and the 2007 post studies to determine CO positions for the FY 10 budget request. DOI’s inaccurate application of these studies has created staffing deficiencies. The deficiencies in applying the 2007 study are partially offset by the fact that the data supporting the 2005 SRF study is now out-of-date. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies are Anchorage Correctional Complex (ACC) is short 12 positions, Anvil Mountain Correctional Center (AMCC) is short 3 positions, Fairbanks Correctional Center (FCC) is short 1 position, and Spring Creek Correctional Center (SCCC) is short 1 position. Recommendation No. 2 DOI’s management should address post efficiency and effectiveness issues. If DOI were to address all of the efficiency and effectiveness issues simply by increasing the number of positions, it would require an additional 13 posts with 47 positions to cover the posts: 17 at ACC, 5 at AMCC, 20 at FCC, and 5 at SCCC. However, some of these issues can be addressed through operational changes or facility modifications. Finally, DOI management may choose to recognize and continue to accept any risk associated with less than fully effective posts. In the long term, some post efficiency and effectiveness issues related to overcrowding could be partially mitigated with the opening of the Goose Creek Correctional Center in 2012. Recommendation No. 3 DOI’s director should ensure the superintendents update post orders. The current post orders of the four facilities reviewed do not establish the requirements for minimum staffing levels. Furthermore, the post orders do not accurately convey either DOI managements’ intent or actual facility practices in relation to which posts are considered mandatory. Recommendation No. 4 DOI’s management should ensure that facility management complies with policies for minimum staffing levels and, if needed, provide the resources to allow compliance. DOI is not consistently following departmental policies and procedures regarding minimum staffing levels. Each facility has a minimum number of COs required to be on duty during each …

Download2.2 MBDOC Selected Health and Safety Issues Part 22010
25-30055-10

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), Vessel Overhaul and Refurbishment Procurement, June 21, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of DOTPF’s AMHS procurement practices for state ferry overhaul and refurbishment. Our objectives were: To evaluate AMHS’ compliance with the applicable state and federal procurement statutes and regulations, which includes, when appropriate, the application of the interport differential. To evaluate the current state statutes and regulations to assess whether their application results in fair and unbiased contract awards. To evaluate the process of developing ferry maintenance schedules and assess the reasonableness of the process. Report Conclusions AMHS is adhering to state and federal procurement laws and regulations when contracting for vessel overhauls and refurbishments. Contracts for annual overhauls and refurbishments between July 2004 and March 2010 were issued in accordance with both state and federal procurement laws and regulations. The interport differential is applied following regulations. However, the regulations are not current. Alaska regulation 17 AAC 70.430 defines the base port for each AMHS vessel; however, this regulation has not been updated to include the last three vessels added to the system. Where applicable, interport differential costs were applied correctly, and bid specifications were developed without creating bias between competing bidders, however some of the interport differential components have not been updated since 1996. Current statutes and regulations governing state funded overhauls create a public-policy based bias by mandating the use of in-state shipyards whenever possible. AMHS has developed a reasonable process of overhaul and refurbishment scheduling which prioritizes the travel demand of their customers while meeting the regulatory requirement of the vessels. This process is complex and includes multiple factors, including a seven month window in which to schedule refurbishments and overhauls. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 DOTPF’s AMHS division director should update the components of the interport differential calculation and assign the responsibility of regularly updating the components to an AMHS staff member. The interport differential components have not been consistently updated since the inception of the interport differential calculation in 1996. The responsibility for updating the interport differential components has not been assigned to a specific AMHS position. We recommend that all of the components of the interport differential be updated to ensure that they accurately reflect the costs for work at an out-of-state shipyard. We also recommend that the responsibility of regularly updating the components be assigned to an AMHS position. Recommendation No. 2 DOTPF’s commissioner should update 17 AAC 70.430 to reflect the current fleet. AMHS regulations are out of date and, therefore, not in compliance with statute. The base port for each AMHS vessel is designated in 17 AAC 70.430. However, 17 AAC 70.430 currently includes a base port designation for the M/V Bartlett which was decommissioned in late 2003. Furthermore, 17 AAC 70.430 does not include a base port designation for M/V Fairweather, M/V Lituya, or M/V Chenega, which were all added to the fleet in 2004 and 2005. By not designating a base port for these three vessels, DOTPF is not adhering to AS 39.90.049. We recommend that the regulations be updated to reflect the current …

Download758.7 KBDOT Alaska Marine Highway System Vessel Overhaul and Refurbishment Procurement2010
08-30057-10

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), FY 09 Annual Report, September 21, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with AS 24.20.271(10), we audited the information found in the RCA’s FY 09 annual report regarding the RCA’s compliance with the statutory timelines, timeline extensions, and reported performance measures. Report Conclusions Based on our review and analysis, the RCA met the statutory requirements of AS 42.05.175(a)-(f). However, the RCA did not accurately report their timeline extensions and performance measures. Furthermore, not all of the RCA’s performance measures were included in the annual report. Lastly, the RCA’s annual report does not contain the details required by statute. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 RCA management should implement procedures to ensure information in the annual report is accurate, complete, and in sufficient detail . The RCA did not accurately report the number of final issued orders, timeline extension orders, and current and active dockets in its FY 09 annual report. Recommendation No. 2 RCA management should implement and enforce written procedures to ensure the case management system data is accurate, consistent, and complete. Errors in the annual report data can be traced back to errors in the RCA’s case management system. Errors included an incorrect number of issued final and extension orders and an incorrect number of opened and closed dockets. The errors were caused by data being entered into the case management system by RCA staff who lack adequate training and guidance to ensure the data entered is accurate, consistent, and …

Download761.5 KBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska FY09 Annual Report2010
08-20069-10

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Board of Dental Examiners (BDE), September 30, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of BDE. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the BDE should be re-established. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(7), BDE will terminate on June 30, 2011, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions BDE should continue to regulate dentists and dental hygienists. The board is serving the public’s interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who provide services to the public as licensed dentists and dental hygienists. We recommend the legislature extend BDE’s termination date to June 30, 2019. DCCED’s, Division of Corporation, Business and Professional Licensing’s (DCBPL) investigation unit did not address all investigations in a timely manner. Findings and Recommendations 1. DCBPL’s chief investigator should take steps to ensure complaints and cases are investigated …

Download479.0 KBDCCED Board of Dental Examiners2010
08-20068-10

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Board of Barbers and Hairdressers (BBH), September 30, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of BBH to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an efficient and effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BBH should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(4), the board will terminate on June 30, 2011, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions BBH should continue to regulate barbers, hairdressers, estheticians, manicurists, tattooists/permanent cosmetic colorists, and body piercers. The board is serving the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who provide services to the public under these professions. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2019. DCCED, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s investigation unit did not address all investigations in a timely manner. The current public board member is a licensed practitioner and therefore does not meet the statutory requirements. Findings and Recommendations 1. The division’s chief investigator should take steps to ensure complaints and cases are investigated timely. 2. The current public board member should either surrender her license or be removed from the public board member …

Download741.6 KBDCCED Board of Barbers and Hairdressers2010
08-20070-10

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Nursing (BON), September 30, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of BON to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BON should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(13), BON will terminate on June 30, 2011, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions BON is operating in an efficient and effective manner and should continue to regulate the professions it governs. We believe the board is safeguarding the public interest by ensuring the competence and integrity of those who present themselves to the public for the professions regulated by BON: licensed registered nurses, licensed practical nurses (LPN), advanced nurse practitioners (ANP), certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse aides, and nurse and nurse aide training programs. BON has conducted its business in a satisfactory manner. It continues to propose changes to regulations to improve the board’s effectiveness and to ensure that professionals are properly licensed. Under AS 08.03.010(c)(13), BON will terminate on June 30, 2011. If not extended by the legislature, under AS 08.03.020, BON will have a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2019. Findings and Recommendations BON should take steps to ensure all appropriate entities are notified when an ANP’s authority to write prescriptions has been revoked or suspended. The BON chairman should take steps to ensure that the required training program reviews are being conducted. The Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing’s chief investigator should take steps to ensure that complaints and cases are investigated timely. The director of Boards and Commissions, Office of the Governor, should fill the LPN position with an LPN currently involved in institutional nursing …

Download776.4 KBDCCED Board of Nursing2010
04-30054-10

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Revenue (DOR), Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA),Selected Operational Issues, October 8, 2010 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of ANGDA. The primary objectives of the audit were to determine whether ANGDA duplicates the efforts of other state agencies or initiatives of the State, identify the extent to which ANGDA coordinates, cooperates, and shares information with other state agencies, and to determine whether ANGDA’s long range plans changed or were modified based on work of other state agencies or initiatives. Other objectives included identifying ANGDA’s assets, appropriations, and outstanding financial commitments as well as determining how ANGDA has expended its available funding for the period of July 1, 2003, through April 30, 2010. Report Conclusions ANGDA has not duplicated the efforts of other agencies working on a large-diameter main natural gas pipeline. This is due to ANGDA’s policy of modifying its plans based on other pipeline initiatives. ANGDA started out with a plan to acquire and condition North Slope (NS) gas and construct a pipeline. However based on other initiatives, ANGDA modified its goal to focus on a pipeline that would spur off a larger pipeline accessing the NS gas supply. ANGDA’s decision to pursue a spur line minimized its role in accomplishing its fundamental mission. It also resulted in ANGDA conducting activities that stretched the bounds of its statutory authority. ANGDA did not successfully coordinate efforts with the state agency pursuing a small diameter in-state pipeline (the Office of the Governor). This lack of cooperation resulted in both entities pursuing alternative projects that would achieve the same objective. ANGDA generally received adequate cooperation from other state agencies and routinely shares its information with other agencies and the public through a variety of mechanisms. ANGDA’s appropriations, spending, outstanding financial commitments, and detailed assets, are presented in Appendix A-D of this report. Findings and Recommendations The legislature should consider ANGDA for sunset after resolution of uncertainties surrounding the development of NS natural gas.ANGDA does not play a lead role in acquiring and conditioning NS natural gas or constructing a pipeline to transport the gas. Plans to develop natural gas, including building a large-diameter and/or a small-diameter pipeline, are being led by other private or public entities. The Alaska Gas Inducement Act (AGIA) licensees are guiding the progress of building a large-diameter pipeline. The Joint In-state Gasline Development Team, created by HB 369, is guiding the development of a small-diameter pipeline.Public entities should not outlast their public purpose. Sunset laws enacted throughout the nation ensure public entities do not continue in perpetuity. These laws subject public entities to periodic evaluation to verify their continued existence is justified by a public purpose, and the public’s interest is being adequately served.ANGDA is not subject to sunset provision and, therefore, is at risk of outlasting its public purpose. Once the AGIA and Denali open seasons conclude, and the pipeline plan required under HB 369 is complete, the legislature should evaluate whether ANGDA has a significant and unique role in state pipeline efforts. If ANGDA does not have such a role, the legislature should consider whether the continued existence of a separate authority to carry out ANGDA’s activities is justified and in the public’s best interest. ANGDA’s continued existence without a significant role is a waste of state resources and dilutes crucial decision-making in the State’s effort to bring NS gas to market. ANGDA should work with DOR’s accounting staff to properly present assets in its financial statements and note disclosures. ANGDA’s financial reporting and disclosure of capital assets associated with its conditional ROW lease is inaccurate and not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Specifically, ANGDA’s financial statements for the period ending June 30, 2010, overstate capital assets by over $3.5 million. The required notes to the financial statements reported that ANGDA incurred capitalized costs in the process of obtaining a conditional right-of-way (ROW). However, the amount reported includes significant costs unrelated to and incurred after obtaining the conditional ROW, and is not adjusted for accumulated …

Download2.9 MBDOR Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority Selected Operational Issues2010
25-30050-10

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), Gravina Island Access Project (GIA), October 30, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of DOTPF and their progress in achieving the goal of Gravina Island access. The objective of the audit was to identify federal and state funds authorized, appropriated, and spent on GIA by project and phase, and to evaluate DOTPF’s use of redirected federal GIA earmarks for compliance with federal intent and state law. We also evaluated GIA’s work completed to date and the methodology for developing cost estimates for appropriateness. Furthermore, we evaluated whether GIA was managed in a cost effective and time sensitive manner, and assessed DOTPF’s progress in improving access from Ketchikan to its airport. Finally, we determined whether DOTPF transportation projects were delayed because of GIA earmarks. Report Conclusions Six earmarks, totaling $245.4 million were initially designated for GIA. Two earmarks were established in 1998 to develop the environmental impact statement (EIS); one was established in 2003 to construct bridges; and three were established in 2005 to design and construct the bridges and roadwork. In November 2005, just three months after authorizing the last three earmarks, Congress amended two bridge earmarks (shown as Earmark Nos. 5 and 6 in the table on the following page). The amendment redirected the earmarks away from bridge design and construction to be used by DOTPF for any federally approved transportation project. This reduced specific federal authorization for GIA from $245.4 million to $70.4 million. Because Congress redirected use of the GIA earmarks, DOTPF allocated the now non-restricted funds according to state regulations. Specifically, regulation 17 AAC 05.190(b)(1-4) requires 48 percent of non-restricted federal funds be used on National Highway System (NHS) projects. The remaining 52 percent is to be used for all other federally approved projects within the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). After the bridge earmarks were redirected, Governor Murkowski’s administration directed DOTPF, in January of 2006, to preserve the NHS portion of the funds for use on the Gravina bridge.   Effect of Redirection over GIA Authorized Earmarks Earmark Purpose Authorized Redirected GIA Earmarks 1 EIS planning and development $ 15,000,000 $ – 0- $ 15,000,000 2 EIS planning and development 5,443,000 -0- 5,443,000 3 Bridge construction 1,975,000 -0- 1,975,000 4 Earthwork and roadway construction 48,000,000 -0- 48,000,000 5 Planning, design and construction of a bridge 100,000,000 (100,000,000) -0- 6 Construction of a bridge 75,000,000 (75,000,000) -0- Total $ 245,418,000 $ (175,000,000) $ 70,418,000 As a result, DOTPF identified over $75.9 million of Earmark Nos. 5 and 6 for future use on GIA. Governor Palin’s administration did not remove or change the previous administration’s directive over the reserved funds. Consequently, approximately $75.9 million of federal funds are available for obligation should DOTPF choose to go forward with GIA. Otherwise, in accordance with state regulations, these funds are available for other NHS projects. DOTPF has used a portion of the redirected earmarks on various approved STIP projects. Although the State received more federal transportation funding for FFY 05 than it received in the previous two federal fiscal years, a larger percentage of the funds were earmarked, making less available for funding STIP projects. At the same time, raw materials and labor costs increased substantially. Together, these factors resulted in projects being delayed or removed altogether from planned DOTPF work. In general, approximately $56 million have been expended on GIA work through May 2009. DOTPF properly interpreted federal intent related to the use of the GIA earmarks. Furthermore, roadwork completed on the underpass, Lewis Reef road, and highway portion of the GIA project was within the scope of the approved EIS. However, the decision to proceed with the highway construction in May 2007 was not in the public’s best interest given the lack of congressional financial support for the bridges and the significant increase in estimated cost. The highway terminates on the southern end of Gravina Island, yet DOTPF is uncertain whether a bridge will be constructed at that location. Some progress in achieving the GIA goals has occurred but improved access from Ketchikan to Gravina Island has not. The preferred access alternative is cost prohibitive and unlikely to receive sufficient federal funding. The project is awaiting the results of a supplemental EIS that will examine other access alternatives. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No.1 The Director of the Southeast Region of DOTPF should ensure state laws are adhered to for construction …

Download1.7 MBDOT Gravina Island Access Project2010
08-20065-10

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Board of Pharmacy (BOP), November 12, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of BOP. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BOP’s termination date should be extended. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(15), BOP is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2010. If the legislature does not extend the board’s termination date, BOP will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The termination date for BOP should be extended until June 30, 2018. The board is safeguarding the public interest by ensuring the competence of individuals who present themselves to the public as pharmacists, pharmacist interns, and pharmacist technicians through licensing and regulatory requirements. The board also has an integral role in the regulation of pharmacies, drug rooms, and wholesale distributors and should continue to regulate those entities. Findings and Recommendations 1. BOP should approve collaborative protocols in accordance with regulation. 2. DCCED’s professional licensing administrative officer should improve administrative support. 3. BOP and staff within the Office of the Governor should work together to increase the pool of qualified applicants available for board appointments to ensure full …

Download638.1 KBDCCED Board of Pharmacy2010
08-20066-10

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners (BPPA), October 28, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of BPPA. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BPPA should be reestablished. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(18), BPPA will terminate on June 30, 2010. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BPPA will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions BPPA is operating in an efficient and effective manner and should continue to regulate the psychology profession. The board is safeguarding the public interest by ensuring the competence and integrity of those who present themselves to the public as psychologists and psychological associate examiners. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2018, the maximum extension allowed in statute. Findings and Recommendations 1. DCCED Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s administrative officer should take steps to ensure courtesy licensees comply with reporting requirements. 2. The division’s professional licensing administrative officer should take steps to improve administrative support. 3. BPPA and staff within the Office of the Governor should work together to increase the pool of qualified applicants available for board appointments to ensure full …

Download519.1 KBDCCED Board of Physchologist and Psychological Associate Examiners2010
08-20064-10

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers (BCREA), October 30, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of BCREA. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if the board has been operating in an effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BCREA’s termination date should be extended. Currently, under AS 08.03.010(c)(20), BCREA will terminate on June 30, 2010. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BCREA will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions The use of state certified real estate appraisers will be a continuing requirement for Alaska’s financial institutions to qualify for federal deposit insurance and to participate in selling mortgage loans to federal government-sponsored enterprises. Failure to maintain a real estate appraiser certification program that meets federal requirements could cause the financial institutions – and by extension, the citizens of the State – to lose the opportunity to participate in a number of federally sponsored real estate loan programs and the ability to obtain federal deposit insurance. In this context, we recommend that the legislature extend BCREA’s termination date to June 30, 2014. The recommended termination date is half of the 8 year maximum allowed in statute to recognize that DCCED and the board failed to address findings issued by the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC). ASC identified two deficiencies that needed to be addressed in order to come into substantial compliance with Title XI of the 1989 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act. DCCED and BCREA have satisfactorily addressed only one of the two deficiencies. Findings and Recommendations 1. BCREA and DCCED should take timely corrective action in response to ASC findings. 2. The division’s professional licensing administrative officer should take steps to improve administrative support. 3. BCREA and staff within the Office of the Governor should work together to increase the pool of qualified applicants available for board appointments to ensure full …

Download607.4 KBDCCED Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers2010
02-40010-10

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $2.81 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for FY 09, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 08 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. No draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) was authorized for FY 09. The Legislature appropriated $1.0 billion from the General Fund to the CBRF during FY 09. Additionally, at the end of FY 09 over $617 million was swept from General Fund surplus and a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts, and transferred to the CBRF. As of June 30, 2009, the CBRF was fully repaid. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 25 recommendations, of which seven are unresolved issues from last year. Also two of the recommendations are made to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation whose audit was performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 09 statewide single …

Download62.5 KBSingle Audit US Office of Management and Budget Pilot Project 20092010
02-40009-09

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $2.54 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for fiscal year 2008, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 08 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. No draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) was authorized for FY 08. The Legislature appropriated $3.0 billion from the General Fund to the CBRF during FY 08. Additionally, at the end of FY 08 over $2.0 billion was swept from a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts, and transferred to the CBRF. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs, except for the major federal programs administered by the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). Insufficient evidence was available to determine compliance with cash management requirements for seven major federal programs and with reporting requirements for four major federal programs at DHSS. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 22 recommendations, of which five are unresolved issues from last year. Also three of the recommendations are made to component units: two recommendations for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and one for the University of Alaska whose audits were performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 08 Statewide Single …

Download3.2 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY082009
02-30046B-09

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on Selected Information System Security Controls in the Department of Administration and the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, March 9, 2009. Please contact the Division of Legislative Audit by mail, e-mail, or telephone to receive a copy of this report. Mail: Division of Legislative Audit P.O. Box 113300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-3300 E-Mail: legaudit@akleg.gov Telephone: …

Download71.6 KBDOA/DOT Selected Information System Security Controls2009
45-30033C-09

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the University of Alaska, Unit Cost Analysis, Part 3, Distance Education, January 16, 2009. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit of the University of Alaska (UA) use of distance education (DE) delivery and technologies. Report Conclusions • With limited exceptions, the University’s implementation of DE delivery currently lacks a coordinated, cohesive approach, and is not student-centric. • Generally, UA is not maximizing the use of available DE technologies. • It is questionable if more aggressive use of advanced technology for DE delivery is warranted and, in rural areas, may still be cost prohibitive. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No.1 The president of UA should ensure distance education (DE) recommendations are implemented. There is no mechanism in place to ensure accountability, monitoring, and feedback of DE implementation to executive managers of UA. Many reviews, reports, and groups have developed recommendations to improve DE system-wide; however, UA has not successfully implemented a majority of them. Although, the president previously identified and delegated implementation of DE recommendations, the committee responsible has not been held accountable for outcomes or timeframes for completion. Instead, DE initiatives have been deferred to DE study and review groups. As a result, marginal system-wide support to improve DE according to the president’s directives has occurred. Recommendation No.2 The President should develop incentives for MAUs to collaborate on DE initiatives. Currently, there are disincentives in place for MAUs to collaborate on DE initiatives. These barriers include fiscal policies and administrative procedures, which constrain cooperation between MAUs in achieving a student-centric approach to DE. Resistance, more specifically, stems from performance budgeting measures, allocation of tuition revenues, and independently developed DE processes. Without development of performance measures that provide incentives for a student-centric approach, MAUs will continue to resist collaboration in developing system-wide DE processes. Furthermore, lack of incentives equates to continued independent development of DE initiatives by MAUs. More independently developed DE systems and student services increase the likelihood of access barriers for students taking courses delivered by campuses outside their geographical area. Access barriers increase the complexity of student navigation of UA system-wide which is contradictory to a student centric approach to DE delivery. Recommendation No.3 The Vice President of Academic Affairs should ensure faculty receive sufficient DE technology training and technical support. UA is not providing sufficient training and technical support for faculty teaching DE courses. Various reasons contribute to inadequate resources being available, including the minimal number of training sessions and IT design staff available. Recommendation No. 4 The Vice President of Academic Affairs should develop, implement, and enforce use of standard DE course parameters and uniform course description information recorded on the management information system. UA system-wide does not consistently use standard DE course parameters for identification on the management information system (Banner). Furthermore, descriptive course information contained on Banner and available to students on the DE Gateway is not uniform or complete in content. Instead, MAUs have independently interpreted and recorded course parameters and descriptive course information on Banner which is inconsistent, unreliable, or …

Download2.0 MBUA Unit Cost Analysis and Other Selected Issues Part 32009
12-20063-09

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review on the Department of Public Safety, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, August 14, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board or the Board) to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an effective and efficient manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the ABC Board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(1), the Board will terminate on June 30, 2010 and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. The primary objective of this audit was to determine whether there is a public need for the Board and if its existence should be extended. The secondary objective was to determine if the ABC Board is serving the public interest in regards to licensing/permitting functions, administrative activities, board activities, and enforcement activities by reviewing these major functions for effectiveness and efficiency of operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the ABC Board should continue to regulate the manufacture, sale, barter, and possession of alcoholic beverages in Alaska in order to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. The Board has demonstrated a need for its continued existence by providing protection to the general public through the issuance, renewal, revocation, and suspension of liquor licenses. Protection has also been provided through active investigation of suspected licensing violations and enforcement of the State’s alcoholic beverage control laws and regulations. With the exceptions noted in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report, the ABC Board is operating in the public interest. However, improvements are needed to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of its operations. This is the third audit performed in the last seven years in which we have recommended a stronger internal control environment be implemented to include written policies and operating procedures, as well as a strategic plan governing enforcement activities. Although the current director has taken immediate action to make improvements to the ABC Board, we are nonetheless concerned that certain issues in the last three audits have not yet been addressed. Therefore, we recommend that AS 44.66.010(a)(1) be amended to extend the termination date of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to June 30, 2014. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The ABC Board members and director should establish quantifiable and objective enforcement goals and develop a clear plan by which they will direct its enforcement resources to most efficiently and effectively accomplish those goals in a verifiable manner. There is no enforcement strategy to prioritize and apply resources in a cohesive fashion to enforce the alcoholic beverage laws. The agency does not know if inspecting and checking half the licenses is a good or bad outcome for their efforts, an effective or efficient use of their resources, or in the best interest of the public. The ABC Board continues to be without a systematic strategy to ensure resources are used effectively and efficiently to enforce the alcoholic beverage laws. The ABC Board members and director should make it a priority to develop and implement goals for enforcement activities that have tangible metrics. Recommendation No. 2 The ABC Board members and director should develop and enforce written policies and procedures to ensure the staff’s compliance with state laws and decisions made by the board and director. There are instances of non-compliance and non-enforcement with state laws, overpayments to municipalities, possible nonpayment of fees by license holders, and incomplete and inaccurate tracking of data. The ABC Board staff’s lack oversight and accountability over their activities to ensure compliance with state laws and decisions made by the board and director. The ABC Board members and director should ensure written policies and procedures are developed, and followed by staff to ensure compliance with state laws and directives from the board and …

Download1.1 MBDPS Alcoholic Beverage Control Board2009
20-30053A-09

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Corrections (DOC), Selected Health and Safety Issues, Part 1, July 21, 2009. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit to determine: (1) the frequency of methicillin-resistant staphycoccolus aureus (MRSA) infections among inmates in Alaska’s correctional facilities; (2) the frequency of MRSA infections among correctional officers (CO) of the Division of Institutions (DOI); (3) the adequacy of protocols for staff when handling incidents of MRSA among inmates; (4) the validity of DOI’s methodology used for staffing patterns at the correctional facilities; and (5) the reasonableness of the staffing policies and procedures, including the minimum level of correctional officers at the correctional facilities. This report is Part 1 of the Special Report on Department of Corrections, Selected Health and Safety Issues. In this report, we address the MRSA related issues identified above in numbers one through three. The remaining selected health and safety issues relate to staffing levels, which will be addressed at a later date in a separate report. Report Conclusions • During the two-year period of 2007 and 2008, the population of inmates infected with MRSA was less than six percent in each of Alaska’s four correctional facilities. We reviewed medical records of inmates incarcerated at the four correctional facilities located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Nome, and Seward to determine if inmates had MRSA. Inmates were identified as “having” MRSA if they either (1) had a confirmed positive MRSA culture or (2) had a skin infection that was not cultured but was treated by health care staff as if the infection was MRSA. • The exact percentage of MRSA infections among correctional officers cannot be determined. COs are not required to disclose MRSA infections to DOC or any other state or federal agency. However, we reviewed workers’ compensation claims filed by COs between January 2007 through December 2008. We identified nine claims that were filed by COs who had MRSA infections, and believed it was contracted at the correctional facility. • DOC’s health and safety protocols appear adequate. DOC’s policies and procedures contain the necessary health and safety protocols to prevent and manage MRSA …

Download677.2 KBDOC Selected Health and Safety Issues Part 12009
25-30052-09

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (AIA), Capital Projects Review, September 4, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of various capital project related issues at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (AIA). Our primary objective was to determine AIA’s process for approving the scope and funding for capital projects, to review capital projects approved over the last ten years for verification of the approval process, and to summarize capital projects in excess of $500,000 by expenditure amount, funding source, and timeframe for completion. Additionally, we assessed the operational effect of projects exceeding budget and completion timeframes. We reviewed two specific projects in detail – the airport director’s office renovation and airport hold room construction. For the director’s office project, our objective was to evaluate the office layout and determine if the layout exceeds professional office space standards. For the hold room project, our objective was to provide a layout of the room, determine the budget and source of funds to operate the room, and identify who is eligible to, and who has used the room over the last year. Report Conclusions AIA generally followed its process for approving projects. This includes the director’s office and hold room construction projects. However, we found AIA inadequately documents certain aspects of the capital project planning and approval process and project management avoids project control practices. Information inadequately documented includes the original budget and expected completion dates for projects. Furthermore, prior to 2009, airlines did not approve individual projects, and information concerning airline approval for projects was unavailable prior to 2002. There is no indication of significant negative impacts on airport operations due to budget or timeframe overruns. We found that the director’s office configuration and many other private offices exceed space allocation standards. Overall, AIA’s management allocated an unreasonable amount of space for administrative non-revenue generating purposes. In addition, AIA has no formal procedures for use of the airport hold room and does not keep a record of hold room use. Over the last six months, the room was used on four occasions – three times by the Governor’s office and once by foreign dignitaries. We also found that DOTPF is not meeting statutory requirements for annual reporting of International Airport Construction Fund activity, and the DOTPF commissioner, appointed in 2007, did not satisfy Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act requirements until July 2009. Findings and Recommendations 1. AIA’s airport director should improve the project planning and management process. 2. The commissioner of DOTPF should ensure submittal of an annual International Airport Construction Fund spending plan to the legislature in accordance with state law. 3. AIA’s airport director should consider reducing the amount of space allocated for administrative purposes to maximize the amount of space available for generating rental …

Download2.0 MBDOT Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Capital Projects Review2009
08-20060-09

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Marital and Family Therapy, September 21, 2009. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy (BMFT). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when determining whether to extend the termination date for BMFT. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(11), the board will terminate on June 30, 2010. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BMFT will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions BMFT should continue to regulate marital and family therapists and associates. Except for the significant issue of postponing regulation changes, the board is operating efficiently and effectively. BMFT is serving the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who provide services to the public as licensed marital and family therapists and associates. The termination date for BMFT should be extended four years – until June 30, 2014. This extension term is half of the eight-year maximum allowed per statute in recognition that BMFT has not met its statutory responsibility for initiating regulation changes. BMFT has not pursued regulation changes because it has been in a deficit position for over 10 years and has not wanted to further weaken its financial position by incurring the costs associated with changing regulation. BMFT’s financial deficit has gradually decreased. The deficit at the beginning of FY 05 was $75,400 versus a deficit of $29,200 at the beginning of FY 09. The deficit has been a continual challenge for the board. The board believes the low number of licenses is the result of the high cost of licensure ($775). There were several deficiencies in the administrative support provided to BMFT by staff within the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. Information contained in the annual reports was often inaccurate and incomplete. Methodologies used to account for BMFT revenues and expenditures were inconsistent and, in some cases, inaccurate. These deficiencies were caused by an unqualified staff member and a lack of written procedures for support functions. Findings and Recommendations 1. BMFT should actively pursue regulation changes that are necessary to protect the public interest. 2. The Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s professional licensing administrative manager should take steps to improve administrative support. 3. The Office of the Governor should make the necessary appointments to keep BMFT at full …

Download700.3 KBDCCED Board of Marital and Family Therapy2009
08-20061-09

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Professional Counselors, September 30, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Professional Counselors (BPC). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BPC. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(17), the board will terminate on June 30, 2010. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BPC will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions BPC should continue to regulate professional counselors. The board is serving the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who provide services to the public as licensed professional counselors. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2018. The Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing’s investigation unit did not address all investigations in a timely manner. Investigators inconsistently recorded information in the case management system. Several deficiencies were noted in the administrative support provided to BPC by the division’s staff. The information contained in the annual reports was often inaccurate and incomplete. The methodologies used to account for BPC revenues and expenditures were inconsistent and, in some cases, inaccurate. Furthermore, important information was not forwarded to investigative staff. Findings and Recommendations 1. The division’s professional licensing administrative officer should take steps to improve administrative support. 2. The division’s chief investigator should establish procedures to ensure investigators consistently enter information into the case management system and should take steps to ensure complaints/cases are investigated timely. 3. The division’s professional licensing supervisors should take steps to ensure salient investigative information is forwarded to the investigative section. 4. The Office of the Governor should take steps to make the necessary appointments to keep BPC at full …

Download553.8 KBDCCED Board of Professional Counselors2009
08-20062-09

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Board of Social Work Examiners, September 30, 2009 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Social Work Examiners (BSWE). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BSWE. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(6), the board will terminate on June 30, 2010. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BSWE will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions BSWE should continue to regulate clinical, master, and baccalaureate social workers. The board is serving the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who provide services to the public as licensed social workers. BSWE continues to enforce and propose changes to regulations to improve BSWE’s effectiveness and ensure that social workers are appropriately licensed. Several deficiencies were noted in the administrative support provided to BSWE staff within the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. The information contained in the annual reports was often inaccurate and incomplete. The methodologies used to account for BSWE revenues and expenditures were inconsistent and, in some cases, inaccurate. Findings and Recommendations 1. The division’s professional licensing administrative officer should take steps to improve administrative …

Download386.2 KBDCCED Board of Social Work Examiners2009
02-10006-09

Download70.1 KBDOA Follow-up of Information System Controls over Alaska Data Enterprise Reporting (ALDER)2009
08-20056-09

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Public Accountancy. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statues, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Public Accountancy (board). As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process involved in determining if the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(1) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2009. If the legislature does not extend the termination date before then, the board will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the board should be extended. The board is serving the public interest by effectively licensing and regulating certified public accountants. Moreover, the board is serving the public interest by policing the profession and ensuring that only properly qualified individuals practice in Alaska as certified public accountants. The board has promoted and effectively assisted in updating the statutes governing the practice of public accounting. As statutes were updated, the board produced regulations to further define the new requirements affecting each professional under its purview. When the board discovered omissions in statute that acted to block an avenue to licensure that should have been grandfathered into the new rules, the board immediately requested a legislative “fix” and assisted with testimony during the legislative session in order to mitigate this omission. As a result, fifteen candidates who had been pursuing licensure under the old statute gained a legitimate avenue to become licensed. The board was able to re-establish a Fairbanks site for the certified public accountant exam. However, a site in Southeast Alaska is still out of reach due to cost. The board has also improved the application process to take the Certified Public Accountants exam by contracting for on-line services from the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy. The decision to contract these services has had the added benefit of redirecting staff time to important problem-solving and licensure activities. The board has been proactive in shaping the future of the accounting profession by working with committees of national professional societies that set professional standards. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(1) requires the Board of Public Accountancy be terminated on June 30, 2009. Under AS 08.03.020, if the termination date is not extended by the legislature, the board will have a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. Although AS 08.03.020(c) allows the legislature to extend the termination date of the board for up to eight years, we recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date for four years, to June 30, 2013. This recommendation is offered based on the board’s discussions concerning future services that may be out-sourced, possible changes in board structure and new statutes and regulations that may be pursued in the near future. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 Vacant board positions should be filled in accordance with AS 08.04.040. Recommendation No. 2 The board, in concert with the Professional Licensing section, should review current and projected funding needs with the intent of reducing fees. Recommendation No. 3 The Investigation Section should implement an effective case tracking …

Download900.1 KBDCCED Board of Public Accountancy2009
02-40008-08

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007. Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $2.64 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for fiscal year 2007, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. No draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) was authorized for FY 07. At the end of FY 07 over $416 million was swept from a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts, and transferred to the CBRF. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. The report does contain recommendations regarding significant deficiencies in the State’s internal control over financial statements and federal programs; none of the recommendations are considered material weaknesses. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 20 recommendations, of which seven are unresolved issues from last year. Also, two of the recommendations are made to component units: both recommendations for the University of Alaska whose audits were performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to …

Download4.4 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY072008
10-30049A-08

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund, Matanuska Maid, Part 1, March 7, 2008. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit to address various issues and concerns related to the closure and eventual dissolution of the Creamery Corporation which does business as Matanuska Maid (MatMaid). The Creamery Corporation was a private sector, dairy product wholesaler. The State of Alaska through the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture (DoAg), Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund (ARLF) is the sole stockholder in the Creamery Corporation. Report Conclusions As part of a multi-stage audit, we were directed to identify the sources of funding for the Division of Agriculture (DoAg) and Matanuska Maid (MatMaid). We were also directed to report on funding sources used to finance activities of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation (BAC) and the Creamery Board (Board). This funding information is set out in the organization and function and the background information sections of this report. The Report Conclusions section sets out our findings related to the other audit objectives, as follows: The Creamery Corporation has appropriately paid federal and state income tax. All disbursements linked to state funding were consistent with appropriation language. Although the $600,000 General Fund appropriation was approved in June 2007, MatMaid did not receive the funds until November 2007. The funds were deposited in the corporation’s main checking account, commingled with the other corporate cash and operating proceeds. Since the state funds were commingled with MatMaid’s corporate cash, we analyzed all MatMaid expenditures between November 15, 2007 (the day after the state funds were received) and February 29, 2008.We confirmed the expenditures identified as being funded by the state appropriation was consistent with the language accompanying the appropriation and reiterated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) financial managers. Payment to dairy farmers inconsistent with the Creamery Board’s corporate responsibilities. Disbursements of just over $39,000 were made to four in-state dairy producers who had sold raw milk to MatMaid while it was an operating dairy. MatMaids’s governing board – the Creamery Board, decided to make a final payment to these suppliers after the end of operations, although they were under no contractual obligation. Such action is not consistent with the financial interest of the corporate shareholder – the State’s Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund. The funds were not attributed to the General Fund appropriation, but were made from other MatMaid funds. MatMaid financial records indicate sufficient assets to cover known liabilities and creditors. The cash position of the corporation at the end of February 2008, and the underlying value of MatMaid equipment and rolling stock, indicates sufficient assets to pay known existing liabilities and creditors. Property located in Anchorage (on Northern Lights Boulevard) and in downtown Palmer on which MatMaid operated is owned by ARLF. The proceeds from any sale of these properties would not be used to fund future or unknown, MatMaid creditor claims. State executive who oversaw MatMaid’s closure was compensated by the State, not the corporation. Since late August 2007, day-to-day management of MatMaid and wind-up has been carried out by a state official – a special assistant to the commissioner of Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). From our review of MatMaid expenditures, we saw no evidence this individual was compensated through the corporation. Rather, any compensation he received came through his capacity as a state employee.We estimate the total state personnel costs for this individual was more than $45,000 between September 2007 and February 2008 In our view a conservative estimate would be that MatMaid was subsidized by at least $25,000 for the efforts of the state executive. MatMaid equipment and rolling stock is accounted for and still sufficiently controlled. Restrictions over loans for board members with ARLF have been …

Download1.4 MBDNR Division of Agriculture Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund Matanuska Maid Part 12008
18-30047-08

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund, March 18, 2008. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Spill Prevention and Response (Division). Specifically, we were asked to review the expenditures and cost recovery revenues from the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund (Fund). Report Conclusions The conclusions are as follows. The Report Conclusions section sets out our findings related to the other audit objectives, as follows: all expenditures are not recorded according to activities compliance with statutory cost recovery requirements is unclear Division is not efficiently and effectively recovering costs most expenditures were appropriate legal costs need an improved budgeting process certain contractual oversight practices are weak detailed information on the Fund’s financial activities is incomplete During the audit we reviewed a $9 million reimbursable services agreement between the Division and the Department of Law for legal services related to two transit pipeline spills on the North Slope. The contract was funded by the Response Account without specific legislative appropriation. It would have been more prudent to follow the established legislative budget process, especially for long-term legal activities. Findings and Recommendations The Division Director should improve the accountability for the Division’s activities and reporting of Fund expenditures.The Division’s current recording and reporting practices provide insufficient detail to adequately evaluate the programs’ activities. The Division is not recording expenditures in a way that allows clear financial reporting for the cleanup and containment costs of each site. The Division should improve its accountability for the use and reporting of the Fund. Improvements should include: reviewing and improving its current accounting structure in the State’s accounting system for tracking site and program expenditures; recording all site-incurred expenditures to specific sites to provide accurate reporting of the total costs incurred for cleanup and containment of sites; evaluating program administration expenditures and ensuring employees are recording personal service time to the appropriate sites and activities; reviewing its indirect rate methodology to ensure that the rate reflects the Division’s costs that are not directly charged to sites; providing detailed analysis and reporting of its program core activities by site, facility, and region; accurately recording state and state lead sites expenditures to the appropriate legislative authorization (i.e. capital appropriations); requiring that the Division’s database key fields correlate to the State’s accounting system; improving its site and program databases to ensure greater flexibility in responding to information requests posed in a variety of formats; and, modifying the Division’s biennial report to also provide information about the programs’ core detailed activities. The Division Director should improve the Division’s efficacy in the recovery of state expenditures and implement appropriate regulations.The Division’s current cost recovery system is archaic and cannot produce summary information necessary for appropriate management. The Division should either utilize the reporting features on the State’s accounting system or another cost effective alternative to enhance its collections and reporting process of cost recovery efforts. The Division should also implement regulations to strengthen cost recovery efforts, improve accountability, and fulfill statutory requirements. The contract management section manager should take action to improve the review of contractor …

Download3.8 MBDEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund2008
06-30044-08

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on Training, Policies, and Practices Related to Reporting Suspected Statutory Rape, Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, April 28, 2008. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit of training, policies, procedures and practices related to the mandatory reporting of the form of child sexual abuse commonly referred to as statutory rape. More specifically, we were directed to evaluate these factors as they related to the provision of reproductive health services to adolescents. Our review was limited to health care professionals, specifically Public Health Nurses (PHNs) that fell into one of two groups: (1) those employed by the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Public Health, Section of Public Health Nursing (SOPHN); and (2) those employed by organizations receiving grant funding from DHSS. Report Conclusions A summary of the conclusions follows: SOPHN mandatory reporting policy addresses child sexual abuse and mandatory reporting statutes. One out of the four DHSS grantees lacks a written policy on child sexual abuse reporting. Revision to SOPHN policy lagged behind statutory amendments by more than one year. Most PHNs report receiving adequate training on child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse training covers common risk factors of child sexual abuse. Findings and Recommendations The director of Public Health should ensure that SOPHN’s mandatory reporting policy more timely reflect changes in state law.In April 2006, the Legislature amended the child sexual abuse statute, effective immediately. SOPHN was not informed about the amended law in a timely manner. DHSS’ revision and review of the new policy by its legal advisors took over one year, with the new policy being implemented in August 2007. We recommend DPH improve its mechanism for informing SOPHN of changes in statute and for ensuring more timely revisions to policy and procedures. The SOPHN chief should amend mandatory reporting policy to better align written guidance with expected practice.Ostensibly, SOPHN’s standard practice is to ask a client who is 15 years old or younger and seeking reproductive health services the age of his or her partner(s). This practice is not reflected in SOPHN’s formal mandatory reporting policy. A third of the PHNs responding to our survey reported they did not routinely ask about the age of the partner during the course of consultation or treatment. This standard practice would be better communicated and more likely to be consistently implemented if incorporated into the written policy and procedures or practice guidelines. The SOPHN chief should further strengthen oversight of PHN child sexual abuse training.The majority of PHNs report receiving adequate, frequent, and recent training on child sexual abuse recognition and reporting. However, 12 percent of the public health nurses reported having either received training less than once every five years or having never received training in this area. We encourage management to continue to monitor training and to identify areas and individuals needing additional training.As part of their grant, the agreements between DHSS and the grantees include the assurance that the organizations comply with the State’s child protection statute. SOPHN may wish to consider increasing their oversight by including as an additional grant assurance that the grantee PHNs attend training specifically on child sexual abuse recognition and reporting at least once every five years. The commissioner should ensure DHSS complies with child abuse curriculum requirements.State law, at AS 47.17.022, requires all state agencies and local school districts with employees covered by the State’s mandatory reporting law must have a current copy of their training curriculum and materials on file with the Council of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Currently the council does not have either a curriculum or materials for DHSS’ child protection training.We recommend DHSS seek the council’s technical assistance in developing future trainings on child abuse in general and child sexual abuse in particular. We also recommend DHSS file its current child abuse training curriculum and materials with the council for both the council’s review and for accessibility by state mandatory reporters and the general …

Download492.1 KBDHSS Division of Public Health Training-Policies-Practices Related to Reporting Suspected Statuatory Rape2008
08-30048-08

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Power System Upgrade Program, Procurement Issues, August 15, 2008. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit of procurement issues under the Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) program administered by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). The objectives of the audit were to review and assess the procurement process for RPSU projects and the related Switchgear Evaluation Report, dated November 21, 2007. In addition, we conducted a survey of communities with a completed RPSU project to obtain their perspective on certain aspects of the program. Report Conclusions Procurement policies and procedures for AEA’s Rural Energy Group (REG) projects need to be rewritten. Procurements for RPSU projects were not consistently made in compliance with the Rural Energy Group, Bulk Fuel Upgrade Program/Rural Power System Upgrade Program Project Reference Manual guidelines or the underlying federal regulations. The Switchgear Evaluation Report does not clearly meet the original intended purpose. The majority of communities with completed RPSU projects are generally satisfied with their upgraded power system; however, the program provides little community involvement in the design of the system or the procurement process. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The executive director of AEA should undertake revision to the REG procurement policies and procedures to more closely align with the state developed policies and procedures. The federal assistance agreements governing funding require AEA and its subgrantees to comply with federal procurement regulations. The following are areas of weakness in AEA’s procurement system related to informal and formal procurement methods. Approval authority listing is not maintained. The listing of AEA staff with purchasing authority along with the dollar limits placed on that authority is not updated regularly. Signatory records are not maintained. No signatory records are maintained to ensure only authorized personnel approve procurements and the payment for the purchases. A formal vendor listing is not maintained for various types of procurement. A vendor listing is not maintained for procurements that require AEA staff to only obtain price quotes from vendors rather than issuing invitations for formal bids. A formal record of the date and time bids or proposals are received is not consistently kept. Use of specific brand name equipment is not consistently justified. We believe there is no need to develop a written set of policies and procedures that are different from the state procurement policies and procedures. Rather, like DOTPF, AEA should use the state procedures as the base and only make changes where federal regulations differ. Recommendation No. 2 AEA Rural Energy Group procurements should be made in accordance with the required policies and procedures. There were three exceptions to established procurement standards related to the award of term contracts. These contracts, last awarded in 2002, put a group of firms on retainer to AEA. This allows AEA to make work assignments on an as needed basis, through what are termed Notices to Proceed (NTP). The exceptions included: The cost of services was not a part of the evaluation criteria for the term contract award. Business licenses were not confirmed. NTPs were awarded to term contractors in a non-competitive …

Download1.9 MBDCCED Alaska Energy Authority Rural Power System Upgrade Program Procurement Issues2008
10-30049B-08

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund, Matanuska Maid, Part 2, September 22, 2008. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit to address various issues and concerns related to the dissolution of the Creamery Corporation which does business as Matanuska Maid (MatMaid). The Creamery Corporation was a private sector, dairy product wholesaler. The State of Alaska through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Agriculture, Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund (ARLF) is the sole stockholder in the Creamery Corporation. Report Conclusions As the second of a multi-part audit, we were directed to analyze the disposal of the dairy’s assets and the accounting for the proceeds generated by disposal. We were also directed to review the process currently in place to manage and account for revenues still being generated by the lease of some MatMaid assets. The Report Conclusions section sets out our findings related to the other audit objectives, as follows: Sale of MatMaid assets were done in compliance with appropriate standards and practices. Given the classification of the assets involved and the private sector status of the Creamery Corporation d/b/a MatMaid procedures followed in the disposition of assets were appropriate. Buy out value of leased equipment would exceed likely auction value. Some assets with an appraised and assessed value of approximately $650,000 were leased to a start-up dairy operation in the Matanuska Valley. The start-up dairy operation has the option to purchase all the equipment identified in the lease for approximately $400,000. If the option to purchase is exercised, the Creamery Corporation would receive over 60% return, which is more than the 46% the auction received of appraised value. $600,000 of auction proceeds was not accounted for appropriately. In 2007 the legislature appropriated $600,000 to the DNR to pay for MatMaid operations. The chair of the Creamery Corporation board stated, in a letter requesting the funds, it was the intent of the board that the funds be repaid to the State of Alaska. The language of the appropriation does not require such a repayment and any proceeds generated from the sale of MatMaid assets should be credited to the ARLF. Public confused by the standards used for various decisions made by either the Board of Agriculture and Conservation (BAC) and Creamery Corporation board. The overlapping membership of the BAC and the Creamery Corporation boards generated confusion about what standards and procedures governed a particular …

Download2.1 MBDNR Division of Agriculture Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund Matanuska Maid Part 22008
08-20058-08

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, sunset legislation, we have reviewed the activities of the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors (BRAELS or board). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of the board. Report Conclusions Under AS 08.03.010(c)(3), the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors will terminate on June 30, 2009. If the legislature does not take action to extend the board’s termination date, AS 08.03.020 provides that the board will have one year in which to conclude its administrative operations. In our opinion, the termination date for the board should be extended. BRAELS serves a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to conduct its business in a satisfactory manner. The registration of qualified architects, engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects benefits the public’s safety and welfare. We recommend that the legislature extend the termination date of the board until June 30, 2017. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, in conjunction with BRAELS, should review registration fees as provided by statute and consider decreasing fees. The director of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing should ensure that BRAELS registrants that are Corporations, Limited Liability Companies (LLC’s), and Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP’s) are licensed in accordance with state regulations. The Office of the Governor should fill vacant seats on the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors in a timely …

Download1.2 MBDCCED State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors2008
08-20059-08

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Veterinary Examiners. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, sunset legislation, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Veterinary Examiners to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the its continued existence and if it has been operating in an efficient and effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should continue to exist. Report Conclusions Under AS 08.03.010(c)(21), the Board of Veterinary Examiners (BVE or board) will terminate on June 30, 2009. If the legislature does not take action to extend the board’s termination date, AS 08.03.020 provides that the board will have one year in which to conclude its administrative operations. The regulation and licensing of veterinarians and veterinary technicians benefits the public. BVE has demonstrated an ability to conduct its affairs in an efficient manner. The board continues to propose changes to regulations to improve the effectiveness of the board and ensure that veterinarians and veterinarian technicians licensed in the State of Alaska are competent and capable of maintaining the integrity of the profession. In our opinion, the termination date of Board of the Veterinary Examiners should be extended to June 30, 2017. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, in conjunction with the Board of Veterinary Examiners, should review licensing fees as provided by statute and consider decreasing fees. The Office of the Governor should fill vacant seats on the Board of Veterinary Examiners in a timely …

Download859.0 KBDCCED Board of Veterinary Examiners2008
41-20057-08

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association, November 4, 2008. Purpose of the Report In accordance with the intent of Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have performed a review of the activities of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association (board). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of the board. There are four objectives of our report. They are: To determine if the termination date for the board should be extended. To determine if the board is operating in the public’s interest. To determine if the board has exercised appropriate oversight of licensed members of the Alaska Bar Association. To provide a current status on the recommendations made in the prior report. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association should be extended. The regulation and licensing of qualified attorneys contributes to the protection of the public’s welfare. The board, through the Alaska Supreme Court, protects the public by ensuring that persons licensed to practice law are qualified. It also provides for the investigation of complaints and has established a disciplinary process designed to promote licensed individuals to act in a competent and professional manner. Chapter 58, SLA 2005 amended AS 08.03.020(c) to increase from four to eight years the period for which a board scheduled for termination may be continued or reestablished by the legislature. As such, we recommend that the legislature extend the termination date of the board to June 30, 2017. We have also made recommendations that, if implemented, will improve the effectiveness of the board’s goals and operations. See the Findings and Recommendations section of this report. Findings and Recommendations The board’s prior sunset audit reported several administrative weaknesses. One of those recommendations has been resolved. The unresolved issues are reiterated in this report. The board should recommend to the Alaska Supreme Court that mandatory minimum continuing legal education (CLE) for attorneys be adopted..The board voted at their September 7, 2006 meeting to send the mandatory CLE rule, as published, to the Alaska Supreme Court. Based on this rule, the Alaska Supreme Court amended Alaska Bar Rule 65 through Supreme Court Order No. 1640, to require all members to complete three credit hours of mandatory ethics continuing legal education (MECLE) per year. The mandatory ethics requirement does not fully achieve the goal of promoting competency and professionalism in members of the Alaska Bar Association (Bar). Although ethics education is part of the goal, requiring CLE as opposed to encouraging voluntary legal education will strengthen the public’s confidence that attorneys are professional and competent. The board should consider developing a database of disciplined lawyers in the Bar’s website.Although some steps have been taken in response to this recommendation, attorney discipline information is not yet available via link from the Bar’s website. We continue to believe the board should develop a database of disciplined lawyers to which the public is provided access via the Bar’s website. The board should adhere to existing public notice requirements for all meetings or modify the bylaws to clearly address conference call board meeting procedures and public notice …

Download2.0 MBACS Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association2008
06-20055-08

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council, Department of Health and Social Services, November 4, 2008. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council (SSPC or council) to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an efficient and effective manner. Report Conclusions Overall, we found that the council is operating in the public interest and spearheading efforts that are necessary to address the public health concern of suicide. Therefore, we recommend the legislature extend the termination date of the council to June 30, 2013. The four year extension is recommended because of issues discussed in the Findings and Recommendations. Findings and Recommendations The council’s prior audit contained four recommendations. Three of the four recommendations have either been resolved or are no longer current issues. The prior recommendation regarding timely appointments to the council is re-addressed below as Recommendation No. 2. Recommendation No. 1 TSSPC should, in accordance with statutes, appoint its own coordinator and perform annual performance reviews. The current SSPC coordinator was not appointed in accordance with the statutes. Effective July 1, 2008, the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) assigned SSPC coordinator responsibilities to the Prevention and Early Intervention section manager in the Division of Behavioral Health (DBH). This SSPC coordinator appointment was not made in accordance with the statutes and appears to diminish SSPC’s autonomy and independent voice with the governor and legislature. We recommend that the council either accept the current coordinator through a formal vote or initiate actions to hire a new coordinator. In addition, it is critical that the council conduct annual performance evaluations as required by statute, particularly if the coordinator is a DBH employee. Only through the council’s interest in remaining autonomous can its independent voice be assured. Recommendation No. 2 The legislature should consider modifying the composition of council membership.. The composition of the council’s membership is established in AS 44.29.300 and includes very specific qualifications which have created difficulties in filling the positions. Vacancies combined with low attendance rates make it difficult for the council to establish a quorum at its meetings. The legislature should consider changes to AS 44.29.300 to broaden the qualifications of council members to ensure that appointees are interested in the work of the council and can make the time commitment necessary to serve. Additionally, consideration should be given to making legislative members non-voting to prevent potential quorum …

Download1.3 MBDHSS Statewide Suicide Prevention Council2008
18-30042-08

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Village Safe Water Program, December 5, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of the Village Safe Water Program (VSW) administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The objectives of the report fall into two categories. The first category involves how the VSW program distributes grant funding to various communities served by the program. Objectives include: (1) assessing the reasonableness of the criteria used to identify and scale sanitation projects for various communities; (2) reviewing how funding priorities are established for construction grant funding; (3) assessing how well the program has done in communicating ranking and assessment criteria to communities seeking grant funding. The second category of objectives involves reviewing and assessing the changes made by DEC in how the VSW program is administered. Changes have been made primarily in response to a November 2003 Legislative Audit report and concerns by federal funding agencies. Objectives include: (1) assessing the effectiveness of newly established controls over project construction costs; and (2) the impact over how administrative costs being charged to outstanding projects will have on the final cost and design. Report Conclusions Systems selected for communities are consistent with both established DEC criteria and legislative intent. Construction and financial controls have improved in recent years, but minor exceptions persist. Ranking of applications for construction grant funding is consistent with established criteria. VSW program managers did a good job of communicating the changes made to construction grant criteria to affected communities. Use of the Rural Utility Business Advisor (RUBA) evaluation process has delayed starting projects already appropriated, and is preventing some rural communities from submitting grant applications. VSW’s retroactive assessments of administrative costs on past projects and, more significantly, construction material cost increases have an impact on the scope and nature of already appropriated projects. Findings and Recommendations The legislature should consider clarifying the eligibility requirements for the Village Safe Water (VSW) in order to better target funding.The VSW program has historically been used as the primary conduit for funding directed to improve the sanitation conditions in Alaska’s remote rural, primarily Native communities. In recent years, the VSW program has provided construction grants for communities that do not fit this profile.The program has begun receiving interest and applications from neighborhood subdivision organizations or nonprofit corporations representing a group of households rather than being affiliated with a local governing body. VSW managers report they have dealt with organizations that have been specifically formed to apply for sanitation grants. Although managers are uneasy whether such communities meet the central intent of the VSW program, they have been advised by the Department of Law (DOL) that such organizations are eligible for grant funding. DEC’s Division of Water Facilities Program Manager should ensure that project application files are complete and provide fully documented support for inclusion the VSW budget request. Managers of the VSW program should require communities to receive a successful utility business assessment as a condition for applying for a construction grant.VSW requires communities to successfully complete a RUBA assessment prior to releasing appropriated funds necessary to start construction. Currently, there are 17 communities, involving 22 separate appropriations totaling over $44.7 million, with projects on hold awaiting successful completion of a RUBA essential indication assessment.We recommend VSW management require a successful RUBA assessment as a condition of applying for a construction grant. Such a requirement would avoid situations where funding is held up over multiple construction seasons and would provide greater assurance the community is administratively capable of sustainably operating the newly built …

Download465.7 KBDEC Division of Water Village Safe Water Program2008
02-30046A-08

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Administration, Governance Framework for Selected Information System Security Controls, July 15, 2008. Please contact the Division of Legislative Audit by mail, e-mail, or telephone to receive a copy of this report. Mail: Division of Legislative Audit P.O. Box 113300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-3300 E-Mail: legaudit@akleg.gov Telephone: …

Download70.5 KBDOA Governance Framework for Selected Information System Security Controls2008
06-30035A-07

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Use of Recidivism Rates by State Agencies, Overview of Current Practices, February 23, 2007 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the use of criminal recidivism rates as a measure of effectiveness of state rehabilitation programs. As part of the audit, we reviewed the collection of data by state rehabilitation programs as a basis for generating recidivism rates and evaluating outcomes. Report Conclusions We concluded there is no universal standard when it comes to calculating recidivism rates. Calculation methodologies need to be customized to provide recidivism data to answer specific questions. While there are no industry standards for calculating recidivism rates, there are critical components in describing the methodology that should be included in any report. The three components are: a clear description of the population to be studied; the time period reviewed; and, a detailed description of what constitutes a “relapse into criminal behavior.” Without these components, a recidivism study does not give a sufficient framework to understand and accurately interpret the study’s results. We also concluded that the routine calculation of recidivism rates is cost prohibitive, mainly due to the availability of data. Most data are collected manually through the use of intake logs and client files. Manual data collection severely limits the State’s ability to efficiently evaluate program effectiveness, including the calculation of recidivism rates. For those programs that do have an electronic database, its usefulness is limited because the information is incomplete, unreliable, or too new to be of current use. Appendix B provides a summary of various recidivism studies for state rehabilitation programs that have been issued between July 1996 and February 2007. Findings and Recommendations The report includes the following three findings and recommendation: Recommendation No. 1 The commissioner of the Department of Public Safety (DPS), as chair of the criminal justice information advisory board (CJIAB), should reestablish the board as a first step towards integrating the State’s criminal justice systems. We recommended the commissioner of DPS reconvene CJIAB. We further recommended CJIAB leverage the structure and accomplishments of the Multi-Agency Justice Integration Consortium by providing the group strategic direction that allows the state to work towards full integration of criminal justice systems. Recommendation No. 2 The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) director of the Division of Behavioral Health should institute quality control procedures over the data collected and stored in the Alaska Automated Information Management System (AKAIMS) behavioral health database. We recommended that the division director institute procedures to ensure accurate and complete data is entered into AKAIMS by behavioral health grantees. Once reliability of the data is established, we recommended DHSS utilize this valuable information to gain insight into the factors that affect recidivism. Recommendation No. 3 The commissioner for the Department of Corrections (DOC) should improve the data collection for its institutional programs aimed at reducing recidivism. We recommended DOC’s commissioner institute and enforce standard data collection procedures for its inmate education/training programs at each correctional facility. This should allow for the collection of program data that could be used to evaluate program effectiveness, including the calculation and analysis of recidivism rates. Auditor’s Comments The following auditor’s comments were included: The Alcohol Safety Action Program’s program manager should explore the possibility of using its new central web-based database to generate annual recidivism data. Significant changes are needed for the organization and administration of the Batterers Intervention Program to allow for the collection and analysis of program …

Download1.2 MBCombined Use of Recidivism Rates by State Agencies Overview of Current Practices2007
06-30035B-07

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Use of Recidivism Rates by State Agencies, Recidivism Rates for the Alcohol Safety Action Program, March 13, 2007 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit on the recidivism rates of the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP). This audit was part of a larger review of recidivism rates of state rehabilitation programs – Use of Recidivism Rates by State Agencies, Overview of Current Practices (Audit Control No. 06-030035A-07). To facilitate the dissemination of results, the calculation of ASAP recidivism rates are contained in this report.. Scope and Methodology Recidivism rates were calculated on a sample of offenders with a new ASAP case during FY 02. The professional services of the Urban Institute were used for assistance in designing a sampling plan; designing a database for collection of recidivism information; and statistical expertise in calculating recidivism rates. The Urban Institute’s full report on ASAP recidivism rates, including methodology, can be found as Appendix A. Report Conclusions The key recidivism findings are as follows: Overall, 52.6 percent of ASAP clients were rearrested for any crime within 42 months of their ASAP judgment date, and 44.2 percent had a new conviction over the same time period. Overall, 8.9 percent of ASAP clients were rearrested for an alcohol/drug-related offense within 42 months of their judgment date, and 7.6 percent were convicted of a new alcohol/drug-related offense during the same period of time. ASAP clients who completed alcohol and substance abuse education were less likely to be arrested or reconvicted for any crime than those that were never assessed [1]. ASAP clients that complete treatment were less likely, on average, to be rearrested or reconvicted for any crime than those that were never assessed. However, the difference was not statistically significant. ASAP clients with a greater number of prior arrests were more likely to to be rearrested for any crime. Older subjects were less likely to recidivate. Race and gender were not significantly related to the risk of rearrest after controlling for other factors. ASAP clients with greater numbers of prior arrests for person or society offenses or a greater number of prior convictions were more likely to be reconvicted for any crime during the follow-up period. ASAP clients with a greater number of prior convictions for offenses against society were less likely to be reconvicted for any crime after controlling for the other effects. ASAP clients that completed the substance abuse education were less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted for an alcohol/drug crime than those that were never assessed. White ASAP clients were less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted for an alcohol/drug crime than clients from the “Other” race category (i.e. Black, Hispanic). Older ASAP clients were more likely to be rearrested or reconvicted for an alcohol/drug related crime. ASAP clients with a greater number of prior crimes against society were more likely to be rearrested for a new alcohol/drug crime. For those individuals that completed ASAP (education or treatment), the hazard rates [2], measured after completion, were not significantly different than the hazard rates measured after judgment. This indicates that impact of the program is realized immediately upon entering the program rather than upon completion of the program. Survival times for clients that did not complete treatment or did not complete education were similar to the survival times for those never assessed. Footnotes [1] “Never assessed” means that a person was court-ordered into the program but never showed up at the ASAP office for an assessment. [2] Hazard rate is the instantaneous rate of …

Download1.4 MBCombined Use of Recidivism Rates by State Agencies Recidivism Rates for the Alcohol Safety Action Program2007
06-30035C-07

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Use of Recidivism Rates for State Agencies, Recidivism Rates for Alaska Sex Offenders, March 8, 2007 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit of recidivism rates for a group of Alaska sex offenders. This audit was part of a larger review of recidivism rates of state rehabilitation programs – Use of Recidivism Rates by State Agencies, Overview of Current Practices (Audit Control No. 06-30035A-07). To facilitate the dissemination of results, the calculation of sex offender recidivism rates are contained in this report. Scope and Methodology Our scope included sex offenders convicted in Alaska of a sex offense that required the offender to register with the Department of Public Safety as a sex offender. Specifically, all offenders convicted between July 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987 were selected for review. The professional services of the Urban Institute were used for consulting on research design and advanced statistical analysis. The Urban Institute produced a sex offender recidivism report, included as Appendix A, that forms the basis for conclusions contained in this report. Report Conclusions The key recidivism conclusions are as follows: 60.5 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for any crime within 15 years of their qualifying judgment and 52.4 percent were reconvicted within the same period. 17.8 percent of the sex offenders were rearrested for sex [1] crimes within 15 years of their qualifying judgment and 10.1 percent were reconvicted for sex crimes during the same period. Subsequent criminal activity data shows that 33 percent of the reconvicted offenders committed 72 percent of the crimes recommitted by the group overall. Several variables were analyzed to determine their effect on recidivism. This analysis indicates: Completion of the sex offender treatment while on community supervision did not impact an offender’s likelihood of being rearrested or reconvicted. Being on community supervision did not impact an offender’s likelihood of being rearrested or reconvicted. Sex offenders were less likely to be reconvicted while on supervision than after they were released from supervision. Convictions for sex crimes were rare events and none of the variables reached statistical significance. Sex offenders whose community supervision was revoked or who absconded from supervision were 2.7 times more likely to be rearrested. Older offenders were significantly less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted for any crime. Each additional time offenders were reincarcerated increased risk of rearrest and reconviction for any crime. Alaska Natives or American Indians were at a higher risk for rearrest and reconviction for any crime compared to other ethnicities. Those offenders that completed high school were less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted for any crime and those that completed more than high school were less likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Offenders were less likely to be rearrested/reconvicted for any crime and less likely to be rearrested for a sex crime with each additional year offenders spent incarcerated during the follow-up period. Offenders were more likely to be rearrested or reconvicted with each additional year offenders spent incarcerated for their qualifying crime. Footnotes [1] Sex crimes are crimes that require the offender register as a sex …

Download1.3 MBCombined Use of Recidivism Rates by State Agencies Recidivism Rates for Alaska Sex Offenders2007
08-30039-07

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, April 11, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) administrative and financial controls in place to compensate for the centralized state government controls that were removed. Additionally, we were directed to review and assess (1) the reasonableness of the compensation of the AADC staff and governing board; (2) the validity of the corporation’s college scholarship program; (3) the adequacy of the corporation’s investment policy; and, (4) the feasibility of the corporation paying a dividend to the State. Report Conclusions The conclusions are as follows: AADC has adequate financial management controls in place; Administrative controls over personnel practices are weak primarily due to minimal documentation of the basis for employee compensation and job performance; AADC board member compensation is consistent with provisions of the corporation’s statute; AADC’s scholarship program is allowed under the corporation’s statutory authority; AADC’s investment policy should be improved to address important aspects of fiduciary care; and AADC’s current operations do not support payment of a significant dividend to the State. Findings and Recommendations The AADC Board of Directors (Board) should direct the President to establish a documented personnel management system that includes a formalized salary structure system and more formalized evaluation process. AADC’s Board of Directors should direct the President to develop regulations or policy for the corporation’s education programs. AADC’s Board of Directors should take action to improve the corporation’s investment policy and document that key precepts are understood and followed by corporate staff and outside investment managers. To encourage AADC’s Board of Directors to actively consider distribution of a dividend to the State, the legislature should require the Board to formally evaluate such action each year, and report to the legislature. There is now interest in directing AADC to distribute a dividend to the State from the earnings of the corporation. For an organization such as AADC, with a business model and a market that are not fully matured, the income and asset balances do not reflect the corporation’s capacity to pay a significant dividend to the state. Capacity to pay dividends is not clearly reflected in financial statement account balances. Any assessment of dividends must consider using the “fees and profit” proceeds generated by the corporation’s primary operating contract. These proceeds are available to be spent on what are termed “non-billable” items. While these proceeds are reflected in the corporation’s financial statements, they are not specifically identified as revenues available for spending on discretionary items – such as bonuses and scholarships. Accordingly, trying to develop legislation that would require a certain amount or percentage of these funds be paid in dividends would be difficult to define and clearly set out in state law. Such action could not adequately account for such factors such as cash flow, other commercial prospects, and infrastructure needs. Whether funds used to pay for such things as scholarships or bonus compensation could alternatively be used to fund a relatively small dividend to the state’s General Fund, is a valid policy question. Developing a specific language, however, that requires dividends be paid based on a formula applied to balance sheet accounts would be difficult. Accordingly, we recommend the legislature amend state law related to AADC to require the Board to annually consider payment of a dividend to the state. The statute could require that the Board report to the legislature whether a dividend is available or not, and the basis used by the Board in making its …

Download353.4 KBDCCED Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation2007
02-40007-07

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2006. Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of approximately $2.7 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for fiscal year 2006, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and the Summary of Prior Audit Findings. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 06 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. However, the State has material weaknesses in its administrative controls for the Medical Assistance program (Medicaid) which may not prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 28 recommendations, of which five are unresolved issues from last year. Also, three of the recommendations are made to component units: one recommendation for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and two recommendations for the University of Alaska whose audits were performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings, in Section III, identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 05 Statewide Single …

Download14.3 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY062007
20-30040-07

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Corrections, Community Jails Program, April 13, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit to review and assess the equity of funding allocated through the community jails program administered by the Department of Corrections (DOC). The program provides funding to 15 communities for the short-term confinement of persons detained under state law. BACKGROUND INFORMATION It has been more than ten years since the funding levels for community jails have been thoroughly reviewed. The last review was performed through the efforts of the governor’s task force in 1993-1994. The task force established the funding levels for each community that essentially have been brought forward annually ever since. With the exception of the FY 06 increase provided to Kotzebue, the most recent ten percent raises were applied evenly across-the-board. With the passage of time and turnover in personnel, DOC is not certain how the task force arrived at the funding levels for the various communities. According to a former member of the task force, each community’s funding was based on budgeted, direct operating costs submitted by the community officials. These totals were adjusted upwards by the task force to provide funding to cover indirect or overhead costs. The task force expected that the communities would cover a small percentage of the total jail operating costs. Report Conclusions A summary of the conclusions follows: Most communities report that state funding is still insufficient to cover operating costs; The extent of the funding shortfall varies substantially between communities; The current funding process does not require reporting or review of actual local jail operating expenditures; and Reimbursement for jail operating costs are not related to actual local operating costs. Two communities indicated that funding was sufficient to cover their operating costs; however, the other 13 communities reported that they were required to cover some of their jail operating costs. Our initial analysis of local jail budgeted operating costs, compared to program funding, indicated that most of the communities were being required to bear some operating costs for their local jail. Additionally, the amount of the local subsidy appeared to vary significantly among communities. Our detailed analysis of four communities, using FY 07 budget totals, showed a 40 percent disparity between communities for similar operating cost factors. The detailed budgets attached to each year’s contract do not represent the actual community jail budgets and expenditures. Additionally, DOC does not require contractors to report their actual expenditures. As a result, DOC is funding a program without clearly knowing what operational costs are involved. There is no direct relationship between the funding provided and the actual operating costs to communities with local jails. Rather than an analysis of operating costs, the contracts are based on historical amounts with substantial increases in the last two years. Findings and Recommendations DOC’s commissioner should restructure the community jails program to promote equity between communities. The current allocation of funding for the community jails program is based on decade-old financial information, resulting in an unequal distribution of funding to communities operating jails. DOC should develop allowable standardized costs for jail operations. While this would not necessarily lead to full funding, it would provide a basis for correcting the inequitable distribution of funds between participating communities. The department should then implement procedures to ensure the financial information submitted by local communities is accurate. The department could expand its existing operational standards reviews to include confirmation of some financial information. Alternatively, the department could modify its distribution of funds from contracts to grants, bringing the financial assistance provided to the communities under the State’s single audit …

Download310.5 KBDOC Community Jails Program2007
08-20054-07

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Health and Social Services, Alaska Commission on Aging, July 3, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Alaska Commission on Aging. Under AS 44.66.010(a)(4), the Alaska Commission on Aging (ACoA or commission) will terminate on June 30, 2008. If the legislature does not take action to extend the termination date, the commission will go into a wrap-up year to conclude its affairs and will terminate on June 30, 2009. The purpose of this audit is to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of the commission. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the Alaska Commission on Aging is helping older Alaskans lead dignified, independent, and productive lives. We recommend the legislature adopt legislation extending ACoA’s termination date to June 30, 2016 Findings and Recommendations The legislature should consider amending state law to reflect ACoA’s current mission. The grant administration responsibilities for ACoA, as defined in state law [1], are no longer performed by the commission; rather, these duties are now being done by the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Seniors and Disabilities Services (DSDS). However, Alaska statutes have not been updated to accurately reflect these changes. As a result, ACoA has not accomplished some of its statutory duties and responsibilities as currently written. The ACoA chairman and DHSS’ commissioner should pursue changes to Alaska statutes so they are reflective of ACoA’s current role.   [1] AS 47.45.24(a)(7-8), AS 47.65.010-050, and AS …

Download499.8 KBDHSS Alaska Commission on Aging2007
08-20051-07

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Real Estate Commission, July 3, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Real Estate Commission (REC or commission). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference shall consider this report during the legislative oversight process to determine whether the commission should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(19) states that the commission will terminate on June 30, 2008, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the Real Estate Commission is serving a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to operate in a satisfactory manner. The regulation and licensing of real estate professionals provides necessary public protection in the buying and selling of residential and commercial properties. The commission carries out its responsibilities to educate both the public and licensees in a professional, competent, and efficient manner. Additionally, active investigation of complaints and licensure actions, when appropriate, provides assurance that licensed professionals are competent and ethical. In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(19), REC is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2008. Under AS 08.03.020, the commission has one year after its termination date to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature extend the commission’s termination date to June 30, 2016. Findings and Recommendations Prior Audit Recommendation No. 1 The legislature should consider amending the statutes related to the Real Estate Surety Fund (RESF) to provide more complete, effective, and efficient consumer protection to claimants. In the prior sunset review we recommended: 1) the maximum claim limit for individual and aggregate claims reimbursed by the RESF be increased; 2) modify the appeal notification requirements of licensees involved in a claim from a “need to locate and notify” to “making a good faith effort to locate” the licensee; and 3) mobile home transactions be subject to RESF claims when licensed real estate professionals are involved. This recommendation was partially implemented. Individual claims for reimbursement were raised from $10,000 to $15,000 and the appeal notification standard, for licensees involved in RESF claims, has been changed to making a good faith effort to locate. We recommend that the legislature consider raising the maximum aggregate claim amount as well as making mobile home transactions subject to RESF claims when licensed real estate professionals are involved. Recommendation No. 2 The director of Boards and Commissions, Office of the Governor, should verify board members satisfy all statutory requirements prior to being appointed. During 2007, a board member was appointed to the commission without meeting the professional experience requirements outlined in statute. Alaska Statute 08.88.041(a) requires brokers and associate brokers to be licensed in Alaska for at least three years before being appointed to the commission. This board member was an associate broker for less than two years prior to his appointment. Recommendation No. 3 The division should increase licensing fees to eliminate the commission’s current operating deficit. As of May 31, 2007, the commission had an operating deficit of $147,211. The deficit is caused by revenues not covering all of the commission’s expenditures for a two-year licensing period. Alaska Statute 08.01.065(c) requires fees, for an occupation, be set at a level to approximate the related regulatory …

Download623.3 KBDCCED Real Estate Commission2007
20-20053-07

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Corrections, Board of Parole, August 28, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with the intent of Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we reviewed the activities of the Board of Parole to determine if the board is operating in the best interest of the public and carries out a public purpose. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the committee of reference is to consider this report during the legislative oversight process as it determines whether the board should be reestablished, or for how the long the termination date for the board should be extended. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(2) the board will terminate on June 30, 2008, and will have one year from that date to conclude its affairs. Report Conclusions Under AS 33.16, the Board of Parole serves as the parole authority for the State. As such, the board fulfills the Alaska Constitution requirement that the State establish a parole system. The board’s primary responsibilities include determining a prisoner’s suitability for discretionary parole and setting conditions for individuals receiving parole. Another major responsibility of the board is the holding of parole revocation hearings. The board conducts its business in a professional manner. Although we have concerns about the board’s accessibility to the general public and accountability over how effectively it is operating (see Recommendation No. 1), we believe there is a demonstrated public need for the Board of Parole. Accordingly, the termination date of the board should be extended. Currently, the board is scheduled to terminate operations on June 30, 2008. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, it will have one year from that date to conclude operations. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2016. Findings and Recommendations The Board of Parole should increase public accessibility to, and accountability for, its administrative actions and operations.For more than four years, the board has not had a meeting that provided an opportunity for the public to observe or comment on the board’s activities. Additionally, since 2001 the board has not formally issued a statistical report summarizing how effective the board has been at achieving operating objectives.The board should improve its accessibility and accountability to the public in two important ways: The board should hold a general session meeting, open to the public, at least once a year. The board should periodically report on its activities and the results of those activities to the legislature and the Office of Management and Budget. Such actions would assist the board in: improving public accessibility, increasing accountability, improving its administration, and achieving greater compliance with operational expectations reflected in state law. Prior Audit Recommendations The following two prior audit recommendations have both been appropriately resolved and addressed: The Board of Parole should develop a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Corrections to formally reflect the de facto partial “delegation” of the board’s responsibilities under statute for the notification of victims of their right to comment at parole hearings. The board should seek reauthorization from the governor for compensation of board members. Such reauthorization should be structured in a manner that accurately reflects the tasks performed by the Board of Parole.The following prior audit recommendation has been partially implemented, and improvements were apparent in this review: The board should initiate procedures that allow for a review of the risk assessment form to ensure that all mathematical calculations are performed …

Download710.6 KBDOC Board of Parole2007
08-20052-07

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Big Game Commercial Services Board, August 16, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Big Game Commercial Services Board (board) to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an efficient and effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(22) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2008 and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Our report objectives were as follows: To determine whether there is a public need for the board and if its existence should be extended. To review the board’s major functions of licensing and investigations for effectiveness in meeting public need and for efficiency of operation. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date of the board should be extended. The board has demonstrated a need for its continued existence for regulating and licensing qualified, registered guide-outfitters and transporters which benefits the public’s safety and welfare as well as protection of the state’s wildlife resources. The board has also successfully developed and adopted regulatory changes to improve the big game commercial services industry in Alaska. As indicated in the Analysis of Public Need section of this report, the board has met the various statutory sunset criteria, generally, in an effective and efficient manner; exceptions are discussed in the Findings and Recommendations section. In our opinion, the board serves an important public purpose. Based on the operational deficiencies identified and the limited time the board has functioned since reinstatement, we recommend the board continue in statute and its termination date be extended for four years until June 30, 2012. Findings and Recommendations The director of the Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) should ensure division staff adheres to statute, regulations, and policy and procedures for efficient and effective support of the board’s day-to-day operations. The division’s director should ensure case management procedures are adhered to by staff to accurately reflect case status on the case management system in support of the board’s operations. The board and the division should review licensing fees and regulatory costs, and increase fees to cover the annual operating costs to eliminate the anticipated deficit. At the end of FY 07, the board had an estimated operating deficit of $52,000. The board should make appropriate changes to regulations which require proof of current first aid certification for all guide-outfitters, under board purview, for both initial and renewed licenses. The board should cease the electronic accumulation of information gathered from hunt records and transporter reports. Staff resources were ill-spent recording historic licensee reports into an electronic database. The cost versus the benefit of capturing information from reports is …

Download435.8 KBDCCED Big Game Commercial Services Board2007
45-30045-07

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the University of Alaska, Fairbanks – School of Education, Selected Issues, August 16, 2007. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks – School of Education (SOE). The primary objective of our audit was to determine if the University of Alaska, Fairbanks – School of Education is consistently applying admittance requirements for the school’s teaching programs. The secondary objective was to confirm students of the undergraduate student teaching program have all passed the competency examinations – Praxis I prior to graduation. Background Information Beginning in July 1998, state law required applicants for teaching certificates to pass competency examinations. The examinations eventually incorporated into state regulations were a group of tests referred to collectively as Praxis I. The Praxis Series is administered by, and is a trademark of the Educational Testing Service (ETS). ETS provides the Praxis Series examinations to states to be used as part of their teacher licensing process. Praxis I is a series of tests that assess academic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. Praxis II essentially assesses subject-specific knowledge. To help ensure that students would meet the standards for obtaining a state teaching certificate, the University of Alaska, Fairbanks – SOE made passing Praxis I an admission requirement for its student teaching programs. SOE’s teaching programs involve both instructional study and classroom teaching work in a school district setting. Starting with spring 1999 admission cycle for the 1999-2000 school year, undergraduate applicants were admitted into SOE’s teaching program with the provision they pass Praxis I before starting work in school classrooms. In spring 2004, SOE began to require undergraduate applicants to submit their passing Praxis I scores with their application for admission. Report Conclusions We concluded that SOE consistently followed its admission requirements; and, since the implementation of Praxis I at SOE, all but one graduate of the degreed teaching program required to pass the competency examinations did so. These conclusions are discussed further as follows: SOE has consistently followed its admission requirements for its student teaching programs For the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years, SOE consistently followed its admission requirements for its various student teaching programs. All admitted applicants submitted the required admission documents; admitted faculty reviews were completed; and, all admitted applicants passed Praxis I. With one exception, graduates of the degreed teaching program passed the competency exams when required by the SOE In our review of the 229 graduates of the student teaching degree program since the 1999-2000 school year, we identified 17 graduates that did so without passing Praxis I. Fifteen graduates were not required to pass the competency examinations because their SOE admittance date was prior to the implementation of the Praxis requirement. One graduate was not required to pass the tests because she was a transfer student who already had student teaching credits. The last graduate in question was required to pass Praxis I but did not do so. Except for the one error that occurred during the implementation year of Praxis, graduates of the degreed teaching program have passed competency exams when required by …

Download478.6 KBUA Fairbanks School of Education Selected issues2007
05-30038-07

Download774.4 KBDEED Special Education Service Agency2007
45-30033B-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the University of Alaska, Unit Cost Analysis and Other Selected Issues, Part 2, November 15, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit of the University of Alaska (UA) faculty and staff travel using fiscal year 2004 travel financial data. There were two main objectives of this audit, identified as University of Alaska, Unit Cost Analysis and Other Selected Issues, Part 2. The first objective was to review and evaluate travel by UA faculty and staff. Specifically, we were asked to determine if travel was necessary, or if the travel objectives could have been otherwise accomplished, through the use of audio/video conferencing technologies. The second objective was to determine whether travel arrangements had been made with an eye toward controlling costs. University of Alaska, Unit Cost Analysis and Other Selected Issues, Part 1, issued in August 2005, presented the unit cost analysis and addressed other issues regarding housing and prior audit findings and recommendations. Part 3, which will be issued in the future, will address whether UA is maximizing the use of distance education technologies. Report Conclusions We concluded the following: No significant opportunities found to avoid University travel through increased use of audio or video conferencing technologies. With additional planning and advance airfare purchases, UA has an opportunity to recognize further cost savings. An in-depth travel cost analysis can not be easily performed because UA’s financial software does not have a dedicated data field that is utilized to associate every travel transaction with a travel authorization number or a traveler’s name. Travel reimbursements are generally accurate; however, a considerable number of travel authorizations and travel expense reports are not properly completed, nor adequately reviewed. Therefore, UA travel policies and procedures are not being followed; travelers are being under- and over-paid for travel reimbursements; and the accountability by travelers, supervisors, and reviewers may not always be at the highest level possible. Findings and Recommendations UA’s controller should update, clarify, and enforce its travel policies and procedures to ensure that the highest level of accountability is …

Download1.2 MBUA Unit Cost Analysis and Other Selected Issues Part 22006
02-30030-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Administration, Division of Finance’s implementation of the state travel office, state travel procurement, and agencies’ use of the Alaska Airlines EasyBiz program. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit to analyze and evaluate the changes being made to processes for procuring state travel, as well as review of the Alaska Airlines EasyBiz mileage program used by state departments. Report Conclusions The benefits from the State Travel Office (STO) should outweigh the costs after its full implementation. During the implementation period the costs are at least as much as the benefits achieved by the State to date; the extent to which is extremely difficult to ascertain at this time. The process of implementation is ongoing, with only a few departments currently using STO. Furthermore, information prior to the establishment of STO was limited to expenditures and no data exists related to travel patterns. According to Alaska Airlines, the State has been purchasing travel at the highest cost (full coach) airfare 44% of the time. And again, according to Alaska Airlines, the industry standard for businesses for full coach fare is about 10%. A key component of travel savings is in the use of negotiated government rates, but those rates are not available until the department begins using STO to purchase air travel. Alaska Airlines required the State to have a central point of contact for travel requests before serious negotiations could proceed. Once the decision was made to create a central travel office, extensive planning and input from “customer” agencies occurred. Approximately two years elapsed from the initial concept to implementation; most of that time was spent in planning activities. The benefits of travel purchase information, identifying savings and other travel activity, is essential for managers. This kind of information can only be generated by a travel agency. The STO can provide this information which the departments cannot, otherwise, economically prepare for themselves. Until report development is completed and all state agencies are using the STO, the State is not capable of realizing the full benefits of relevant and reliable information available through the STO. The STO has some measures in place to ensure its objectives are met; however, improvements and additional measures are still needed. DOF has identified the primary objectives for the State’s centralized travel office as obtaining least cost, better travel purchasing enforcement, and the ability to provide relevant and reliable information about state travel. Agencies have large inventories of accrued mileage accounts with minimal purchases of mileage ticket activity during our review period. As of December 31, 2005 the State had approximately 18,800,000 miles within EasyBiz accounts. The State of Alaska needs a policy to guide departments’ use of business miles. Overall, we conclude that the concept and framework of a central travel office is viable for the State and can provide costs savings for travel purchases. However, improvements in the STO’s processes, procedures, and reporting will assist the State in achieving the greatest benefits from centralization. Findings and Recommendations   The director of Finance, working with the STO manager, should summarize and report travel activities to commissioners on a monthly basis. Lost Savings should be reported. Additional travel activity should be reported to management The STO manager should work with department travel coordinators to enhance travel request processes. The directors of administrative services should work with travel coordinators to improve travel desk operations. Additional training for travel desk staff is needed. Improve efficiencies by reducing the number of travel desks. Cross train departmental travel coordinator prior to implementation. The director of Finance should develop guidance for the use of mileage and seek revision of travel statutes. The STO manager should refine the complaint process used by state …

Download2.1 MBDOA State Travel Procurement Process2006
02-30037-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Departments of Administration and Revenue, Public Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’ Retirement System, and Alaska State Pension Investment Board, Selected Issues. Report Conclusions In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit of selected issues related to the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) and their respective former oversight boards. In addition, our audit included selected issues regarding the Alaska State Pension Investment Board (ASPIB). The purpose of this audit was to review and assess the fiscal history of the state-administered PERS and TRS (Plans). Both plans currently face significant projected unfunded liabilities. Our primary objective was to review the past decisions made by the PERS board, the TRS board, and the ASPIB to assess to what extent, if any, the boards’ decisions contributed to the plans’ current unfunded liabilities. Scope The scope of the audit varied depending on the audit objective. PERS and TRS employer contribution rate decisions – Adopted rates for FY 90 to FY 06 were reviewed for consistency with the consulting actuary’s calculations and advice. ASPIB asset allocation decisions – Adopted asset allocations for FY 99 to FY 05 were reviewed for consistency with the Treasury staff and investment consultants’ advice. PERS and TRS funding ratios – Funding ratios from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 2000 were reviewed to determine the internal and external factors causing the changes in ratios with a focus on the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004. Other state public pension plans – Five public employees’ pension plans and five teachers’ retirement plans were selected from 127 public pension plans surveyed by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators in 2004. Report Conclusions A summary of the conclusions follows: It is unclear if state law mandates that retirement funds maintain funding ratios of 100 percent. Decreases in funding ratios were primarily due to investment losses and rising medical costs. Rate-setting decisions had a small impact on each Plan’s declining funding ratios. In three instances, the PERS board set rates below the former consulting actuary’s calculated rates. TRS did not adopt the annual actuarially-calculated employer contribution rate, but rather set a level rate as recommended by the consulting actuary. Administrative decisions of oversight boards had limited impact on the Plans’ liabilities. Regulations with financial effect need to be updated. Asset allocations were more conservative, but investment returns were consistent with those of comparable retirement plans in other states. An administrative two-year lag between determining the contribution rates and using them has contributed slightly to the Plans’ declining funding ratios. Recent state appropriations partially offset higher contribution rates faced by participating employers. Findings and Recommendations The director of the Division of Retirement and Benefits (DRB) should review and update the Public Employees’ Retirement System’s and the Teachers’ Retirement System’s (Plans) regulations. Certain regulations that financially affect the Plans have not been updated for a number of years. According to the DRB staff, the division has contracted with a former assistant attorney general to review the existing Plans’ statutes and regulations and provide potential revisions to the commissioner of the Department of Administration early in 2006. We recommend that certain regulations be considered for change under this …

Download6.0 MBDOR-DOA Pubic Employees' Retirement System-Teachers' Retirement System-Alaska State Pension Investment Board2006
04-30032-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on Residency Requirements of State Benefit Programs, Various Departments, February 28, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of the residency requirements for State of Alaska benefit programs. In this report we use the word “benefit” broadly. We recognize the financial advantage given residents in reduced fees for purchase of a license, permit or tuition, is more accurately described as a surcharge on the nonresident instead of a benefit to the resident. General state revenues, in conjunction with user fees, financially support program operations; therefore, the surcharge is a mechanism used to equalize, or balance, the charge for both resident and nonresident. So whether it is an exclusive opportunity given to residents, such as participating in the WWAMI program or a cost differential in the price of a license or permit, our report will refer to them generically as a “benefit.” Report Conclusions Our review and analysis of the ten state benefit programs concludes that inconsistencies in the residency requirements are prevalent. These inconsistencies are reasonable due to the benefit differences and are generally due to: the amount of and type of benefit, level of interest by the legislature, the governor and stakeholders, and public policy issues. The proof of residency required from applicants varies in each program. Programs with a higher benefit such as the Permanent Fund Dividend require the applicant to provide proof of residency status through submission of documents supporting their intent to remain in Alaska indefinitely. In contrast, the sport fishing and hunting license program simply relies on self-certification by the applicant to the vendors selling the licenses. The degree of verification performed by the agency in determining applicant eligibility is generally commensurate with the benefits received. The one exception is the Pioneer Homes which have a high benefit but low verification of applicant residence status. Also, some programs, such as the Department of Natural Resource’s land disposal programs, use sport fishing and hunting licenses as proof of residency. Given that these licenses require only a self-certification they should not be relied upon to verify residency. With some exceptions, which are discussed in the Findings and Recommendation section, agencies are applying residency requirements as designed by law and regulation. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 Program managers responsible for Pioneer Homes’ admission, land disposal programs, and university tuition should improve procedures used to verify residency status. We recommend these programs strengthen verification and evaluation procedures for applicant residency. Specifically, Pioneer Homes’ officials should perform a higher level of verification for an applicant’s compliance with the residency requirement; land disposal and University of Alaska resident tuition program managers should discontinue acceptance of sport fishing and hunting licenses as proof of applicants’ residency status. Recommendation No. 2 The University of Alaska/Southeast’s (UAS) Vice Chancellor for Student Services and Enrollment Management should ensure that students receiving resident tuition meet the University’s residency requirements. We tested applicants to UAS in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Insufficient support was found for 2 of 17 students in Spring 2003, 9 of 17 students tested in Spring 2004, and 2 of 5 students in Fall 2005 semesters. UAS should fully implement Regent Policy 05.10.02(G) and require students to provide adequate proof of the two-year residency requirement or support for the bona fide residency requirements. Recommendation No. 3 The University of Alaska/Anchorage WWAMI Program Director should develop eligibility criteria in accordance with UA policy and regulations. The WWAMI program is presently allowing applicants to meet residency requirements with a shorter durational period than required by the University of Alaska’s Board of Regents policy and regulations. Additionally, absences are being allowed that are not supported by Board of Regents Policy or regulations. The WWAMI Program Director should work with UA Statewide to develop eligibility criteria for WWAMI applicants in accordance with UA policy and …

Download1.1 MBDOR Residency Requirements of State Benefit Programs- Various Departments2006
25-30027-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Benchmarking, July 28, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a review of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities’ (DOTPF) performance on highway construction projects. The objectives were to: Identify existing relevant highway construction benchmarks and related data. After identifying relevant benchmarks, apply them to DOTPF’s highway construction projects. As part of this performance evaluation, we reviewed documentation related to the design, bidding, and construction of selected projects. Develop a narrative describing how highway projects are identified, reviewed, approved, funded, and built. Report Conclusions We were directed to identify any widely recognized cost and operational “benchmark” standards related to highway construction. After identifying such standards we were to use them to evaluate state highway design and construction operations of DOTPF. We determined that there were no such benchmark standards in wide use. Since most states maintain highway project cost and performance data in nonstandard formats, no existing data or studies were found which could efficiently and economically provide readily useful information for comparisons. As a result, highway construction efforts were evaluated using various applicable performance objectives from DOTPF’s “missions and measures” information prepared for Office of Management and Budget. For the projects reviewed, we determined DOTPF consistently did a good job of meeting benchmarks aimed at restraining what are typically thought of as overhead costs. However, the projects reviewed had less success when it came to measures reflecting how project costs were managed during construction. There may be a relationship between the department’s good performance at meeting overhead benchmarks and its lesser performance involving management of direct construction costs and bid design. In addition we concluded that DOTPF’s lack of certain design procedures limit opportunities for evaluation and improvement; specifically, decisions were not reviewed or documented. DOTPF also has no formal process is in place to incorporate construction experience into the design phase of future projects. Findings and Recommendations DOTPF should continue restructuring how it reports performance measurement information. DOTPF should provide more specific guidance regarding records and documentation related to design of highway projects.There are gaps in the DOTPF design process for highway projects. As a result, projects may not be managed as effectively as could be during the design phase. Specifically, there is little standardization in the recordkeeping requirements for design. This results in key aspects of the design processes, either, not being completed or not adequately documented. DOTPF should develop a formal process to ensure construction experience has more of an effective impact on the design and construction process for future projects.For the projects reviewed, we saw no evidence where DOTPF was using actual construction experience to perhaps modify design procedures or processes for future …

Download460.8 KBDOT Benchmarking2006
41-20050-06

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review Follow Up of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association, November 28, 2005, (Audit Control No. 41-20040-06), September 15, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with the intent of Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), and a special request from the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have performed a follow up of our prior audit, Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association, November 28, 2005, (Audit Control No. 41-20040-06). There are three specific objectives of our report. They are: To provide a current status on the recommendations made in the prior report. To provide updated financial and occupational statistics information. To provide information on organizational, budgeting/appropriation, and disciplinary structure alternatives existing in other states. In addition, we will report anything that comes to our attention during this review that would change our prior report conclusions and analysis of public need. Report Conclusions The objective of our prior audit, Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association, November 28, 2005, (Audit Control No. 41-20040-06) was to determine if the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association (Board) should continue to exist, primarily based on the results discussed in the Analysis of Public Need section of the report. The conclusion of the prior report was that the termination date of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association should be extended. Nothing came to our attention during our current assessment that would give rise to a change in our conclusion or recommendation to extend the termination date until June 30, 2014. In response to the specific objectives of this audit, we have reiterated and provided a current status of the three recommendations made in our prior audit, Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association, November 28, 2005, (Audit Control No. 41-20040-06). These recommendations, if implemented, will improve the effectiveness of the Board’s goals and operations. We have also incorporated the financial information and occupational statistics, from Appendices A, B, C, and D in our prior audit, with updates for more current periods and more recent activities. See Appendices A, B, C, and D of this report. And finally we have included, for discussion, information on possible organizational alternatives from a limited review of other states in the Additional Auditor Comments section of this report. Findings and Recommendations The Council’s prior sunset audit reported several administrative weaknesses. Two of those recommendations have been resolved. Those issues that have not been resolved are reiterated in this report. The Board should recommend to the Alaska Supreme Court that mandatory minimum continuing legal education (CLE) for attorneys be adopted.The Board voted at their September 7, 2006 meeting to send the mandatory CLE rule, as published in April 2006, to the Alaska Supreme Court. In effect, they have now implemented our prior recommendation. The Board should consider developing a database of disciplined lawyers in the association’s website.Although some steps have been taken in response to this recommendation, attorney discipline information is not yet available via link from the Alaska Bar Association website. We continue to believe the Board should develop a database of disciplined lawyers to which access is provided the public via the association’s website. We encourage continued efforts in this area. The Board should adopt a due date for the annual report to ensure it is made available to the Supreme Court, the legislature and the public on a timely basis.The Board voted at their September 7, 2006 meeting to amend their Standing Policies to set April 15 as the due date for the completion of the preceding year’s annual report. In effect, they have now implemented our prior …

Download1.1 MBACS Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association2006
08-20044-06

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, September 11, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives (board). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference shall consider this report during the legislative oversight process to determine whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(8) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2007, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives should be extended. The board is operating in the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who hold themselves out to the public as qualified and competent direct entry midwives. The board proposes changes to regulations to improve its effectiveness and to ensure that midwives and apprentice midwives are licensed in the State of Alaska. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(8) requires that the Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives be terminated on June 30, 2007. Under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date until June 30, 2015. Analysis of Public Need Since inception of the board in 1992, biennial licensing fees for this occupation have increased significantly. During this audit review period, the biennial licensing fees increased 55% to $2,088 and are not expected to decease for the next licensing period. Currently, the licensing fees established for this board are the highest of any other licensed profession. The fees are high because of the limited number of licensed midwives and unpredictable legal and investigative costs. High licensing fees may, to some individuals, represent a barrier of entry into a profession. However, licensing data for this board shows that fees have not stopped the growth in the number of individuals being licensed as midwives or entering into the apprenticeship program. As long as licensing fees remain high, the board should monitor for any substantial negative impact the fees have on the number of direct-entry midwives practicing in …

Download401.6 KBDCCED Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives2006
02-40006-06

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2005. Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of almost $2.6 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for fiscal year 2005, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, and the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the State’s FY 05 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. The draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) authorized by Chapter 159, SLA 2004 Sec 61(e), for FY 04 was under $35 million. At the end of FY 05 over $85 million was swept from a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts, and transferred to the CBRF. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. However, the State has material weaknesses in its administrative controls for the Medical Assistance program (Medicaid) which may not prevent fraud, waste and abuse. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 32 recommendations, of which five are unresolved issues from last year. Also, three of the recommendations are made to component units: two recommendations for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and one recommendation for the University of Alaska whose audits were performed by other auditors. Some of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not yet …

Download2.0 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY052006
09-30021-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and Department of Administration, Alaska land mobile radio project, September 21, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit of the implementation of the Alaska land mobile radio (ALMR) project. Our review primarily involved the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) and the Department of Administration (DOA). Report Conclusions We were directed to review and assess various issues related to the implementation of the ALMR project. ALMR is a joint project among federal, state, and local governments. For its part, the State has not effectively or consistently managed the ALMR project. The State’s uncoordinated and inconsistent management of the project has contributed to the following deficiencies: Estimates of project costs appear unsupported and based on funding Loan proceeds were inappropriately used to finance purchases made by DOA Some costs and contracts were not consistent with funding conditions or the procurement code Operating site information is incomplete DOA did not specifically identify and allocate expenditures on a site-by-site basis There is insufficient data to estimate annual operating costs of the project There has been inadequate outreach and recruit of potential ALMR users The scope of the project was changed without approval from the ALMR Executive Council In recent months, DMVA has made significant effort to improve the State’s oversight and control of the project. While we recognize this, we still believe there are important improvements to be made in the way the State carries out its share of responsibilities. Findings and Recommendations The ALMR project manager should take steps to develop a more comprehensive, better supported cost estimate for the project.The project manager should develop a comprehensive cost estimate using actual historical expenditure information now available. This information can then be used to estimate the costs of the approximately 51 remaining sites. It is also necessary to develop a better estimate of radio costs. Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) project and administrative support managers should continue making improvements in the oversight of the ALMR project.In August 2004, responsibility for the project was transferred to DMVA from the Department of Administration (DOA). In March 2005, DMVA appointed a new project manager to oversee the ALMR project. Many of our findings stem from actions or inactions of the prior DOA project managers.We identified a wide range of deficiencies, such as: (1) unallowable expenditures paid with grant funds, (2) lack of project documentation, (3) incomplete and inaccurate cost information for both individual sites and the project as a whole, and (4) changes to the project scope done without approval by the ALMR Executive Council. The director of DOA’s Enterprise Technology Services should ensure that site records are current and complete. The director of DOA’s Enterprise Technology Services should establish a tracking method to ensure all costs associated with operations and maintenance of the ALMR system are identified and recorded …

Download977.5 KBDMVA-DOA Alaska Land Mobile Radio project2006
12-20047-06

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Public Safety, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, August 31, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board or the board) to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an efficient and effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether the ABC Board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(1), the board will terminate on June 30, 2007 and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Our report objectives were as follows: To determine whether there is a public need for the board and if its existence should be extended. To review the board’s major functions of licensing, inspections, and investigations for effectiveness in meeting public need and for efficiency of operation Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date of the ABC Board should be extended. The board should continue to regulate the manufacture, sale, barter, and possession of alcoholic beverages within the State of Alaska in order to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. The board has demonstrated a need for its continued existence by providing protection to the general public through the issuance, renewal, revocation, and suspension of liquor licenses. Protection has also been provided through active investigation of suspected licensing violations and enforcement of the state’s alcoholic beverage control laws and regulations. As indicated in the Analysis of Public Need section of this report, the ABC Board has met the various statutory sunset criteria. With the exceptions noted in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report, the board is effectively and efficiently meeting its statutory responsibilities and is operating in the public interest. Beginning FY 04, the board was reorganized under the Department of Public Safety and improvements have been made in the regulatory aspect of the board’s operations. However, the board lacks an overall strategy for accomplishing its enforcement goals. In addition, certain operational improvements are needed to allow for greater public participation and to improve the overall efficiency with which the board performs its administrative functions. We recommend that Alaska Statute 44.66.010(a)(1) be amended to extend the termination date of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to June 30, 2013. Findings and Recommendations The ABC Board and director should strengthen the control environment over alcohol regulatory functions. Internal controls at the ABC offices are weak in a number of areas including the licensing and permitting functions, revenue sharing payments, licensee fee collection activities (including wholesaler fee collections), and the licensing database. Weaknesses are due to the lack of well-designed controls and/or the circumvention and neglect of established controls. The ABC Board and director should develop and implement an overall plan for enforcement activities to ensure the effective allocation of their resources. The ABC Board lacks a systematic strategy for scheduling inspections and compliance checks to ensure effective enforcement. Increase in the number of regulatory inspections has not resulted in a significantly greater percentage of licensees being inspected. The ABC Board director should ensure compliance with public notice requirements and establish procedures to ensure board meeting records are complete and accurate. Board meetings were not consistently advertised, affected parties were not promptly notified of statutory and regulatory changes, and the board minutes were inadequately documented. The legislature should consider amending Title IV to remove the voting ability of the board’s director. To ensure an appropriate balance of government, the legislature should amend AS 04.06.060 to remove the director’s voting ability. Auditor Comments The legislature may want to reevaluate the general wholesales license fee structure. The ABC Board could assist by proposing new volume fee brackets that take into consideration the current and projected future sales. The statutory structure for general wholesale license fees is based on a progressive tax rate; however, because of the increase in the sales volumes of the wholesalers, the licensee fee structure is actually regressive. Wholesale volume fees have not changed since 1980. Alcohol sales are increasing at a much faster rate than the volume fees collected. The current structure has a regressive effect and puts low-volume wholesalers at a competitive …

Download1.3 MBDPS Alcoholic Beverage Control Board2006
06-30036-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Health and Social Services, Kenai Peninsula Community Care Center, Selected Operational Issues October 13, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit of the operations at the residential child care facilities of Kenai Peninsula Community Care Center (KPCCC or the Center). Included in the scope of the audit were some operational decisions and functions of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS), and the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), state agencies organizationally located under the Department of Health and Social Services. Report Conclusions We were directed to review and assess various issues related to the operations of KPCCC, in particular the Center’s residential child care facilities. We concluded the following: The treatment environment at KPCCC is not inappropriate or unduly harsh, even in the light of serious incidents and what appears to be a high rate of runaways. The basis for this central conclusion is: Notable incidents involving staff and residents were isolated events . We saw no report, nor received any report from contacts with state caseworkers, parents, or foster parents of ongoing abuse or harsh treatment of residents by KPCCC staff. OCS managers have commented that supervision of youth by staff could be improved. However, OCS and DJJ workers we interviewed do not believe the circumstances of the past serious incidents reflect a systemic deficiency in KPCCC’s behavioral treatment model or the general capability of staff. High runaway rates reflect the nature of the residential setting and youth involved, rather than major operational deficiencies . KPCCC has no written procedures on how staff is to handle youth who run away. The Center’s management trains staff to counsel youth against running away, but do not encourage the physical restraint of residents about to runaway. Since KPCCC provides treatment in a semi-secure setting, staff does not have the authority to forcibly hold youth who want to leave. State law requires youth in state custody, adjudicated or not, to be placed in the least restrictive setting. This policy often leads to situations where high risk youth are receiving treatment in a semi-secure setting. Before the youth can be placed in a more restrictive setting, the juvenile is given the opportunity to succeed in a less restricting placement. Doubt as to the level of supervision required for a given juvenile is typically resolved to the benefit of the youth, and the least restrictive option is chosen. Given this state policy, coupled with the semi-secure treatment setting, the rate of runaways is more a result of the combination of these factors rather than a reflective of a harsh treatment environment. Limited survey responses indicate few problems or concerns with KPCCC . Juveniles discharged from KPCCC to foster care were placed in appropriate settings Treatment and service delivery are generally consistent with Medicaid documentation requirements Facility and staff qualifications generally meet standards Work done at KPCCC by OCS staff is consistent with the agency’s staff development policy KPCCC’s expenditures and revenues are consistent with reported budget amounts Transportation expenditures for youth travel appears reasonable Findings and Recommendations The executive director of the Kenai Peninsula Community Care Center (KPCCC) should strengthen the procedures related to maintaining adequate documentation, required by state regulations, on the treatment of youth. The executive director of KPCCC should assign a staff member the specific responsibility to develop and maintain required personnel files documents. The ethics officer for the Department of Health and Social Services should coordinate with OCS’ management to develop a policy regarding disclosure of state employees’ work with community based agencies while on educational …

Download543.4 KBDHSS Kenai Peninsula Community Care Center Selected Operational Issues2006
02-30043-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Administration’s Professional Services Procurement Process, October 17, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit to review and analyze all formal professional services procurements at the Department of Administration (DOA) over the previous two years. In addition, we identified any improvements that could be made to the procurement code. Report Conclusions There were no systematic violations of Alaska’s procurement code by the Department of Administration; however, several avoidable errors did occur during the procurement process. Some changes could be made to the procurement code to improve efficiency and enhance competitiveness. Overall, vendors are generally satisfied with the procurement process. The avoidable errors were a result of (1) misplacing a portion of a vendor’s proposal combined with a subsequent misunderstanding between the State and the vendor on how to move forward with a modified procurement process; (2) poorly-designed timelines in a request for proposals (RFP) for a replacement payroll system; and (3) poorly written RFPs. Findings and Recommendations Changes to improve the procurement code are necessary. Consider removing or modifying the requirement that contractor listings be maintained. The DOA commissioner and chief procurement officer should seek to modify AS 36.30.210(e) and AS 36.30.110(b) to make a business license necessary at the time of contract award. The DOA commissioner and chief procurement officer should reevaluate the Alaskan offeror and Alaskan bidder procurement preferences. The DOA commissioner and chief procurement officer should consider policies to better safeguard vendor proposals. The Division of Administrative Services (DAS) should ensure RFPs contain clear and realistic timeframes for all phases of the proposal evaluation process. The Division of General Services (DGS) should institute review procedures to ensure RFPs are clear and unambiguous before …

Download443.0 KBDOA Professional Services Procurement Process2006
08-20045-06

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Marine Pilots, Sunset Review, October 13, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Marine Pilots (BMP or the board) to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for its continued existence and if it has been operating in an efficient and effective manner. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), this report shall be considered by the committee of reference during the legislative oversight process in determining whether BMP should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(1), the board will terminate on June 30, 2007 and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Our report objectives were as follows: To determine whether there is a public need for the board and if its existence should be extended. To review the board’s major functions of licensing, inspections, and investigations for effectiveness in meeting public need and for efficiency of operation Report Conclusions In our opinion, BMP serves an important public purpose. The termination date of BMP should be extended for six years until June 30, 2013. Under AS 08.03.010(10), BMP will terminate on June 30, 2007. If the legislature does not take action to extend the board’s termination date, then AS 08.03.020 provides the board one year in which to conclude its administrative operations. The regulation and licensing of qualified marine pilots benefit the public’s safety and welfare as well as protection of the environment. The board provides reasonable assurance that the individuals licensed to pilot passenger and cargo ships in Alaskan waters are qualified to do so. However, over the past four years the board has been hindered in effectively executing its statutory requirement to arbitrate over the rate setting process. Findings and Recommendations BMP’s administration of the mandatory drug and alcohol testing is still not consistent with established regulatory standards and needs improvement. Specifically, BMP should establish more informative and comprehensive reporting requirements so that the marine pilot coordinator (MPC) can confirm that an appropriate number of licensed pilots are consistently being subjected to random testing. BMP should take a more active role in administering the drug testing program. Procedures and processes should be established through enhanced regulations to clarify the role of the pilot associations in meeting compliance requirements. Additionally, the board, through the MPC should actively monitor the pilot associations. BMP should propose mandatory random drug testing regulations over trainees and apprentices seeking a Deputy Marine pilot’s license. Further, BMP should establish procedures to ensure adequate coverage of the marine pilot coordinator’s critical investigation functions during a vacancy or extended periods of absence. The board should also consider changes to continuing professional education. Additionally, the legislature should consider statutory changes to direct the usage of pleasure craft exemption fees. AUDITOR COMMENTS BMP and the Department need to consider alternatives available to remedy difficulties the board has encountered with rate setting. Rate setting has hindered the efficiency of board operations and has increased legal costs incurred by the State on behalf of the board. Conflicting public policy in statute is as follows: Inherent in this makeup is a balance of licensed pilots with an equal number of industry members. The legislature also specifically exempted the board from the Administrative Procedures Act (AS 44.62) resulting in the responsibility of hearing rate setting issues being retained by the board and not automatically assigned to an administrative law judge when there is a dispute. Application of Alaska’s Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52) has caused a disruption of the voting balance on rate setting …

Download456.5 KBDCCED DCBPL Board of Marine Pilots2006
08-20046-06

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State Medical Board, October 3, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the State Medical Board (board). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference shall consider this report during the legislative oversight process to determine whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010 (c)(12) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2007, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the State Medical Board should be extended. The regulation and licensing of qualified physicians and other health care professionals is essential to protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. State health care consumers rely on the diligence of the board and staff to promote the provision of quality health care. The board serves this public interest by establishing minimum educational and work experience requirements that individuals must meet to become licensed physicians, osteopaths, podiatrists, paramedics and physician assistants. The board further serves this public interest by investigating complaints against licensed professionals and taking disciplinary licensing action when appropriate. The board has satisfactorily carried out its responsibilities in a manner consistent with statutes, good administrative practice, and the public interest. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(12) requires that the State Medical Board be terminated on June 30, 2007. Under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date until June 30, 2013. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The board should update regulatory language to reflect current license-by-examination practices Current license by examination practices are not in accordance with regulatory language. Regulation 12 AAC 40.020(a) reads “[T]he written examination is administered twice yearly in Alaska … .” However, candidates may sit for the computerized examination up to three times within a 12-month period. The State Medical Board has contracted with the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) to administer the computerized examination. Candidates schedule testing directly with FSMB and may test at any time throughout the year at an approved testing center. Due to other pressing matters, updating the regulatory language has not been a priority of the board. Outdated regulatory language is misleading to readers seeking information regarding licensing procedures in the State of Alaska. As such, 12 AAC 40.020(a) should be updated to reflect current examination …

Download389.5 KBDCCED State Medical Board2006
08-20048-06

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, October 20, 2006. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA or commission). Under AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process to determine whether the commission should be reestablished. Currently, AS 44.66.010(a)(3) requires the commission to terminate on June 30, 2007. If the legislature takes no action to extend the termination date, the commission will have one year from that date to conclude its operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion RCA meets a valid public policy need and is serving Alaskans by: (1) assessing the capabilities of utility and pipeline companies to safely and capably serve the public; (2) evaluating tariffs and charges made by regulated entities; (3) verifying the pass-through charges to consumers from electric and natural gas utilities; (4) adjudicating disputes between ratepayers and regulated entities; (5) providing consumer protection services; and, (6) performing financial review for the State’s power cost equalization program. RCA has demonstrated the commission serves a public need. Under AS 44.66.010(a)(3), RCA is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2007. We recommend the legislature adopt legislation extending RCA’s termination date to June 30, 2015. Findings and Recommendations In our previous sunset audit we made three recommendations. The first recommendation was for RCA to propose legislation to clarify statutes imposing statutory timelines on certain proceedings. In legislation extending the termination date for RCA, the legislature adopted statutes setting specified timelines for the commission to follow in making certain kinds of decisions. The statutory timelines apply to about half of the regulatory decisions made by the commission. In Recommendation No. 1 of this review, we recommend the commission consider adopting further timelines for other actions not covered in statute. A second recommendation stated RCA’s chair should ensure that publication of notices of formal proceedings is monitored. While there are still some operational deficiencies with ensuring all public notices have appropriately been made, RCA consistently meets basic public notice requirements related to its decision making process. The concerns related to this prior audit recommendation have substantially been addressed. The third prior recommendation suggested RCA either require smaller water and sewer utilities to be certificated or establish a meaningful exemption system by regulation. RCA adopted the necessary regulations in February 2004. The following recommendation is based on the current sunset review. Recommendation No. 1 RCA should proceed with the development of regulations that would enhance the efficiency, accountability, and transparency of the commission’s decision making process. In late 2004, RCA held public meetings that invited comments on possible regulation changes that would improve the way in which the commission operated. In the early part of 2005, based on comments from staff in addition to those received from regulated utilities and pipeline companies at the 2004 meetings, RCA adopted a regulation projects plan. This work plan is reviewed on a regular basis. Many of the projects would establish more accountability standards for RCA operations. In the course of our review, we identified three areas where adoption of regulations would promote improved efficiency, accountability, and transparency of RCA’s decisions. All areas we identified for improvement were included in the commission’s 2005 regulation projects plan – although, as of the date of this report, the commission has not started the process of developing the necessary regulations. Our identified improvement areas include: (1) establishment of additional timelines; (2) adoption of rules related to discovery; and, (3) defining when a record is considered complete and the given timeline starts. The commission has been very proactive in soliciting feedback from the public, and the utility and pipeline companies, which are involved with RCA on an ongoing basis. While this process has identified key areas where RCA could improve its operations, the priority for implementation has to date been given to other matters. For the three issues discussed—directly related to promoting efficiency, accountability, and transparency of RCA’s decision making—we recommend that the commission take the next step and schedule the necessary hearing …

Download403.7 KBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska2006
12-20039-06

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Public Safety, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, November 23, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (Council). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of the Council. Report Conclusions Aside from the operational concerns addressed in this report, the Council is serving a public need and is operating in the public’s interest. Currently, AS 44.66.010(a)(5) requires the Council to be terminated on June 30, 2006. We recommend the legislature extend the Council’s termination date to June 30, 2014. Findings and Recommendations The Council’s prior sunset audit reported several administrative weaknesses. Two of those recommendations have been resolved. Those issues that have not been resolved are reiterated in this report. Recommendation No. 1. The Council should address its statutory responsibilities to consult with the Department of Education and Early Development and the Department of Health and Social Services. Alaska Statute 18.66.050(3) and AS 18.66.050(12) discuss the Council working with state departments, to develop standards and procedures and education programs. However, due to limited staffing and the Council’s focus on grant maintenance and monitoring, the Council has been unable to fully address these statutory mandates. Given the significance of these mandates, we recommend that the Council take immediate action and implement procedures to address both statutes. Recommendation No. 2. The legislature should amend the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault’s statutes related to appointment of council members. Since the last audit, AS 18.66.020 has not been revised and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (Network) continues to get funding from the Council. However, of the last five public members appointed to the Council, only two were recommended by the Network. To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest between public member appointments and receiving funding, we continue to recommend that the legislature amend AS 18.66.020 to: (1) eliminate the mandate for the Network to recommend individuals to the governor for appointment to the council, and (2) eliminate the requirement for the governor to consult with the Network on the appointment or reappointment of the council’s public …

Download223.4 KBDPS Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault2006
41-20040-06

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Alaska Court System, Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association, November 28, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association (Board). As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process involved in determining if the Board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(2) states that the Board will terminate on June 30, 2006. If the legislature does not extend the termination date, the Board will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association should be extended. The Board, through the Supreme Court, protects the public by ensuring that persons licensed to practice law are qualified. It also provides for the investigation of complaints and has established a discipline process designed to ensure that those licensed act in a competent and professional manner. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(2) requires that the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association be terminated on June 30, 2006. Under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature extend the Board’s termination date to June 30, 2014. Findings and Recommendations The Council’s prior sunset audit reported several administrative weaknesses. Two of those recommendations have been resolved. Those issues that have not been resolved are reiterated in this report. Recommendation No. 1. The Board should recommend to the Alaska Supreme Court that mandatory minimum continuing legal education (CLE) for attorneys be adopted. Continuing legal education for attorneys is only voluntary rather than required. The Supreme Court adopted a voluntary CLE under Bar Rule 65 in 1999. It encouraged all active members of the Alaska Bar Association (Bar) to complete at least 12 credit hours of approved CLE, including one credit hour of ethics. Many professions require continuing education to maintain licensure in Alaska. For example, Alaska licensed dentists, doctors, pharmacists, and psychologists are all required to meet minimum continuing education standards. Overall, we believe a mandatory minimum continuing legal education requirement will enhance the membership’s continued professional competence and raise the public’s confidence in attorneys. The Board should encourage the Supreme Court to adopt an Alaska Bar Rule requiring mandatory minimum continuing legal education. Recommendation No. 2. The Board should consider developing a database of disciplined lawyers in the association’s website. While current procedures are adequate, the Board could increase efficient and effective communication of lawyer discipline to the public by publishing their discipline list on their website. The Board should consider developing a database for the Bar’s website of the discipline imposed against lawyers. It will enhance public notification and client protection through increased accessibility of discipline information. Recommendation No. 3. The Board should adopt a due date for the annual report to ensure it is made available to the Supreme Court, the Legislature and the public on a timely basis. The Board’s annual reports for the three years 2002 through 2004 were not prepared timely1. The adoption of a specific due date by the Board in its bylaws or standing policies should ensure the timely preparation of the Board’s annual report. Auditor’s Comment The attorney discipline system of the Bar is a self-regulatory function. Self-regulation has always been viewed skeptically by the citizenry. A majority of the board members is elected by the membership. The following options should be considered in a move away from attorney self-regulation: Disciplinary investigation performed by Alaska Court System employees. Place disciplinary function under the Supreme Court with a Disciplinary Board appointed by the court. Footnotes 1 – We considered completion of the annual report to be untimely if it was not completed within four months after the end of the calendar …

Download356.1 KBACS Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association2006
10-20038-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission, October 22, 2004 Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of, and circumstances surrounding, the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC). As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process involved in determining if the commission should be reestablished. Currently, AS 44.66.010(a)(21) states that the commission will expire on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the commission, ASHSC will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions Under state law, the burden of demonstrating a continuing public need for a given board, commission, or agency that is subject to termination rests with the entity subject to sunset review [1]. Accordingly, since the commission has not been active since it was created in 2002, it is difficult to make the argument there is a demonstrated public need for the commission’s termination date to be extended. Since there is no functioning commission, we recommend that the legislature not extend the termination date of the commission. By not extending the termination date, the commission will have one year to administratively conclude its operations, and will cease to exist at June 30, 2006. When the commission was created it received overwhelming support from the legislature. Additionally, other western states that are prone to earthquakes have created boards and commissions with duties similar to that of ASHSC. If there is legislative interest in continuing the commission, we offer a recommendation regarding ASHSC’s composition that would enhance its operational effectiveness. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The legislature should consider, if it extends the termination date of the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission, altering the composition of the board to provide more representation of local government. Much of the testimony heard in support of the commission’s enabling legislation stressed the importance of communicating policy and possible mitigation measures that could be taken by all levels of government. A major area of concern involved the development of local community zoning ordinances and building code requirements to minimize the impact that the seismic shock would have on residential, government, and commercial buildings. We contacted numerous local government building officials in the State regarding how the recommendations of the Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission could be put in place through local building codes. Most communities have a building code advisory commission that makes recommendations about local construction codes. A modification of the code generally involves making local exceptions to the “standard” code, which most communities have adopted by reference. The commission would benefit from additional representation by local government for two primary reasons: The mitigation of seismic hazards refers to studying, identifying, and prioritizing actions that could be taken to reduce the impact of earthquakes. The most cited tangible mitigation measure has been modification of zoning and building codes. Accordingly, the actual implementation of many of the commission’s earthquake mitigation recommendations would have to be done by local governments. Having local representatives as part of the commission may facilitate the implementation of the commission’s recommendations. Many local governments adopted the International Building Code (IBC) and have, therefore, already been involved in deciding if they believe it is in the public’s interest to update local codes in conformity with IBC changes. Having more local government members would bring, to the commission, a sense of the local concerns about adding or modifying existing local ordinances for improved earthquake mitigation factors.   Footnote: 1 – AS 44.66.050(b) states During a public hearing, the board, commission or agency shall have the burden of demonstrating a public need for its continued existence or the continuation of the program, and the extent to which any change in the manner of exercise of its functions or activities may increase efficiency of administration or operation consistent with the public interest. [emphasis …

Download424.3 KBDNR Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission2005
25-30029-05

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Force Account Projects, March 3, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF). The overall objective of the audit was to determine the extent to which DOTPF uses force accounts for construction projects. Additional objectives included review of policies and procedures over force account, comparison of state wages to Davis-Bacon wage rates, review and analysis of public interest finding. Report Conclusions The majority of force account work is for preventative maintenance projects. Beginning in 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) allows the State to utilize funding for maintenance projects designed to prolong the life of federally-funded highways. In the past, these activities were paid for with state general funds. DOTPF has taken advantage of this change by expanding the preventative maintenance activities conducted by Maintenance and Operation (M&O) personnel. The work on these projects primarily consists of aggregate leveling, asphalt treatments, crack sealing and repairs, guardrail adjustments, drainage improvements, and other miscellaneous maintenance and repair activities. The purpose of these projects is to provide the treatments necessary to preserve road conditions, control deterioration, and reduce long-term maintenance costs. We found DOTPF’s policies and procedures over force accounts projects to be sufficient, that force account wages are generally equivalent to Davis-Bacon wages, materials, and equipment on force account projects were properly obtained, and the public interest findings were adequately supported and approved by DOTPF’s Chief Contracts Officer. Findings and Recommendations The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) commissioner should improve procedures governing public interest findings on force account projects. One of DOTPF’s estimating methodologies may tend to overstate, albeit in minor amounts, the contractors estimated costs. In the adjustment factor methodology, estimates are based on percentages that are not well documented. For example, the guidance is unclear as to what portion of mark-ups is for profit versus overhead. In general, support for percentages used is not well defined. The guidance could be better supported to eliminate the appearance of overstatement of savings. In addition, final reports summarizing the results of force account projects are not reviewed and compared to public interest findings to verify if intended goals and cost estimates were met. The Chief Contracts Officer is responsible for review and approval of public interest findings for force account projects over $100,000, but does not receive a final report summarizing the outcome of the force account projects upon completion. For this reason, the final result of force account projects are not reviewed to verify if they met the intended goals and established estimates according to the PIF. DOTPF prepares and submits close-out reports to the federal oversight agency providing the funding for such projects. While these close-out reports meet federal agencies’ monitoring requirements, they are not sufficient for state purposes for two primary reasons. First, the Chief Contracts Officer does not receive a copy of the reports; and, secondly, the expenditures of all state funds are not included in the reports. For example, overruns borne by the State are not included in such reports. A separate report, summarizing the outcome of the force account project including all costs, would enhance internal control over the PIF process by providing additional monitoring and documentation to support the estimates contained in the PIF. Without a final report including all the costs related to the project, it is possible project costs could be significantly higher than estimated in the PIF, which could potentially change the Chief Contract Officers’ decision making on the cost effectiveness of using state forces. We recommend DOTPF strengthen internal control procedures over the PIF process by requiring a final report that summarizes the outcome of the project and it should include all related project costs as well as overruns. Secondly, DOTPF should clarify methodologies for estimates. Specifically, document the methodology supporting the percentages used in estimates. Finally, DOTPF’s Standard Specifications for Highway Construction Manual, section 109-1.05, should be updated to specify the portion of mark-up that applies to overhead versus profit. This will help ensure estimates are reasonable and improve the documented support for those …

Download182.6 KBDOT Force Account Projects2005
02-40005-05

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004. Purpose of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of over $2.6 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for fiscal year 2004, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance, and the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Report Conclusions The basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. Additionally, the state’s FY 04 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association. The draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) authorized by Chapter 159, SLA 2004 Sec 61(b), for FY 04 was under $11 million. At the end of FY 04 over $94 million was swept from a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts and transferred to the CBRF. The State has substantially complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 26 recommendations, of which eight are unresolved issues from last year. Also, included in this year’s report is one recommendation made to the University of Alaska whose audit was performed by other auditors. Many of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section III identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 03 Statewide Single Audit. …

Download1.1 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY042005
06-30020-05

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and Office of the Commissioner, April 11, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit of various management issues related to DFYS, now the Office of Children’s Services (OCS); DJJ; and the Office of the Commissioner. Scope and Methodology Current and former employees of DFYS and DJJ, totaling 1,635, were asked to participate in a confidential survey in the summer of 2003. In order to obtain stakeholders’ perspective on DFYS management, we reviewed a 2002 federal report, which included comments from various stakeholders regarding DFYS. In addition, a sample of stakeholders was interviewed. The social worker and juvenile probation officer job class series positions for DFYS and DJJ were analyzed to determine the turnover and vacancy rates for fiscal years 2000 and 2003. DFYS’ social worker positions from FY 00 through FY 03 were analyzed to determine the number of positions reclassified to an unlicensed caseworker job class series and to determine whether the employees in the social worker positions held a license. Positions in DFYS’ central office in FY 98 were identified. Additional positions and upgrades to positions in the central office were reviewed for the five-year period FY 99 through FY 03. An analysis was conducted of the requirements for DFYS’ Recruitment and Retention Stipend Program. Further, the programmatic activity from the fall of 1998 through December 31, 2003, and the financial activity for FY 99 through FY 04 were examined. Five of the nine fatalities of children who either were in state custody or had received DFYS services that occurred during the period 1999 through 2001 were reviewed. A review was conducted of supervisory and management practices applied to DFYS field offices statewide for the period July 2001 through March 2003. Statistical random samples of 100 each of DJJ intake and probation cases were selected from FY 02 and the first three quarters of FY 03 to determine compliance with policy and procedures. A listing of DHSS’ internal administrative investigations from FY 98 through January 15, 2004 was obtained. All investigations for client abuse were identified, and the dispositions were reviewed for consistency. FY 02 and FY 03 travel of 20 employees 1 and 26 employees 2, respectively, in upper- and mid-management positions was reviewed. Report Conclusions A summary of the more significant conclusions follows: Management faces high turnover at DFYS Both DFYS and DJJ management should address issues raised by employees Social worker licensure and the related stipend program are flawed Grantees providing services to DFYS and DJJ clients are not adequately monitored DFYS does not perform thorough internal child-fatality reviews when the child was in state custody at the time of death or had received services from DFYS Rural DFYS field offices are not adequately supervised DFYS caseloads are high and vary significantly statewide DJJ intake and probation services are not in compliance with policies and standards Instances of child abuse by state-employee caregivers are not properly reported DHSS needs to train its own employees, who are caregivers to children held in state custody, how to recognize and report child abuse DHSS’ commissioners and management employees within DFYS and DJJ do not use cost-saving policies and procedures for travel Findings and Recommendations This report contains recommendations to address the issues and weaknesses discussed in the Report Conclusions. Included are recommendations to improve the overall management of OCS (formerly DFYS) and DJJ. A recommendation is made to reevaluate the social worker Recruitment and Retention Stipend Program. Recommendations are made to strengthen supervision and supervisory case file reviews in both OCS and DJJ. Additionally, recommendations are made to address the weaknesses in the travel policies affecting both the Office of the Commissioner and the department as a whole. In total, 19 recommendations are made primarily to the Department of Health and Social Services.   Footnotes 1– The FY 02 scope included 6 individuals in the Office of the Commissioner, 10 with DFYS, and 4 with DJJ. 2- The FY 03 scope included 9 individuals in the Office of the Commissioner, 14 with DFYS, and 3 with DJJ. …

Download1.7 MBDHSS Selected Management Issues2005
25-30034-05

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Marine Highway System, Vessel Maintenance and Repair Procurement. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of the vessel maintenance and repair procurements administered by the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS). Our objectives were: to evaluate AMHS’ compliance with the applicable state and federal procurement statutes and regulations, which includes, when appropriate, the application of the interport differential; to evaluate the current state statutes and regulations to assess whether their application results in fair and unbiased contract awards; and to identify prior and ongoing federal, state, and local government subsidies and incentives received by shipyards used by AMHS for vessel maintenance and repairs. Report Conclusions Our review found that AMHS adheres to state and federal procurement laws and regulations when contracting for vessel maintenance and repairs, including the correct application of the interport differential when appropriate. Currently, Alaska Statutes provide for the maximum use of in-state shipyards, and AMHS complies with this mandate by contracting with either the Ketchikan or Seward shipyard for overhaul projects. Overhauls are typically performed at the shipyard in the vessel’s base port whenever possible. This reduces the chance of extended disruption of ferry schedules due to the additional transportation time created by sending a ferry out-of-region for overhaul. AMHS also believes, not unreasonably, that this practice ensures the safety of the vessel and crew while avoiding the risk of additional costs for possible damages when transporting vessels from southeast Alaska to Seward during bad weather and rough seas. As a longstanding matter of public policy, shipyards often receive government subsidies. Subsidies to shipyards are provided as incentives by local, state, or federal governments. Such incentives are designed to: (1) promote the industry; (2) entice an enterprise to move to, or stay in, a given community; or (3) in the case of federal government, assist in the interest of national security and defense. Subsidies may take the form of direct grants, low-interest loans, tax deferral, property tax exemption/reduction, lower utility rates, or acquisition of capital assets from the government entity at less than fair market value. At the end of World War II, the United States had a vast complex of shipyards that were used to support its wartime program of naval and merchant ship construction. The complex included nine government-owned and operated shipyards and approximately 132 privately owned shipyards. The government invested over a billion dollars in this complex. Since then, the U.S. government has had a number of subsidy programs, some of which still exist today. In Ketchikan and Seward there are government-owned and privately operated shipyards. The State built the Ketchikan shipyard at a cost of $38 million. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough granted the shipyard’s operator property tax relief and cash incentives totaling $800,000 from calendar years 1999 through 2001. Additionally, Ketchikan Public Utilities charged the shipyard a lower industrial rate for electricity. The federal government also awarded two grants for the Ketchikan shipyard. In 2001, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided funds to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for a $2.6 million shipyard improvement project. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration awarded a $5 million grant, with a corresponding $5 million total match from both the borough and the State, for the purchase of a vertical lift. Construction of Seward’s marine industrial complex, which includes the shipyard facilities, was also partially funded by the State. In 1981, the legislature appropriated $13.7 million to the City of Seward to construct the complex. Another $4 million was appropriated to Seward by the legislature in 1982 as a grant for the industrial park associated with the complex. In 1986, the legislature appropriated just over $1 million for cradle and rails, and in 2001 an additional $1 million was appropriated for portable work stations at the shipyard. (See Appendix D for further …

Download254.3 KBDOT Alaska Marine Highway System Vessel Maintenance and Repair Procurement2005
45-30033A-05

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the University of Alaska, Unit Cost Analysis and Other Selected Issues, Part 1, August 12, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we were to perform a cost analysis of the University of Alaska (UA or University) FY 04 expenditures by academic unit and housing complex. We were also to evaluate the degree of resolution of findings identified in the University of Alaska, Unit Cost Analysis and Selected Operational Aspects, November 15, 1993, Audit Control Number 45-4448-94. Further, we were to determine if the University was maximizing the use of distance education technologies and was making travel arrangements in the most cost-effective manner. Maximizing the use of distance education technologies and the arrangement of travel in a cost-effective manner will be addressed at a later date under separate report cover. Report Conclusions This audit presents expenditures, revenue, and other cost information for the three main campuses—University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), and University of Alaska Southeast (UAS)—small campuses, and Statewide administration. Further, in the appendices of the report, costs are categorized in functional categories by college, school, small campus, research institute, or public service organization. These presentations compute cost per credit hour, cost per full-time equivalent student, and credit hours per faculty. This report also provides an analysis of housing financial and occupancy information, evaluates housing revenues collected in the summertime, and addresses the status of recommendations of the prior audit. Some of the observations and conclusions in this report are: UAF has the largest percentage of total University expenditures, while UAA has the largest percentage of instructional costs. The State’s General Fund is the largest single source of funds. Also, UA received almost $134 million (27%) in federal funding in FY 04, primarily related to research conducted at UAF. Tuition and fees account for $67 million (14%) of the total FY 04 revenue. UAA has the highest number of credit hours and lowest cost per credit hour. Graphs compare the costs for UAA, UAF, UAS, and the combined small campuses, presented on both a credit-hour and per-student basis. UA expenditures for research and administration exceed national averages. UA exceeds the national average in research, student services, operations and maintenance, and administration, while spending less than the national average on all instruction, public service, and student aid. In FY 04, UA housing revenues exceeded operating expenditures. In FY 04, University housing, in total, collected nearly $2 million more in revenue than its operating expenditures. When considering debt service, UA’s almost $2 million operating surplus is reduced to just over a $290,000 deficit. UAA seeks to maximize summertime guest revenues. The three main campuses have different eligibility requirements for individuals allowed to stay in campus housing in the summertime. The University has either resolved or made significant progress on the prior five audit recommendations. Findings and Recommendations University chancellors should improve enforcement of policies and procedures relating to faculty evaluations, sabbaticals, and faculty overloads and additional assignments. During our review of faculty evaluations, sabbaticals, overloads and additional assignments, we noted several weaknesses, specifically: The tracking, monitoring, and compliance of faculty evaluations and supporting documents require improvement. Procedures should be adopted to address late sabbatical reports. Payment for faculty overloads and additional assignments should not be allowed without a signed agreement. The vice chancellors of administrative services should continue to improve accounting for auxiliary services. More precise and consistent recording of financial activity related to housing services will ensure management has the best information to make knowledgeable decisions. UAF vice chancellors for administrative services should pursue opportunities to increase revenues in order to accommodate debt service requirements and/or future construction …

Download1.4 MBUA Unit Cost Analysis and Other Selected Issues Part 12005
08-20043-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board, September 17, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board (board). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for the board. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(16), the board will terminate on June 30, 2006. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, it will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board is operating in the public’s best interest and should continue to regulate physical and occupational therapists. The board is safeguarding the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who hold themselves out to the public as qualified and competent physical therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapy assistants, and occupational therapy assistants. The board serves a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to conduct its business in a satisfactory manner. The board continues to propose changes to regulations to improve its effectiveness and ensure that physical therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapy assistants, and occupational therapy assistants are licensed in the State of Alaska. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(16) requires that the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board be terminated on June 30, 2006. Under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date until June 30, 2014. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Office of the Governor should recruit candidates and make appointments to the board in a timely manner. Board appointments are not filled timely due to a lack of candidates. AS 08.01.020 requires that board appointments be made by the governor. The statute does not specify a time period for filling board vacancies; however, six months is a reasonable time period to appoint a board member following a term expiration date or board vacancy. Since January 2004, three of seven board members have served beyond their appointed terms; another seat has remained vacant for an extended period of time. Currently, one board seat has remained vacant for 17 months. In another instance, a board member has continued to serve 17 months beyond the maximum two successive terms allowed by statute. Additionally, two other board members served 14 months beyond the termination date of their board terms before new appointments were made. Failure to both fill board vacancies and replace outgoing board members hinders a board’s operations, exceeds legal term limits, and creates an imposition on individuals to stay until a successor is appointed. We recommend that the Office of the Governor recruit candidates and make board appointments in a timely …

Download329.8 KBDCCED State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board2005
08-20041-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, September 26, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners (board). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for the board. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the Board of Chiropractic Examiners is operating in the public’s best interest and should continue to regulate chiropractors. Except as noted in the paragraph below, the board serves a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to conduct its business in a satisfactory manner. The board continues to propose changes to regulations to improve its effectiveness and ensure that chiropractors are licensed in the State of Alaska. Outside of the licensing and examination functions, the board has been ineffective in serving the interest of the public. Too much of the board’s time is spent discussing and developing statutory and regulatory changes that will have little to no impact on the public, but instead benefit the profession. Discussion topics include school sports physicals and independent medical examinations. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(5) requires that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners be terminated on June 30, 2006. Under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend that the legislature extend the board’s termination date until June 30, 2014. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The board should improve the efficiency of its operations by ensuring board meeting discussions are limited to topics within its purview and are of benefit to the public overall. The efficiency of the board is hindered by its misaimed efforts. The board repeatedly discusses topics outside of its purview, which has resulted in wasted time, increased costs, and more meetings than necessary each year. In an effort to improve board efficiency, we recommend the following: Limit agenda discussion items; exclude topics outside of chiropractic examiners’ jurisdiction.In recent years, the board spent an inordinate amount of time discussing topics that would best be left to state or national chiropractic organizations. Agenda items repeatedly discussed included the regulation of independent medical examinations (IME) and the performance of school sports physicals. From August 2000 through January 2005, the board conducted 17 meetings. IMEs were discussed at 14 of the 17 meetings; school sports physicals were discussed at 9 of the meetings. These discussions have continued over time because the board believes regulation of these areas is within its jurisdiction.A 1991 attorney general (AG) opinion explicitly states that chiropractors are not statutorily authorized to perform school sport physicals. An AG’s opinion relating to the chiropractic regulation of IMEs does not exist. On several occasion, however, the board has been informed by Department of Law (DOL) staff that they do not have statutory authority to regulate IMEs. Further, DOL staff have informed the board that legislative changes are necessary before chiropractic examiners can regulate IMEs and before they can perform school sports physicals. Reduce the number of board meetings held each year.As discussed above, the board spends a large amount of time repeatedly discussing items outside of its purview, as authorized in statute, resulting in increased operational costs. Specific increased costs include: contractual costs for DOL expertise; personal services costs for Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing staff services; and board meeting costs. We recommend that the board improve its operational efficiency by ensuring meeting discussions are limited to topics within its purview and are of benefit to the public overall. Additionally, we recommend that the board decrease the number of meetings held each year from three to two, in an effort to reduce operational …

Download1.0 MBDCCED Board of Chiropractic Examiners2005
08-20042-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Examiners in Optometry, September 27, 2005. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Examiners in Optometry (BEO). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BEO. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(14), the board will terminate on June 30, 2006. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BEO will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for BEO should be extended. The board is operating in the public interest by effectively regulating the individuals who hold themselves out to the public as licensed optometrists. The board adopted regulatory changes and supported legislation that improved BEO’s oversight process and have promoted more effective regulation of licensed optometrists. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(14) requires that BEO be terminated on June 30, 2006. Under AS 08.03.020(a), the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its operations. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2014. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Division of Corporations, Professional and Business Licensing (division), in conjunction with the Board of Examiners in Optometry, should decrease licensing fees to eliminate the board’s current and projected operating surplus. Evidence shows the board is accumulating a growing surplus each year. At the end of FY 04 and FY 05, the board had an operating surplus of $13,541 and $56,760, respectively. Alaska Statute 08.01.065(c) requires that fees for an occupation be set to approximate the regulatory costs related to that occupation. Given the growing surplus, it is evident that BEO revenues have exceeded board costs for several years without the division and BEO recommending necessary licensing and other fee adjustments. There has been a steady decrease in board costs since FY 02. Review of board expenditures for the period FY 02 through FY 05 shows travel and contractual costs have decreased each year since FY 02 and personal services costs are down following a spike occurring in FY 03. In general, total expenditures have decreased slightly each year since FY 02, while revenues have steadily increased each renewal year during this time period. Recommendation No. 2 The legislature should consider amending the optometry statutes to ensure they support diagnostic use of pharmaceutical agent endorsements. BEO issues pharmaceutical agent use (only) license endorsements under 12 AAC 48.021, which is not consistent with AS 08.72.175. Regulation 12 AAC 48.025, Pharmaceutical Agent Prescription and Use Endorsement, specifically authorizes the board to issue a TPA, or Therapeutic Pharmaceutical Agent endorsement. This endorsement authorizes a licensee to prescribe and use pharmaceutical agents as specified by AS 08.72.175. Comparatively, regulation 12 AAC 48.021 authorizes the board to issue a license endorsement to use topically applied pharmaceutical agents for diagnostic examination purposes only. The endorsement, commonly referred to as a DPA, or Diagnostic Pharmaceutical Agent endorsement, is not authorized by statute. A 1992 amendment to AS 08.72.175 expanded the license endorsement authority of the board from “use” to “prescribe and use,” thereby causing regulation 12 AAC 48.021, Pharmaceutical Agent Use Endorsement, to become void. A discord between statute and regulation governing optometry endorsements is …

Download367.9 KBDCCED Board of Examiners in Optometry2005
08-20028-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors, October 6, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors (BRAELS). As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process involved in determining if the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(3) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2005, and will have one year from that date to conclude its affairs. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BRAELS will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors should be extended. The board is operating in the public interest by effectively regulating the individuals who hold themselves out to the public as registered architects, engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(3) requires BRAELS to be terminated on June 30, 2005. If no action is taken by the legislature, under AS 08.03.020, the board will have a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2009. Findings and Recommendations Prior Audit Recommendation No. 1 The legislature should consider changes to the statutes mandating that BRAELS require continuing professional education of its licensees. At the time of the prior review, no statutory or regulatory provision existed requiring registered professionals to obtain specified continuing education (CE) as a condition for registration renewal. The purpose of requiring continuing education for licensed professionals is to promote professional practices consistent with current standards and information. The board supported the idea of voluntary continuing education for registrants; however, it did not have a consensus to make such CE mandatory. Legislative Audit’s Current Position The prior finding has been partially resolved. The board received statutory authority to adopt regulations requiring CE for professionals it regulates. The board, however, has yet to adopt any mandatory CE regulations. We continue to recommend the board either develop appropriate mandatory CE requirements for its professional registrants or the legislature considers making such requirements mandatory by statute. Recommendation No. 2 BRAELS should arrange for a comprehensive study regarding the public benefits and related off-setting costs that may be involved with recognizing additional engineering specialties in the State’s licensing structure. Individuals have appeared before BRAELS in recent years asking that the board expand the registrant categories and, accordingly, the number of people who can use the PE designation in commercial practice. Most specifically, individuals who have received accredited academic training in the field of environmental engineering or were recognized as a PE in another jurisdiction after passing only the NCEES environmental engineering examination, have sought BRAELS registration. To date, the board has shown no inclination to seek legislative changes to the current engineering licensure process. We suggest BRAELS consider partnering with State professional organizations and/or the engineering schools affiliated with the University of Alaska to conduct a study. The study could comprehensively address public policy benefits and costs which would provide guidance whether the number of PE specialties should be expanded. Recommendation No. 3 The legislature should consider making the landscape architect representative to BRAELS a full, voting …

Download454.8 KBDCCED Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors2005
08-20029-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, October 14, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers (BBH). As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process involved in determining if the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(4) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BBH will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers (BBH) should be extended. BBH is effectively regulating the various professions under its purview – barbers, hairdressers, estheticians, manicurists, body piercers, and tattooists. The board is safeguarding the public interest by ensuring individuals have met the minimum educational and experience requirements before being licensed. BBH serves a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to conduct its business in a satisfactory manner. The board continues to make changes to regulations to improve the effectiveness of its oversight. Since the last sunset review, BBH has developed a new set of regulations related to tattooists and body piercers. Under Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(4), the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers will be terminated on June 30, 2005. If this termination date is not extended, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the Legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2011. Findings and Recommendations The legislature should consider implementing legislation to allow the board to delegate administration of the State’s practical examination to training schools or apprentice supervisors. To be licensed as a barber, hairdresser, esthetician, or an instructor, an individual must successfully complete two types of examinations. The first is a written examination which is objectively scored and covers subject matter that is central to the primary public policy rationale for licensing the professions involved – licensees have access to, and must know how to safely use, the various chemicals involved in hair care and cosmetology treatments. The second examination is a practical examination which requires the applicant to demonstrate they have mastered the various skills related to the license they are seeking. The legislature last extended the termination date of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers (BBH) in 2001. After its deliberations regarding the extension legislation (SB 53), the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee developed the following statement of intent: The Legislature requests that the Board carefully consider the option of self-testing by the various vocations regulated by the Board and that it consider a pilot program of self-testing. The Legislature specifically requests the Board to research and investigate the results of self-testing in Washington and Oregon. In response to this legislative intent BBH researched the feasibility of, and developed draft regulations to implement, a delegated testing program for the State’s practical examinations for barbers, hairdressers, estheticians, and instructors. BBH did develop draft regulations to implement a delegated, self-testing program for the practical examination covering four of the licenses issued by the board. When BBH forwarded the proposed regulations to the Department of Law for review and approval, the board was advised it did not have the necessary statutory authority to implement such a change. The current board does not support this revision to the examination process. Therefore, we suggest the legislature implement another course of action. The Division of Occupational Licensing should, after consulting with the Department of Law, provide the legislature with suggested statutory language that not only give BBH the authority to delegate the administration of the practical examination, but also mandates the board to take such …

Download336.0 KBDCCED Board of Barbers and Hairdressers2005
08-20036-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Veterinary Examiners, October 29, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Veterinary Examiners (BVE). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BVE. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(21), the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BVE will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Veterinary Examiners (BVE) should be extended. The board is operating in the public interest by effectively regulating the individuals who hold themselves out to the public as practitioners of veterinary medicine. BVE serves a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to conduct its business in a satisfactory manner. The board continues to propose changes to regulations improving access to licensure without compromising the competency of practice. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(21) requires the Board of Veterinary Examiners be terminated on June 30, 2005. If not extended, under law the board would have a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2009. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 BVE should ensure the completeness and timeliness of its required annual reports. Under AS 08.01.070(10), BVE is required to submit “… an annual performance report to the department [Commerce, Community, and Economic Development] stating the board’s accomplishments, activities, and needs.” Annual reports for FY 01, FY 02, and FY 03 were submitted on time to the department. However, pertinent standard information was not included in several of the reports. Noted omissions included budget reports, investigative reports, continuing education enforcement reports, and perhaps most importantly, BVE’s operating goals and objectives for the upcoming year(s). Text stating that these items were to be “added later” was included for the omitted sections, but the reports were never updated. The FY 04 annual report does include all the essential elements. Accordingly, we recommend BVE take steps to ensure that each annual report is complete and timely, in order to meet the intended purpose of both the general licensing reporting statute and the board’s specific reporting statute.   Analysis of Public Need The board has served the public through its examination and licensing of qualified applicants. As recommended in the prior sunset audit report1, the board adopted regulations that clarified what serves as a passing score on the national examination. The change resolved our concerns about the ambiguity in the previous regulatory language. The board also provided for easier access to licensure by examination, expanding the nature and type of transcripts it would accept as part of the license application. In addition, the board is reviewing regulations pertaining to licensing of veterinary technicians that would permit individuals who trained in Canada to be more readily licensed in Alaska. In the previous sunset review we reported BVE’s operations had been impeded by a delay in the distribution of a handbook to veterinarians regarding how to handle various public health threats. The delay was attributable to a policy difference with the Department of Health and Social Services related to the appropriate handling and disposal of rabid animals. The board worked with the Division of Public Health in order to ensure its policy was consistent with guidance issued by the national veterinary organizations. Subsequently, this handbook has been distributed to all interested parties and is available upon request. Footnote: 1 – Division of Legislative Audit’s report Department of Community and Economic Development, Board of Veterinary Examiners Sunset Review, October 20, 2000, Audit Control No. …

Download261.2 KBDCCED Board of Veterinary Examiners2005
08-20027-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Public Accountancy, October 25, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Public Accountancy (BOPA). As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process involved in determining if the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(1) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BOPA will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Public Accountancy (BOPA) should be extended. The board is serving a public interest by operating in an effective manner in its licensing and regulation of certified public accountants and public accountants. The board is acting in the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who hold themselves out to the public as certified public accountants (CPAs) or public accountants (PAs). The board continues to make regulation changes, improving its effectiveness of monitoring CPAs and PAs licensed in the State of Alaska; making sure they are competent and capable of maintaining the integrity of the profession. The board is proactively attempting to restore testing sites to Juneau and Fairbanks for the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination – which have been closed with the implementation of a new testing process by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(1) requires the Board of Public Accountancy be terminated on June 30, 2005. Under AS 08.03.020, if the termination date is not extended by the legislature, the board will have a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2009. Findings and Recommendations BOPA should continue to be proactive in providing better access to its primary licensing examination – the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination (CPA Exam). In 2004, the manner in which the CPA Exam is administered in Alaska was changed. Previously, the examination was administered twice a year at a minimum of three testing sites typically located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. The examination spread over two and one-half days; although individuals, who passed previous segments, only had to sit for the parts they had yet to successfully pass. In 2004, in conjunction with changes of format and structure that were made nationally by the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts (AICPA), the examination was changed to an all-computerized format that could be taken in whole or in parts up to three, and eventually four, times a year. By increasing the availability of the examination across the full year, access for applicants was improved. However, as the new testing regimen was implemented in Alaska, this improved access was offset to a large degree by the restriction in the number of available testing sites. Under the new testing regimen, applicants can only take the examination at one test site located in Anchorage. Such circumstances make taking the examination much more expensive for applicants in the Interior and Southeast Alaska. Applicants from these regions must now travel to Anchorage, arrange for transportation and accommodations, in addition of having to pay a higher examination fee. BOPA has adopted a resolution requesting that more testing sites be made available in Alaska for the CPA Exam. BOPA is actively working with NASBA, negotiating on the board’s behalf, to modify the existing contract to provide for more test sites. The board, representatives of the University of Alaska, the state professional society, CPA firms – as well as individual CPAs – recognized the problems involved with having only one test site in Alaska. Individually, and in tandem, some of these groups have been trying to work with NASBA and Prometric to set up an additional testing site. A central tenet of occupational licensing is that regulatory boards for given professions primarily exist to provide public and consumer protection without unduly restricting or limiting entry into the regulated profession. Accordingly, the board must continue to be proactive, and NASBA should be proactive with the AICPA, to be sure the licensing procedures conform with the public policy objectives of occupational regulation and …

Download293.3 KBDCCED Board of Public Accountancy2005
25-30011-05

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Employment Opportunities for Women Engineers,November 8, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) related to employment opportunities for women engineers. Specific objectives of the audit are: To review management’s response to the history of settlements and awards concerning gender-based discrimination against women engineers during the past ten years, including Letter of Grievance Resolution No. 96 G-274. To evaluate progress in correcting the past underutilization of women engineers, both in terms of workforce composition and employee perceptions. To compare the advancement, turnover, and starting pay of men and women engineers. Report Conclusions During the last decade, women have overall become better represented within the mainstream career track for engineers at DOTPF. The longevity before and after career milestones is generally comparable for men and women. Turnover in recent years has varied little between the genders. Turnover after rehire is statistically insignificant. Hiring managers have little discretion to vary the pay rates for successful applicants, and we found no evidence that the personnel code is being manipulated to hire one gender at higher rates. Finally, our survey of DOTPF engineers shows that some women perceive that discrimination still hinders their careers. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 DOTPF’s commissioner should proactively monitor both the statistical and intangible aspects of a gender-neutral work environment. Evaluations of employment opportunity have traditionally focused upon the degree to which various demographic groups are present or absent. Statistical analysis is an important tool in identifying possible pockets of unequal career opportunities. Targets showing the expected employment by gender are an accepted, though imperfect, measure of an employer’s success in developing a gender-neutral work environment. We recommend that DOTPF go beyond the heavily-aggregated analyses that it currently conducts for the reports required by law. Using regional gender targets for each engineering job class as guidance, DOTPF can monitor its goals of having a gender-neutral workplace. We recognize that DOTPF has made considerable improvements in creating a positive work environment for those employees moving through the engineering career ladder. However, DOTPF’s management needs to recognize that proactive and ongoing measures are still needed to meet its goal of a gender-neutral …

Download355.9 KBDOT Employment Opportunities for Women Engineers2005
08-20030-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Social Work Examiners, October 27, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Social Work Examiners (BSWE). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BSWE. Currently under AS 08.31.010(c)(6), the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BSWE will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In addition to developing our conclusion regarding extending the termination date for the Board of Social Work Examiners, we also analyzed the operating costs of the board. Such analysis was done to evaluate possible cost savings that might be generated by consolidation of behavioral health boards along the lines suggested in the 2002 letter of intent. Further discussion of our conclusions follows. The termination date of the Board of Social Work Examiners should be extended In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Social Work Examiners should be extended. The board is operating in an efficient and effective manner and should continue to regulate clinical, master, and baccalaureate social workers. BSWE is serving the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of those who provide services to the public as licensed social workers. BSWE has demonstrated a capability of conducting its business in a satisfactory manner. The board continues to propose changes to regulations to improve the effectiveness of the board and ensure that social workers are licensed in the State of Alaska. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(6) requires BSWE be terminated on June 30, 2005. If not extended by the legislature, under AS 08.03.020, the board will have a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2010. Board consolidation provides minimal savings over current BSWE costs We analyzed various aspects of consolidating all licensing boards related to behavioral health. From the perspective of efficiency and effectiveness, the most tangible benefit of consolidation for BSWE would be a minor cost savings for each licensee. Due to the way costs are accumulated and distributed to various boards, direct costs with the most variability, and thus most likely to be affected by possible consolidation, are those associated with board meetings. Rather than separate boards meeting three to four times a year, consolidation would result in one board, albeit likely a larger one, holding the same number of meetings possibly lasting longer than one day. In recent years, BSWE has spent relatively little on conducting meetings. This likely can be attributed to all of the current, and much of the historical, membership of the board being from the Anchorage bowl. Since most of the meetings have been held in the Anchorage area, travel and per diem costs have been minimal. Of the $47,000 average annual operating costs for BSWE, we estimate less than $3,000 are related to board meeting costs. We project little, if any, administrative savings for licensed social workers if the board was consolidated with other behavioral health boards. Accordingly, we conclude that for Social Work Examiners, board consolidation is unlikely to result in any significant savings that would reduce board operating costs and, by extension, licensing …

Download180.0 KBDCCED Board of Social Work Examiners2005
08-20035-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Psychologists and Psychological Associate Examiners, October 27, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Psychologists and Psychological Associate Examiners (BPPA). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BPPA. Currently under AS 08.31.010(c)(18), the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BPPA will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In addition to developing our conclusion regarding extending BPPA’s termination date, we also analyzed the operating costs of the board. Such analysis was done to evaluate possible cost savings that might be generated by consolidation of various behavioral health boards. The Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners should be extended In our opinion, BPPA is operating in an efficient and effective manner and should continue to regulate the psychology profession. We believe the board is safeguarding the public interest by ensuring the competence and integrity of those who hold themselves out to the public as psychologists and psychological associates. BPPA serves a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to conduct its business in a satisfactory manner. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(18) requires the Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners be terminated on June 30, 2005. If the legislature takes no action, under AS 08.03.020, BPPA will have a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2010. Board consolidation provides minimal savings over current BPPA costs We analyzed various aspects of consolidating all licensing boards related to behavioral health. From the perspective of efficiency and effectiveness, the most tangible benefit of consolidation for BPPA would be a minor cost savings for each licensee. By state law, BPPA is required to hold a minimum of three meetings each year. In recent years the board has spent relatively little on conducting meetings. This likely can be attributed to the fact that the five-person board, effectively, had only three members attending meetings on a regular basis. As a result, travel and per diem costs have been minimal. Out of the $81,000 average annual operating cost, less than 7.5 percent, or an estimated $5,000, is related to board meeting costs. As a result we project little, if any, administrative savings for psychologists and associates in the consolidation of the boards. In a survey of licensees, more than 75 percent who responded said their biggest complaint of the licensing process was their licensing fees were too high. However, when asked if they would favor board consolidation if it resulted in lower fees, roughly the same percentage (72.7 percent) of the 128 respondents stated they would still be opposed to such action. Given the results of the survey, combined with the lack of any significant financial savings in board costs, we conclude that consolidating the Board of Psychologists and Psychological Associates with other behavioral health boards would not increase efficiency or effectiveness in the board’s operation. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Division of Occupational Licensing, in conjunction with the Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners, should increase licensing fees to eliminate the board’s current and projected operating deficits. At the end of FY 04, the board had an operating deficit of almost $75,000. Based on expenditures and revenues to date, we project that it is likely the board will be in a deficit again at the end of FY 05. The major contributing factor to the deficit is that board costs have exceeded license renewal fee revenues, without the board and the Division of Occupational Licensing putting in place the necessary licensing and other fee adjustments. Alaska Statute 08.01.065(c) requires fees be set to approximate the regulatory costs related to that occupation. Recommendation No. 2 The Office of the Governor should take steps to expedite appointments, most importantly the public member seat, to the Board of Psychologists and Psychological …

Download295.3 KBDCCED Board of Psychologist and Psychologist Associate Examiners2005
08-20032-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Marital and Family Therapy, November 1, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy (BMFT). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when determining whether to extend the termination date for BMFT. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(11), the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BMFT will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In addition to developing our conclusion regarding extending the termination date for BMFT, we also analyzed the operating costs and other factors related to the operations of the board. Various nonfinancial factors were considered in order to assess the advisability of consolidating BMFT with other behavioral health boards, along the lines suggested in the 2002 letter of intent. Further discussion of our conclusions follows. BMFT should be consolidated with the Board of Professional Counselors In our opinion, BMFT should not be reestablished by the legislature. Rather, we recommend the licensing of qualified professionals be continued through consolidation with the Board of Professional Counselors (BPC). Our recommendation is based upon the following factors: Number of BMFT licensees has significantly declined. Some BMFT licensees hold licenses with other boards. Scope of practice and educational requirements are similar for therapists and counselors. Survey results show mixed reactions to consolidating boards. BMFT is in a chronic-deficit position. Combination of these two professions under a single board is the most common regulatory model. The new consolidated board should be established for four years. In our opinion, the termination date for the consolidated board covering marital and family therapists, along with professional counselors, should be established for June 30, 2009. Both boards have been actively working in the public’s interest by promoting the competence of individuals who hold themselves out to the public as marital and family therapists or professional counselors. BMFT has testified in favor of statutory changes and adopted regulatory changes that made therapists more accountable to their clients and the general public. The board has also substantially curtailed its operating costs, in an attempt to minimize its current negative balance position. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(11) requires BMFT to be terminated on June 30, 2005. If the legislature takes no action, under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature combine BMFT with BPC and the consolidated board’s termination date be set at June 30, 2009. If the legislature elects not to consolidate the board, we recommend the Board of Marital and Family Therapy be extended to June 30, 2010. Findings and Recommendations The Board of Marital and Family Therapy and Board of Professional Counselors should be combined into a single oversight and licensing board. The Division of Occupational Licensing (OccLic), in conjunction with the Board of Marital and Family Therapy, should increase licensing fees to eliminate the board’s current and projected operating deficit. At the end of FY 04, BMFT had an operating deficit of more than $75,000. Based on expenditures and revenues to date, we project that it is likely BMFT will, again, be in a deficit at the end of FY 05. BMFT has reduced its direct operating costs to less than $10,000 in FY 04 compared to more than the $20,000 incurred for both FY 03 and FY 02. The Office of the Governor should take steps to make the necessary appointments to keep the Board of Marital and Family Therapy at full …

Download479.1 KBDCCED Board of Marital and Family Therapy2005
06-20037-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Health and Social Services Statewide Suicide Prevention Council, November 15, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council (SSPC). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of the council. Legislative intent requires consideration of this report during the legislative oversight hearings to determine whether the termination date of the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council should be extended. The law currently specifies the council will terminate on June 30, 2005. Report Conclusions Our primary conclusion is the termination date of the council should be extended. We recommend that the legislature extend the termination date for the council to June 30, 2009. We also have concluded that the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) hindered the efforts of the council by providing inadequate financial information to the council and by diverting almost 20 percent of the council’s FY 04 funding for non-related expenditures. Findings and Recommendations The Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) Community-based Suicide Prevention Program coordinator should ensure prevention programs conform to the Statewide Suicide Prevention Plan.Now that SSPC has a statewide suicide prevention plan in place, we believe the various community-based suicide prevention plans, at a minimum, should be consistent with the statewide plan. Developing procedures that require grant applicants to certify and explain how their grant activities and community plans are consistent with the state plan will provide more assurance that this particular state funding is being implemented in a manner consistent with the centrally-developed state plan.Accordingly, we recommend DBH modify the grant application process as necessary, requiring communities to read the statewide prevention plan and certify their local plan is consistent with the state plan. Further, we recommend that DBH report to SSPC regarding these grant applications and talk about how the various community-based efforts are consistent with the council’s plan. The Administrative Manager for DHSS Boards and Commissions and staff to the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council should develop a more formalized, informative system of reporting financial information to the council.Eighty percent of the FY 04 operating budget for the council was either lapsed or spent for items that were not directly related to suicide prevention activities. While it is unclear whether DHSS management actively prohibited the council from spending much of their funding, it is clear SSPC did not receive consistent and informative financial reports from the department.Accordingly, we recommend the administrative manager develop a comprehensive, informative format for tracking and reporting expenditure activity for SSPC and develop understandable, reliable reports on a consistent basis to assist the council in the use of its appropriated funding. The council should ensure it provides public notice of all council meetings.Since its inception in 2001, the council did not give adequate public notice of two of its 12 meetings. No public notice was provided on either the State of Alaska’s online public notice system or through publication in widely-circulated state newspapers. Additionally, the agendas for three of the council meetings did not provide periods for public comment.We recommend the council ensure that all meetings are publicly noticed, ensure that the method of notice is consistent and provide opportunity for public comment. We also recommend the council consider posting its meeting schedule on SSPC website. The Office of the Governor should make appointments to the council in a timely manner.SSPC activities were also hampered by delays in appointments made to the council. We recommend the Office of the Governor makes appointments to the council in a timely …

Download248.2 KBDHSS Statewide Suicide Prevention Council2005
08-30031-05

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of Alaska’s sunset review process and Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development’s (DCCED) occupational licensing investigative unit. Our objectives included determining whether the current sunset process is the most efficient use of state resources and make recommendations for improving the process based on national trends and industry best practices. Further, our objectives included evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of DCCED’s occupational licensing investigative unit. Report Conclusions Alaska’s sunset process has been successful at identifying and correcting significant deficiencies. Consequently, sunset laws have evolved from a means of enacting change to the mechanism for monitoring continued operations. Entity operations have matured and warrant less frequent oversight. The sunset review period should be lengthened to eight years to more efficiently use state resources. Sunset evaluation criteria can be improved by specifically requiring an analysis of effectiveness and efficiency, including a review for duplication of effort. Both recommended changes are consistent with national trends in sunset law. DCCED’s investigation unit has increased protection of the general public and members of licensed professions by increasing the number of disciplinary actions taken. However, the unit’s case management procedures are in need of significant improvement. The investigative unit has difficulty in efficiently addressing its caseload. Case management is hampered by poor supervision of open caseloads, a lack of standards for completing critical aspects of the investigative process, and a prioritization policy that does not ensure cases are consistently addressed in a fair and equitable manner. Most findings noted during our review can be attributed to a need for improving case management procedures. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The legislature should consider amending sunset statutes. The legislature should consider amending sunset statutes for the following: lengthening the standard sunset extension period from four to eight years, expanding sunset evaluation criteria, and clarifying responsibility for regulation, in the event an occupational licensing board terminates. Recommendation No. 2 The director of the Division of Occupational Licensing should implement changes to address investigative inefficiencies and case management procedures. Changes should include the following: Restructure the organization of the investigative unit, Change case assessment and assignment procedures, Implement improvements to case management procedures, and Implement other changes to increase efficiency and effectiveness Recommendation No. 3 The director of the Division of Occupational Licensing should consider drafting a policy to guide investigators’ use of board members during the investigative process. Our review of case files found that consultation with board members was poorly documented and the degree they are involved in the investigative process was unclear. While most investigators seek out board member guidance in a significant number of cases, the unit does not have clear guidance on how to utilize board members in a manner that is consistent with legal …

Download362.8 KBDCCED Alaska Sunset Process and Selected Investigative Issues2005
08-20034-05

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Professional Counselors, November 2, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Professional Counselors (BPC). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BPC. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(17), the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BPC will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In addition to developing our conclusion regarding extending the termination date for BPC, we also analyzed the operating costs and other factors related to the operations of the board. Various nonfinancial factors were considered in order to assess the advisability of consolidating BPC with other behavioral health boards. Further discussion of our conclusions follows BPC should be consolidated with the Board of Marital and Family Therapy In our opinion, BPC should not be reestablished by the legislature. Rather, we recommend the licensing of qualified professionals be continued through consolidation with the Board of Marital and Family Therapy (BMFT). We base our recommendation, which in part stems from circumstances involving BMFT, on the following factors: Number of BMFT licensees has significantly declined. Some BPC licensees also hold licenses with BMFT. Scope of practice and educational requirements are similar for therapists and counselors. BMFT is in a chronic-deficit position. Survey results show mixed reactions to consolidating boards. Similar professions on a board enhance public representation. Combination of these two professions under a single board is the most common regulatory model. The new consolidated board should be established for four years. In our opinion, the termination date for the consolidated board covering professional counselors, along with marital and family therapists, should be established for June 30, 2009. Both boards have been actively working in the public’s interest by promoting the competence of individuals who hold themselves out to the public as marital and family therapists or professional counselors. BPC has consistently carried out its responsibilities in the public interest and has demonstrated an ability to conduct its business in a satisfactory manner. The board continues to propose changes to statutes and regulations improving the proficiency of practitioners licensed in Alaska. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(17) requires BPC to be terminated on June 30, 2005. If the legislature takes no action, under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the legislature combine BPC with BMFT and establish June 30, 2009 as termination date for the new board. If the legislature elects not to consolidate the board, we recommend the Board of Professional Counselors be extended to June 30, 2010. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Board of Professional Counselors and Board of Marital and Family Therapy should be combined into a single oversight and licensing board. BPC was created by the 1998 Legislature. At that time there was interest expressed by various legislators of placing professional counselors’ licensing and regulation under the already existing BMFT. After legislative discussions and questioning, it was decided to create a separate Board of Professional Counselors – in part because of concern that one-time “start-up” costs should be borne entirely by counselors rather than made part of the costs paid by marital and family therapists. As part of the sunset review we considered the merits of combining BPC with one or more of the boards involved with behavioral health, such as BMFT, the Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners, and the Board of Social Work Examiners Based on our review we recommend that the Board of Professional Counselors and Board of Marital and Family Therapy be consolidated into one board maintaining licensure of each profession separately. However, at some future time because of the similarity of education and practice, a combined board may want to consider a single counseling license with an endorsement to practice a specialty – such as marital and family …

Download305.6 KBDCCED Board of Professional Counselors2005
05-20026-04

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Education and Early Development, Special Education Service Agency, December 18, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Department of Education and Early Development, Special Education Service Agency (SESA). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of this agency. Report Conclusions Alaska Statute 44.66.010(a)(14) requires that the Special Education Service Agency (SESA) be terminated on June 30, 2004 with AS 44.66.010(b) providing for a one-year wrap up period. If no action is taken by the legislature, the agency will be dissolved as of June 30, 2005. We find that SESA has delivered a sufficient quantity and quality of service to justify the agency’s continuation in the public interest. We further support SESA’s continuation in its present form as a nonprofit corporation for the immediate future. However, we also believe that much has changed in SESA’s operating environment since our last review almost a decade ago. This is a turning point for SESA, and some important redirection of its efforts is needed to ensure its sustainability in the years ahead. At this point, SESA’s existing structure appears to be the most capable means for implementing the redirection detailed in our Findings and Recommendations section of the report. We recommend that AS 44.66.010(a)(14) be amended to extend SESA’s termination date to June 30, 2008. Findings and Recommendations In our prior review, we noted the need for the enabling statute to reflect any changes in the funding formula used by the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). In 1998, SESA’s statutory funding formula was modified as part of legislation that overhauled the state’s support for public schools. SESA should transition to videoconferencing as the norm for delivery of its service. SESA’s management should spearhead a state special education training consortium to formally advance the capabilities of school district personnel. SESA should apply for a federal subsidy of up to 90 percent of its telecommunications expense. SESA’s management should aggressively pursue opportunities for more diversified funding. SESA should continue to enhance the availability of its specialized library to the general public. DEED and the Governor’s Council should appoint representatives who will attend SESA board meetings. As a statutorily-created entity of state government, SESA should investigate the necessity of filing tax returns and paying excise …

Download244.9 KBDEED Special Education Service Agency2004
18-30028-04

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Environmental Conservation, Village Safe Water Program, Selected Projects, November 19, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of the Village Safe Water Program (VSW) administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Our objectives were to evaluate DEC’s oversight of engineering firm billings and project payrolls and to evaluate its purchasing practices in project communities. Report Conclusions Approximately $35 million in VSW construction is being monitored by a dozen engineers buried within a regulatory agency. Though well meaning and exemplary in dedication, these DEC employees suffer from a lack of the usual business support services that enable other state engineers to focus on engineering. In short, there is a mismatch between their professional training and the tasks that consume much of their time. Our summary conclusions were as follows: Unskilled oversight of construction management firms and other engineers allows waste Unskilled oversight of on-site managers allows waste Noncompliance with tax and payroll laws invites enforcement Better monitoring needed for safeguards over outside employment The move to projects in recent road system subdivisions reflects changing priorities Questionable purchasing presumes unlimited future funding Findings and Recommendations The governor should, by executive order, place VSW within the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities’ (DOTPF) public facilities section.We recommend that the governor place the VSW program within DOTPF’s public facilities section. The program will benefit from DOTPF’s support services, economies of scale, training opportunities, career paths, and business discipline. The state should mandate that on-site managers be paid with a salary rather than on an open ended hourly basis. The VSW program should institute traditional business safeguards to protect the integrity of force account payrolls. DEC’s designated ethics supervisor should, with comprehensive assistance from the Department of Administration, determine the extent of any conflicts of interest among VSW employees and establish clear boundaries. For force account projects, the VSW program should adopt regulations setting basic business standards for potential conflicts of interest, transactions with project employees, and nepotism. AUDITOR’S COMMENTS VSW program could require meaningful in kind contributions by capable communities. Though there have been some exceptions over the years, the usual assumption of the VSW program is that communities invest none of their own funds or property. Under DEC’s force account arrangement, the community gets a VSW facility along with paychecks for the local crew that builds it. DEC asserts that the use of force account labor, a business plan, and a local operator fosters a sense of community “ownership” in the completed project. However, as the program is extended to more capable communities, DEC should not presume that the program needs to fund every element of the project. Capable communities could be encouraged to contribute and the program could be viewed as a startup partnership, rather than a perpetual …

Download259.9 KBDEC Village Safe Water Program Selected Projects2004
04-40004-04

SUMMARY OF: of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003. Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of almost $2.4 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The report contains an opinion on the basic financial statement of the State of Alaska for fiscal year 2003, recommendations on financial and compliance matters, auditor’s reports on internal controls and compliance and the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Report Conclusions For a second year, the basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. During FY 03, over $498 million was transferred from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) to the General Fund in accordance with Chapter 1, SSSLA 2002, section 94(b) to fund the State’s FY 03 shortfall between revenues and general fund appropriations. Other significant transactions between the General Fund and the CBRF during this fiscal year included $130.7 million returned from the CBRF to the General Fund after being swept at the end of FY 02, and $88.8 million being swept from a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts, then transferred to the CBRF at the end of FY 03. Additionally, except for federal financial reporting requirements for the Military Construction program administered by the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, the State has complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 42 recommendations, of which seven were presented last year. Also included in this year’s report are six recommendations made to various state corporations and the University of Alaska, whose audits were performed by other auditors. Many of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section IV identifies the current status of most prior audit recommendations not resolved by the release of the FY 02 Statewide Single …

Download1.4 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY032004
08-20031-04

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Board of Dental Examiners, August 5, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Dental Examiners (BDE). As required by state law, the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report when considering whether to extend the termination date for BDE. Currently under AS 08.03.010(c)(7) the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BDE will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Dental Examiners should be extended. The board is operating in the public interest by effectively regulating the individuals who hold themselves out to the public as licensed dentists and dental hygienists. The board has adopted regulatory changes and supported legislation that improved the board’s oversight process and has promoted more effective regulation of licensed dentists and dental hygienists. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(7) requires the Board of Dental Examiners be terminated on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date, the board will have a one-year “wrap-up” period to administratively conclude its operations. We recommend the legislature extend the termination date of the board until June 30, 2011. Implementation of our recommendation would require the legislature to exercise some discretion permitted by state law. Alaska Statute 08.03.020(c) provides for the following: A board scheduled for termination … may be continued or reestablished by the legislature for a period not to exceed four years unless the board is continued or reestablished for a longer period… [emphasis added] Two factors influence our recommendation that the legislature extend the board to June 30, 2011. First, the board has operated effectively and in the public’s interest over the past four years. Secondly, this extension would work towards smoothing out the number of boards and commissions that come under sunset in a particular year. Typically, there are four to six boards and/or commissions scheduled for a legislative sunset review; however, in 2005 there are 12 boards scheduled for sunset. Nonstandard extension dates will allow for a more even distribution of organizations going through the sunset process in any given year. Analysis of Public Need The board licenses applicants in two ways, by examination and by credentials. Licensure by credentials requires that the applicant document their previous work history as a dentist or dental hygienist as basis for receiving a state license to practice. In prior reports we have expressed concerns that licensure by credential has been unnecessarily cumbersome and difficult. The board adopted new and revised old regulations related to licensure by credentials that have made this process less restrictive. Further, the board adopted new regulations that expanded continuing education requirements and provided for the issuance of licenses in a more uniform and consistent manner. The Board of Dental Examiners supported passage of HB 81 by the 22nd Legislature (Chapter 24 SLA 01) which accomplished changes to several statutes related to dentistry. Two significant changes of particular benefit to the public included: the acceptance of passing scores of an exam administered by the Central Regional Dental Testing Service an increase in the civil fine penalty from $5,000 to $25,000 per violation Previously, candidates could only qualify for licensure by an exam that was administered by the Western Regional Examining Board. The Central and Western regions agree the exams are comparable, and per legislative testimony there is statistical evidence to support the claim. Additionally, acceptance of another exam benefits the State by reducing barriers to entry for dentists from other states wishing to relocate here. The increase in the civil fine penalty parallels an increase that was also adopted for the Medical Board (included in separate …

Download307.5 KBDCCED Board of Dental Examiners2004
08-20033-04

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Division of Occupational Licensing, Board of Pharmacy, September 3, 2004. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Pharmacy (BOP). As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committees of reference are to consider this report during the legislative oversight process involved in determining if the board should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(15) states that the board will terminate on June 30, 2005. If the legislature does not extend the termination date for the board, BOP will have one year to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for the Board of Pharmacy should be extended. The board is safeguarding the public interest by ensuring the competence of individuals who hold themselves out to the public as pharmacists, pharmacist interns, and pharmacist technicians through reasonable licensing and regulatory requirements. The board also has a role in the regulation of pharmacies, drug rooms1, and wholesale distributors. The board adopted regulatory changes that have improved the board’s oversight process and promoted more effective regulation of licensed pharmacists and pharmacies. Alaska Statute 08.03.010(c)(15) requires the Board of Pharmacy be terminated on June 30, 2005. Under AS 08.03.020, the board has a one-year period to administratively conclude its affairs. We recommend the Legislature extend the board’s termination date to June 30, 2010. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The Division of Occupational Licensing, in conjunction with the Board of Pharmacy, should increase licensing fees to eliminate the board’s current and projected operating deficits. At the end of FY 03, the board had an operating deficit of $65,100. Based on expenditures and revenues to date, we project that it is likely the board will be in a deficit again at the end of FY 04. The major contributing factor to the deficit is that board costs have exceeded license renewal fee revenues without the board and Division of Occupational Licensing (OccLic) putting in place the necessary licensing and other fee adjustments. Alaska Statute 08.01.065(c) requires fees for an occupation be set at a level to approximate the related regulatory costs. Although BOP did increase licensing fees in June 2004, another increase is necessary to eliminate the deficit and to meet annual operating costs of the board. Accordingly, we recommend the department and the board review the regulatory costs and licensing fees to ensure BOP fees are sufficient eliminate the deficit and to meet annual operating costs of the board and regulation of the profession. Recommendation No. 2 The Division of Occupational Licensing should rescind the requirement to provide a photograph with each license application. The Division of Occupational Licensing has eliminated questions on the licensing application requiring personal information. However, a notarized photograph is still required to accompany the licensing application. OccLic has continued with the requirement because of the stipulations made by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP). When applying for a license, an individual must also submit a NABP application to BOP. In the past, NABP required OccLic staff to compare the photo on the NABP form to the photograph submitted with the state application. OccLic staff indicates they are not sure this is still a requirement. If the NABP photo comparison requirement is still in place, we recommend OccLic continue to solicit photographs for that purpose. However, the photographs should be kept in a separate file from one reviewed by the board. This separation would eliminate a factor that could have an impact on an individual receiving a license outside of technical qualifications. Taking such action provides greater assurance that the board will consistently be in compliance with equal employment opportunity statutes and regulations. Footnote 1 – The term drug room refers to a situation, which requires licensure from the Board of Pharmacy, where an institutional facility that does not maintain a pharmacy but prepares and administers prescription drugs from bulk supplies for patients receiving treatment within the …

Download294.8 KBDCCED Board of Pharmacy2004
06-30018-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Medical Assistance, Internal Control Over Medicaid Payments, January 31, 2003. Purpose of the Report The primary objective of our review was to evaluate the controls over the payments made under the State’s Medicaid program. The program is administered by the Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) and involves numerous payments made to a variety of service providers involved with meeting the medical needs of citizens that meet the program’s eligibility requirements. Additionally, our review addressed specific concerns related to Medicaid’s home and community-based (HCB) waiver programs. The issues in this part of the review involved primarily the billing and budgeting practices of private nonprofit community services agencies. Report Conclusions Internal controls over Medicaid program need to be improved Our central conclusion is that the internal controls related to a significant segment of the payments made under State’s Medicaid program are weak. There are weaknesses in both phases of the payment process: (1) the system involved in processing claims; and (2) the practices used to monitor the activities of recipient and providers involved in Medicaid. This second phase, we refer to as program integrity function, includes activities both at DMA and the Department of Law’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU). While the control weaknesses in the Medicaid system involve circumvention or neglect of established controls, the findings related to HCB waiver programs primarily stem from the lack of well-designed controls. In this instance, the primary control involves state regulations which permit reimbursement for expenditures in a manner inconsistent with good financial practices. The weaknesses in the internal controls over the review and electronic processing of payment claims include: Poor controls over provider enrollment. DMA’s procedures for enrolling eligible service providers in the State Medicaid program are not consistent with federal regulations. Additionally, DMA fails to inactivate providers with extended lapses of participation in the Medicaid program. Administrative data processing controls being ignored. The data processing system that generates payments uses an elaborate structure of edits to evaluate claims. The objective of these evaluative edits is to provide assurance the claim is legitimate and consistent with state and federal regulations, as well as established healthcare standards. DMA, through practice and policy, has weakened the effectiveness of some of these edit checks. Insufficient controls over nonemergency transportation. Many of the controls in this area are designed to contain transportation costs. There are a number of problems involving the application of controls over nonemergency transportation. There were many transportation claims paid without a related medical claim involved. Some travel costs appear to be unreasonable, while an established control procedure such as prior authorization, is applied in such a way as to be of limited value. The weaknesses in internal controls relating to program integrity involve: An ineffective provider and recipient review system within DMA. The section within DMA responsible for reviewing providers and recipients for possible abuse and fraud has not been adequately supported. This lack of support compromises DMA’s capacity to effectively manage program integrity information. Accordingly, known problem providers are not effectively monitored on an ongoing basis. Lack of effective coordination between DMA and MFCU. In recent years, two DMA policy decisions adversely affected MFCU investigations. Additionally, vague DMA policies and regulations hamper MFCU investigatory efforts. Weaknesses in the manner in which controls are designed for HCB services allow providers to be paid for levels of service higher than they actually provide. This is due to the way service costs are developed and billed, consistent with the requirements of state regulations. Findings and Recommendations To address the weaknesses in internal control outlined in the Conclusions section we make 13 recommendations. Recommendation numbers 1 through 4 address the data processing involved with payment of claims through the Medicaid management information system (MMIS). Recommendation numbers 5 through 9 address the internal monitoring and review of activities at DMA. Recommendation numbers 10 and 11 address the controls stemming from activities of other agencies such as the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities involvement with HCB waiver costs. Recommendation numbers 12 and 13 address actions the legislature should possibly take to improve the operations and controls related to administration of the State’s Medicaid …

Download1.1 MBDHSS Division of Medical Assistance Internal Control Over Medicaid Payments2003
06-30019-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Family and Youth Services, Travel Issues, March 4, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of travel issues at the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). The objectives of this audit were: To review DFYS’ processes for approving, paying, and recording state and federally-funded, client-related travel expenditures. Client-related travel includes travel for children under DFYS oversight, employee and nonemployee escort travel, and family travel. To evaluate the effectiveness of internal controls over the above processes. To evaluate DFYS’ compliance with statewide, department, and division travel policies and procedures. To review the travel credit card systems used by the division to procure client-related travel. Report Conclusions Our primary finding was that current procedures and internal controls are inadequate to control client-related travel costs. The four DFYS regions of the State do not follow the same guidelines and procedures for procuring travel. Specifically, we concluded: The DFYS Travel Authorization and Request for Funds approval process is lengthy, time-consuming, and costly to the division. Management review does not adequately control travel costs. Practices do not comply with current travel policies and procedures. Email communications may not adequately safeguard client information. Findings and Recommendations The DFYS director should redesign and simplify the division’s travel processes.Current policies and procedures are inadequate to control travel costs. The travel request approval process should be simplified. Travel clerks, rather than social workers, should make travel arrangements. Internal controls over travel costs should be amended. All four DFYS regions should follow department and division travel policies and procedures. The policy requiring the State to pay transportation costs for foster children to accompany their foster family on vacation should be clarified.Simplified processes for ticket purchases will enable the division to greatly increase its use of advance purchase airline fares. Our testing of 132 trips showed that 67 percent of the expenditures were for nonemergency, full-fare tickets. We conservatively estimated the potential savings for the division at $650,000 per year. The DFYS director should determine if additional safeguards over confidential client information communications are necessary.State and federal policies require DFYS to protect client information. The use of email by DFYS staff may compromise that confidentiality as we noted the use of client names and medical needs in email messages sent between division staff. DFYS should consult with the Department of Administration, Information Technology Group, to determine if additional security measures are needed to prevent unauthorized access to electronic client information.This issue may also affect other divisions in the Department of Health and Social Services. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (also known as HIPPA) requires security and privacy of health information. The Divisions of Medical Assistance and Public Health may also need to have additional safeguards placed over their confidential …

Download351.8 KBDHSS Division of Family and Youth Services Travel Issues2003
08-30022-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Investments, Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund, March 18, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted a performance and financial audit of the Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund (CFRLF). Our specific objectives were to: Perform an audit of the fund’s financial statements Evaluate administration of the loan fund and related loan program for compliance with Alaska Statutes and regulations. Ascertain the effect that Division of Investments (DOI) lending and collecting practices have on the financial position of the loan fund. Determine whether DOI is competing with private or public lenders when making commercial fishing loans and whether such competition is in accordance with the purpose of the program. Report Conclusions We have audited the FY 02 financial statements of CFRLF and concluded that, in our opinion, the statements were free of material misstatement. The statements, notes, and the accompanying auditor opinions are included in this report. Generally, we concluded the financial position of the CFRLF has declined due to its loan concentration in the troubled salmon fishing industry. In spite of the large number of borrowers that are not making their CFRLF principal and interest payments, the CFRLF continues to receive more cash than it loans to fishermen resulting in positive cash flow into the fund. DOI is charged with accomplishing two competing and sometimes opposing public policy goals: managing the state’s financial investment in the commercial fishery and assisting Alaska residents that do not qualify for alternate financing to enter or remain in the fishery. DOI has acted within its legal authority when responding to the salmon disasters, however, in the long-term their actions may not meet the intent of the program. DOI’s temporary policies are at risk of becoming standards of operation to the detriment of the fund’s financial position. DOI’s actions have far-reaching, economic implications that warrant input and direction from both the legislature and the governor. In general, we found DOI administers the commercial fishing loan program in compliance with statutes and regulations. However, we have noted instances where loan practices could be improved. We have also noted that DOI collection practices are limited by the agency’s failure to report CFRLF debt-to-credit reporting agencies. Further, due to its loan practices, the state has become the preferred lender for most types of commercial fishing loans. CFRLF lending patterns have changed significantly over the past 11 years. Quota share loans and refinancing vessel loans, originally financed with other financial institutions, have become increasingly important while the demand for permit loans has substantially decreased. Refinancing of other lenders’ vessel loans has increased the default risk borne by the state. The value of limited entry permits, which serve as the primary collateral of the CFRLF, has declined significantly. The decrease in value has several implications. In the event of a default, DOI’s ability to mitigate losses declines, collection efforts are hampered, and DOI’s inventory of repossessed permits will grow significantly. This may lead to the further devaluation of permits as DOI repossessed permits are “promptly” put up for sale as required by statute. To help limit the State’s exposure to loss due to default, DOI has accepted the assignment of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) settlements. In the event EVOS settlements are approved by the courts, DOI is slated to receive $8.3 million to be applied to CFRLF borrowers’ indebtness. Findings and Recommendations We recommend the commissioner of the Department of Community and Economic Development coordinate with the governor’s office to ensure that the CFRLF policy’s and regulations remain consistent with overall public policy goals. We recommend the director of DOI reevaluate the benefits provided by the pay-on-time program in light of the substantial administrative inefficiencies of the program. We recommend the director of DOI takes steps necessary to ensure EVOS assignments are not accepted when alternative collateral is available. The director of DOI should change its current policy to ensure EVOS settlements are applied to interest first. We recommend the director of DOI coordinate with other state agencies when replacing the current loan subsystem. The director of DOI should change several loan serving policies to improve administration of the program. The director of DOI should ensure that the availability of other financing is thoroughly documented and considered during the loan application …

Download527.9 KBDCCED Division of Investments Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund2003
02-40003-03

SUMMARY OF: State of Alaska, Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2002 Purpose and Scope of the Report This report summarizes our review of the State of Alaska’s basic financial statements and the State’s compliance with federal laws and regulations in the administration of over $2 billion of federal financial assistance programs. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. It also complies with the federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related Circular A-133 issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Report Conclusions For FY 02, the State of Alaska implemented Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 – Basic Financial Statements – and Management’s Discussion and Analysis – for State and Local Governments as required. Due to this, the presentation is vastly different from prior years and includes statements that present the State of Alaska’s financial position and FY 02 financial activities on a government-wide perspective. For the first time, the basic financial statements for the State of Alaska are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America without qualification. During FY 02, $884 million was transferred from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) to the General Fund in accordance with Chapter 61, SLA 2001, section 93(b) to fund the State’s FY 02 shortfall between revenues and general fund appropriations. Other significant transactions between the General Fund and the CBRF during this fiscal year included $101.9 million returned from the CBRF to the General Fund after being swept at the end of FY 01, and $130.7 million being swept from a variety of General Fund sub-funds and accounts, then transferred to the CBRF in FY 02. Additionally, the State has complied with the applicable laws and regulations in the administration of its major federal financial assistance programs, except for allowable costs requirement for the Bryne Formula Grant program in the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety and reporting requirements for the Child Care Cluster in the Department of Education and Early Development. Findings and Recommendations This report contains 47 recommendations, of which 10 were presented last year. Many of the recommendations made in this report require significant changes in procedures or a shifting of priorities and, therefore, may take more than one year to implement. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings in Section IV identifies the current status of prior audit …

Download2.1 MBSingle Audit State of Alaska FY022003
08-20024-03

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Report on the Department of Community and Economic Development, Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers, July 17, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with the intent of Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers (BCREA) to determine if the termination date for the board should be extended. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committee of reference shall consider this report as part of the oversight process in determining if BCREA should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(20) specifies that BCREA will terminate on June 30, 2004 and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date of BCREA should be extended. The use of state certified real estate appraisers will be a continuing requirement for Alaska’s financial institutions to qualify for federal deposit insurance and to participate in selling mortgage loans to federal government-sponsored enterprises(1). Failure to maintain a real estate appraiser certification program that meets federal requirements could cause the financial institutions – and by extension, the citizens – of the State to not only lose the opportunity to participate in a number of federally-sponsored real estate loan programs, but also the ability to obtain federal deposit insurance. In this context, we recommend that the legislature extend BCREA’s termination date to June 30, 2008.   1 – Government-sponsored enterprises include such entities as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (generally referred to as “Freddie Mac”) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (generally referred to as “Fannie …

Download477.5 KBDCCED Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers2003
08-20022-03

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Community and Economic Development,Board of Dispensing Opticians, September 12, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Board of Dispensing Opticians. The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of the Board of Dispensing Opticians. Report Conclusions Under AS 44.66.050(d)(4), part of a sunset review is to provide “an assessment of alternative methods of achieving the purposes of the program.” In the prior audit we considered the merits of regulating opticians through a registration process and placing primary reliance on the successful completion of nationally recognized examinations to ensure competency. Most states do not “regulate” or license opticians at all. According to the Opticians Association of America, only 22 states license dispensing opticians. Texas has a voluntary registration program – which allows the individual to advertise as a “registered optician” if they have met certain established criteria related to competency. Such an approach may be a viable alternative for Alaska. Under this approach, an individual could advertise as being a registered optician once they provided proof to the Division of Occupational Licensing (OccLic) that they had met the necessary testing and continuing education requirements. Presumably, such designation would have some commercial advantages, assuring consumers the practitioner had met an established standard of competency. The future operational viability of the board is questionable. In the long term, the number of new applicants seeking licensure as opticians may be reduced significantly due to creation of the optician assistant designation. Combined with fiscal instability brought on by licensing fee revenues insufficient to cover the operating costs of the board, the long-term viability of the Board of Dispensing Opticians(BDO) is problematic. Given these concerns, we recommend the legislature not extend the termination date for the board. Accordingly, the board will terminate operations at June 30, 2005.In our view, the public can be adequately protected by competition in the marketplace, ongoing supervision of assistants, or professional standards already established for practicing opticians and ophthalmologists. Findings and Recommendations If the legislature decides to extend the termination date for the Board of Dispensing Opticians (BDO), we believe it is important for the board to take the following two actions. Recommendation No. 1 The board should develop and propose legislation to clarify statutes related to the various aspects of dispensing optician licensing. Opticianry statutes should be amended to address the following concerns: The amount of apprentice training hours necessary for licensure should be clarified. Currently, AS 08.71.110(a)(2)(A) states an individual must complete “at least 1,800 hours of training as an apprentice…”. In regulation, BDO specifies the individual complete a board-approved course, accumulate 1,800 hours of training, and pass the necessary examinations to be licensed in dispensing spectacles. The regulations also state that in order for an individual to be licensed to dispense contact lenses they must complete an additional 1,800 hours and pass the relevant national examination. State law makes no distinction related to these endorsements. Modification of apprentice registration requirements at AS 08.71.160. Recognition, in statute, of a process to license individuals from other jurisdictions. Recommendation No. 2 The Division of Occupational Licensing in conjunction with the board should increase optician’s licensing fees to eliminate the cumulative deficit. Another increase in optician’s licensing fees is necessary to eliminate the cumulative deficit. Licenses are renewed every two years; therefore, the revenue generated in the renewal year must be sufficient to fund most of the board’s costs of the nonrenewal or subsequent year. The recent increase in licensing renewal fees for dispensing opticians and optician’s apprentices appears to be sufficient to cover the board’s costs for the two-year period. Depending on the amount of revenue collected in the nonrenewal year, the increased licensing fee may also reduce a small portion of the board’s continuing deficit. Alaska Statute 08.01.065(c) requires fees for an occupation to be set to approximate the regulatory costs for the occupation. We recommend the board and OccLic review the regulatory costs and licensing fees to ensure that BDO sufficiently eliminates the cumulative deficit and meets annual operating …

Download971.1 KBDCCED Board of Dispensing Opticians2003
06-20025-03

Download196.3 KBDHSS Alaska Commission on Aging2003
08-30025-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Community and Economic Development, Guides and Transporters, October 16, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a review of various issues related to guide and transporter activities. Specifically, we evaluated: the level of impact the absence of a professional licensing board for guides and transporters has had in the enforcement of guiding statutes; the appropriateness of the fines and other enforcement mechanisms currently available; and, the adequacy of activity reports. Report Conclusions With the termination of the Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB), oversight of licensed guides, assistant guides, and transporters has been left, for the most part, to the various governmental land-owner agencies at the state and federal level: (1) the National Park Service; (2) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (3) the U.S. Forest Service; (4) the Bureau of Land Management; and, at the state level, (5) the Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Mining, Land and Water. In this decentralized, uncoordinated regulatory climate, we were repeatedly told by various agencies that they would welcome a more vigorous, centralized licensing and regulatory board in order to better carry out oversight over transporters and, to a lesser extent, licensed guides. Guiding activities that take place in national parks, wildlife refuges, and forests were, with the exception of transporter activity, still highly regulated. Staff of the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service – utilizing many of the operating restrictions and requirements that were part of BGCSB regulations – has put in place systems emphasizing hunter safety and maximization of the “wilderness experience.” To a large extent, these agencies also provide an avenue for handling client complaints. Most guiding activity takes place on state land. This activity is regulated primarily under the guiding statutes and regulations initiated after the sunset of BGCSB. Guiding is being done with less emphasis on consumer protection or hunter-client safety. Annual activity reports from transporters are sufficient for occupational licensing purposes for which they are being used. Although the reporting requirements for guides is relatively more stringent, we do not see a clear reason why guide activity information needs to be collected as often as is currently required. Findings and Recommendations Recommendation No. 1 The legislature should consider enhancing the public protection and consumer safety aspects of current guide services statutes. Additionally, the legislature should consider reestablishing a guide/transporter services licensing board. After BGCSB ceased to operate at the end FY 95, new statutes and associated regulations were put in place by the legislature and the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), respectively. The statutes and regulations set the parameters for guiding practices in Alaska. With the new statutes and regulations, key requirements and standards which had previously existed under the auspices of the board were no longer in place. Many of the omitted requirements were key to enhancing consumer protection and safety. Additionally, some of the missing requirements promoted more compliance among guides and transporters with land and game management requirements. Revisions to current state law and regulation could put back in place important consumer protection and hunter safety elements that previously existed but are currently absent. While a guiding industry oversight board is not necessary to address the concerns set out above, a licensing-oriented board will likely provide a more dynamic regulatory regimen – allowing the revision of regulations on a regular basis to enhance professionalism by guides, consumer protection, and hunter safety. Accordingly, we further recommend that the legislature consider amending the current guide and transporter statute to reestablish a guide service licensing …

Download407.4 KBDCCED Division of Occupational Licensing Guides and Transporters2003
08-20023-03

SUMMARY OF: : A Sunset Review of the Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Occupational Licensing, Real Estate Commission Purpose of the Report In accordance with the intent of Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Real Estate Commission (REC) to determine if the termination date for the commission should be extended. As required by AS 44.66.050(a), the legislative committee of reference shall consider this report as part of the oversight process in determining if REC should be reestablished. Currently, AS 08.03.010(c)(19) specifies that REC will terminate on June 30, 2004, and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the termination date for REC should be extended. The commission serves a public purpose and has demonstrated an ability to operate in a satisfactory manner. The regulation and licensing of real estate professionals provides necessary public protection in the buying and selling of residential and commercial properties. The commission carries out its responsibilities to educate both the public and REC licensees in a professional, competent, and efficient manner. Additionally, active investigation of complaints and licensure actions, when appropriate, provides assurance that licensed professionals are competent and ethical. We recommend that legislation be enacted to extend the commission’s termination date to June 30, 2008. Findings and Recommendations 1. The legislature should amend the statutes related to the Real Estate Surety Fund (RESF) to provide more complete, effective, and efficient consumer protection to claimants. RESF provides consumers reimbursement for financial losses they may have suffered from a real estate transaction attributable to “fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or the conversion of trust funds…” on the part of an REC licensee. Claims for reimbursement are subject to a hearing process administered in accordance with the state’s administrative procedures act. In order to make the RESF operate in a manner consistent with the fund’s evident purpose, we recommend the legislature amend state laws related to the fund in order to: Increase the limits on reimbursement of claims to $20,000 per transaction and the associated maximum payment per licensee to $100,000. Only require the Division of Occupational Licensing (OccLic) to make reasonable efforts to provide right-of-appeal notification. Specify that mobile home transactions are subject to RESF …

Download206.0 KBDCCED DOL Real Estate Commission2003
20-30024-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Corrections and the Department of Administration, Divisions of Retirement and Benefits and Personnel, Correctional and Probation Officer Transfer Analysis, October 9, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of the Departments of Corrections (DOC) and Administration (DOA). The overall objective of the report was to determine if DOC personnel practices are creating an under-funded burden on the retirement system and displacing local hire. Our analysis included the hiring and personnel practices of DOC, transfer of correctional and probation officers to rural areas, and the inclusion of the geographic pay differential in retirement base pay. Report Conclusions Some correctional and probation officers are transferring to rural communities near the end of their careers to increase their retirement pay. Particularly in Nome, these employees are living only part-time in the community and have their primary residence elsewhere. This Type of transfer has decreased the opportunities for hiring in the local communities and affects the ethnic make up of correction and probation officers in these rural communities. The transfer of these employees does add an under-funded financial burden to the State’s retirement system. Through analysis, we identified that the retirement fund will pay an additional $4 million to 22 employees due to the inclusion of geographic pay differential in the employee’sthree high year earning’s calculation. Findings and Recommendations 1. Future retirement plans should consider excluding geographic pay differentials (GPD) from average monthly compensation used to calculate retirement benefits. As an alternative, GPDs could be used as a post retirement cost-of-living allowance. Further, the flexibility of the GPD as stated in statute for Tier II and III employees should be clarified. The GPD was intended to address a need to provide additional cost of living compensation for living and working in the high cost areas of Alaska, typically rural Alaska. However, the inclusion of the GPD factor in the compensation base used to calculate retirement pay, regardless of whether the former employee retires in rural Alaska, results in under-funded retirement pay. 2. DOC’s human resources manager should develop a framework for Correctional Officer (CO) hiring decisions, within the confines of the Alaska Statutes and the COs union agreement. The CO bargaining unit contract does and should continue to give the department sufficient flexibility. The current administration has the opportunity to develop staffing policies by facility with the intent of addressing what is in the best interest of each facility. The facility-by-facility framework should be considered in lieu of a restricted statewide transfer preference in accordance with the CO bargaining unit agreement. Factors to consider in the staffing policy of each facility should include need for continuity of CO staff, need for more experienced staff, and the impact of high turnover. 3. The DOC directors of Institutions and Probation and Parole should take steps necessary to ensure that correctional and probation officers are in compliance with federal gun control laws. 4. DOC’s director of Administrative Services should increase correctional and probation officer recruitment efforts for rural communities. DOC’S director of Administrative Services should increase recruitment efforts by considering additional advertising, working with Native organizations, and flexing positions to provide a career path in rural communities. 5. DOC’s director of Administrative Services should strengthen internal controls over staff travel and prisoner transportation. Weaknesses were identified with approvals on travel authorizations and expenditure transactions. Additional weaknesses were identified with accountability over inmate and staff travel on contract flights coordinated by the Prisoner Transportation Unit. 6. The director of DOA’s Division of Administrative Services should not include a GPD to rural facility COs working at urban facilities on their week off. DOC’s director of Administrative Services should collect overpaid wages. Additionally, the COs bargaining unit agreement should clarify that COs assigned to rural areas will be paid a geographic differential only when performing the duties at a rural facility. 7. The director of DOA’s Division of Personnel Should consider conducting a cost-of-living …

Download211.3 KBDOC-DOA Correctional and Probation Officer Transfer Analysis2003
06-30023-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Health and Social Services, Division ofBehavioral Health, SelectIssues, October 1, 2003. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budgetand Audit Committee, we conducted a performance audit ofselect issuesrelated to Department ofHealth and Social Services’ (DHSS), Division of Behavioral Health’s (DBH) administration ofsubstance abuse grants. Our objectives included determining whether clients are receiving adequate and appropriateservices from substance abuse grantees and to identify areas for improving program management.We were also asked to evaluate the grant award process and determine whether conflicts of interestexisted between the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (ADA) staff and recipients of grantfunds. In FY 03, DHSS’ mental health section was merged with ADA to form the Division of BehavioralHealth. Throughout this report, we refer to ADA as the entity audited. However, recommendationsare made to DBH in recognition of the department’s current organizational structure. Report Conclusions ADA needs an operational plan to ensure the effective use of limited resources. ADA has notidentified the state’s substance abuse needs nor communicated the state’s priority for addressingthe needs. Consequently, the division is in a poor position to ensure its limited resources are usedeffectively. General planning efforts by the Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, theMental Health Trust Authority, and the Mental Health Board are hindered by ADA’s lack of anoperational plan. Such a plan would ensure the delivery ofsubstance abuse services was conductedin accordance with general guidance from these entities. DHSS needs to improve internal controls over reporting and investigating ethics complaints.Conflicts of interest did exist at ADA and complaints alleging unethical behavior (undue influenceover the grant process) were not reviewed and investigated asrequired by statute. Two letters weresubmitted to DHSS’ commissioner’s office alleging unethical behavior on the part of an ADAemployee. These letters were not forwarded to DHSS’ designated ethics officer forreview/investigation. The designated ethicssupervisor did become aware of complaints concerningactions taken by a spouse of an ADA management level employee involving an ADA grantee.However, no official investigation was conducted and the Department of Law was not informed ofthe complaint as required by statute. While we found that, in general, ADA appropriately awarded grants, several errors were madeduring the FY 02 and FY 04 grant award process. Errors included missing documentation, lack ofrequired approvals, and inconsistent application of minimum requirement criteria. Additionally, wefound one ADA grantee was overpaid $273,000 in error. Changes to the grant regulations improved the competitive grant proposal review process. Under the new regulations, 80% of substance abuse grants were awarded under a noncompetitive process.ADA effectively monitors its grantees. Grantees perceive ADA fiscal and program staff to be fair,responsive, competent, objective, and easy to work with. Standards used to certify substance abusetreatment facilities are outdated and may fail to adequately protect the public. The certificationstandards were adopted in the mid 1970s and have not been updated to reflect best practices. ADA’s MIS system is functionally inadequate and difficult to use. The system does not collect theinformation necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of ADA’s programs and it does not provideinformation useful to grantees in managing their programs. The division is working on acollaborative project with other states to develop a new MIS system. Findings and Recommendations 1. The Division of Behavioral Health’s (DBH) director should create a comprehensive program forprevention and treatmentservicesto guide the delivery ofsubstance abuse services.2. DBH’s director should take steps to improve its working relationship with the Advisory Board onAlcoholism and Drug Abuse.3. DBH’s directorshould take stepsto improve the grant award process.4. The DHSS commissioner, in cooperation with the Department of Law, should pursue recoupmentof the FY 03 overpayment to an ADA grantee.5. The DBH directorshould ensure the new MIS system is designed to addressthe deficiencies of itscurrentsystemand collect the information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs.6. The DHSS commissioner must implement internal controls over investigating and reporting ofpotential ethics violationsto comply with statutes.7. The DBH director should implement policies and procedures to guard against potential ethicsviolations.8. The DBH director should develop and implement written policies and procedures to ensurecompliance with state regulations governing subcontracts of grantees.9. The DBH director should update the standards for treatment facilities to reflect current practicesand technology.10.We recommend DHSS’ internal auditors provide training to DBH program managers and grantadministratorsto ensure that federal/state single audits of grantees are utilized to the greatest …

Download292.5 KBDHSS Division of Behavioral Health Select Issues2003
08-20021-03

SUMMARY OF: A Sunset Review of the Department of Community and Economic Development, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, November 26, 2002. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes (sunset legislation), we have reviewed the activities of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). The purpose of this audit was to determine if there is a demonstrated public need for the continued existence of this Commission. In a special session in June 2002, legislative committees conducted extensive oversight hearings that focused on RCA’s workload and the utilities’ complaints of slow processing of their requests. The legislature responded to these complaints by enacting statutory deadlines for RCA decisions in several categories of cases. The governor signed that legislation in August. As the new timelines are just now beginning to take effect, it is premature to conduct a workload study of RCA processes or survey utility companies on whether they believe RCA has improved. These issues will be included in the next sunset audit of RCA. Legislative intent requires consideration of this report during the legislative oversight hearings to determine whether the termination date of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska should be extended. The law currently specifies that the Commission will terminate on June 30, 2003. Report Conclusions Except for the limitation discussed above, we conclude that RCA is operating in an efficient and effective manner and the public interest is being served by requiring public utilities and pipelines to be certificated and economically regulated by RCA. The regulatory process stabilizes the availability of utility services. Economic regulation by the Commission ensures that, despite the absence of competition, utilities provide service at reasonable rates. In two years, the impact of the new statutes on both the utilities and the public can be meaningfully evaluated. We thus recommend that Alaska Statute 44.66.010(a)(4) be amended to extend the termination date of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to June 30, 2005. Findings and Recommendations In our previous sunset audit, we made three recommendations. We noted RCA’s lack of published procedures and criteria as to when its public advocacy section would be assigned to a case and how its intervention would be accomplished. RCA has now considered public comments and drafted proposed regulations that adequately address our concerns. We recommend that RCA diligently pursue its current plan to forward the proposed regulations to the Department of Law regulations attorney by December 2002. We also reported last year that 65 piped water systems and 65 piped sewer systems did not have the required certificate to operate a utility. RCA indicates its intention to ultimately address this matter through regulations that distinguish among the requirements imposed upon water-related utilities of various sizes and settings. We further recommended that RCA improve its procedures for assuring that the newspaper notices of its formal proceedings are printed in an accurate and timely manner. Our fieldwork shows that this problem remains uncorrected. Finally, an outstanding recommendation from our 1998 sunset review concerned the implementation of a management information system with a number of components. This recommendation was subsequently incorporated as a requirement within RCA’s enabling legislation. The management information system has now been substantially implemented, though on a piecemeal basis spread among a variety of systems rather than on a single, fully-integrated mainframe. This overall system also included an employee time tracking component mandated by statute. RCA should propose legislation to clarify statutes enacted last session. RCA’s chair should ensure that the publication of notices of formal proceedings is monitored. RCA should either require smaller water and sewer utilities to be certificated or establish a meaningful exemption system by …

Download361.1 KBDCCED Regulatory Commission of Alaska2003
02-30001-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Office of the Governor, Office of Management and Budget, 1996 Retirement Incentive Program Final Summary Schedules, for the Department of Administration, Information Technology Group, and the University of Alaska, January 15, 2001. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted an audit of the 1996 Retirement Incentive Program (RIP) Final Summary Schedules, dated January 15, 2001 issued by the Office of the Governor, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for the Department of Administration (DOA), Information Technology Group (ITG) and the University of Alaska (UA). The purposes of this audit were to: Determine if the net savings reported as of January 15, 2001, by OMB to the legislature, presents fairly the results of the retirement incentive programs utilized by ITG and UA, in conformity with the retirement incentive program legislation and the underlying policies and procedures. Determine whether OMB, ITG and UA complied with the applicable laws, regulations, and mandated procedures in its use of RIP. Specifically, we were asked to review changes, reclassifications, and inequities in the eligibility determination process. Report Conclusions The Office of the Governor, Office of Management and Budget, overstated the 1996 Retirement Incentive Program savings for the Department of Administration, Information Technology Group, by $423,000 and the University of Alaska by a significant but indeterminable amount. These overstatements were due to the erroneous inclusion of vacancy savings and exclusion of rehires. In other respects, OMB, DOA, and UA generally complied with the laws and rules governing this program. Department of Administration, Information Technology Group: Savings overstated primarily by inclusion of vacancy savings OMB’s misstatement of ITG savings was made up of several errors, with an erroneous inclusion of vacancy savings representing $326,000 of the $423,000. OMB was responsible for adopting the program’s policies and procedures. OMB specifically prohibited the inclusion of vacancy savings, but it did allow the savings from position eliminations to be counted. That is, OMB decided that temporary vacancies were a normal result of employee turnover and should not be considered part of RIP savings. However, long-term position eliminations were to be counted as RIP savings. ITG had estimated a net savings from RIP of $875,000. However, when the staff of DOA, Division of Administrative Services, compiled the data to be submitted to OMB, it estimated $1,201,000. The $326,000 increase was largely due to inclusion of vacancy savings from positions remaining vacant rather than being filled. DOA’s Administrative Services erred by including vacancy savings and OMB erred by failing to remove them. In its January 15, 2001 report to the legislature, OMB erroneously stated that vacancy savings had been excluded. University of Alaska: Savings overstated by ignoring rehires UA rehired approximately 140 RIP participants after they retired. OMB instructed agencies to include the cost of replacement employees in the calculations. Had UA included the cost of these rehires, the savings presented would have been substantially less. However, how much less was not reasonably determinable by audit procedures, either by full examination or through sampling. Typically, there was a savings because these RIP participants only worked part-time or part of the year up to 49% of their previous salary and UA only paid into Social Security. That is, UA was no longer responsible for their health insurance and retirement …

Download608.4 KBDOA-UA 1996 Retirement Incentive Program2003
04-20019-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Revenue, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Sunset Review, November 29, 2002. Purpose of the Report In accordance with Titles 24 and 44 of the Alaska Statutes, we have reviewed the activities of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board or the board). As required by AS 44.33.050(a), the committee of reference is to consider this report during the legislative oversight process to determine whether the board should be reestablished. Currently, under AS 44.66.010(a)(1), the board will terminate on June 30, 2003 and will have one year from that date to conclude its administrative operations. To determine if the termination date of the board should be extended. To determine if the board is operating in the public interest. The assessment of the operations and performance of the board was based on AS 44.66.050(c). This statute sets out criteria that are to be used in determining a demonstrated public need for the board. Report Conclusions In our opinion, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board should continue to regulate the manufacture, sale, barter, and possession of alcoholic beverages in Alaska in order to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. The board has provided protection to the general public through the issuance, renewal, and temporary suspension of liquor licenses. Protection has also been provided through investigations of suspected licensing violations and enforcement of the state’s alcoholic beverage control laws and regulations. As indicated in the Analysis of Public Need section of the report, the ABC Board has met the various statutory criteria. With the exceptions noted in the Findings and Recommendations section, the board is effectively and efficiently meeting its statutory responsibilities and is operating in the public interest. The ABC Board is organized under statute as a regulatory and quasi-judicial agency; however, it appears to be spending a disproportionate amount of time and resources on police efforts rather than on the regulatory function. We recommend that Alaska Statute 44.66.010(a)(1) be amended to extend the life of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to June 30, 2006. This three-year extension will give the board ample time to correct the deficiencies noted in this report and it will trigger a timely follow-up audit to determine if these deficiencies have been fully addressed. Findings and Recommendations The legislature should consider having the Department of Public Safety conduct criminal investigations, rather than the ABC Board.Title IV was revised in 1999 to have ABC Board staff investigate violations of gambling and prostitution on licensed premises. The Department of Public Safety is better equipped to handle these types of investigations. There would be significant inefficiencies in attempting to turn ABC into a four-officer, statewide police force. The ABC Board should seek an amendment to Title IV to allow the board to summarily suspend liquor licenses..Currently the ABC Board does not have the power to summarily suspend a liquor license prior to revocation. Since revocation does not take effect until all due process rights have been exhausted, licensees whose liquor licenses have been revoked may be able to operate for two or more years after the revocation was imposed. Summarily suspending a license involves the immediate cessation of alcohol sales by a licensee while the board pursues revocation of the license. This process provides greater protection to the public while still providing due process rights to the licensee. This power would be similar to that held by other occupational licensing boards and would be used when continued operation by a licensee would pose a clear and immediate danger to the public. The ABC Board should conduct routine background checks on all licensees as they renew their licenses or should track licensees through the public safety information system. The director should ensure that all fines are collected and deposited into the General Fund. The ABC Board and its director should provide goals for the enforcement staff. The director should upgrade the ABC Board licensing database. The director should require staff to prepare and maintain procedural manuals. The ABC Board members should urge the governor’s office to fill board vacancies within the 30-day timeline required by …

Download511.7 KBDOR Alcoholic Beverage Control Board2003
10-30017-03

SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, November 29, 2002. Purpose of the Report In accordance with a Legislative Budget and Audit Committee special request and Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes, we have conducted an audit of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Agriculture (DOAg). The purpose of this audit was: To evaluate DOAg’s human resource management. To evaluate the use of DOAg assets, including expenditures for operations and management of physical resources. To evaluate the effectiveness of the working relationship among DOAg, the new Board of Agriculture and Conservation, and other entities involved in Alaska agriculture. Report Conclusions Since our last audit, the division has made very little progress in advancing agriculture. In fact, we found that the lack of innovative leadership is actually hindering the expansion of Alaska agriculture. We also found problems with the management of human resources and physical resources at the division. Findings and Recommendations The legislature should statutorily restructure services to agriculture for a more aggressive pursuit of distinctive Alaskan opportunities. DNR should consult the attorney general concerning state oversight of Mat …

Download634.2 KBDNR Division of Agriculture Selected Issues2003