1995 ANNUAL REPORT
Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Organization
The joint Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee (BROC) is the principal state program and policy review arm of the Georgia General Assembly, measuring program performance against commonsense standards of efficiency, and comparing program goals with legislative intent.
The Budget Accountability and Planning Act of 1993 established the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee to evaluate and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of state operations. [Georgia Code Ann. 28-5-5, 45-12-178 (l 995)].
BROC is composed of six members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House. The chairmanship alternates annually between the House and Senate chairs of the respective Appropriations Committee. Membership in 1995 consisted of:
Senator George Hooks of the 14th District, BROC Chair, and Senate Appropriations Chair
Senator Arthur B. "Skin" Edge IV of the 28th District, Minority Leader Senator Sonny Perdue of the 18th District, Majority Leader Senator Walter S. Ray of the 19th District, Senate President Pro Tempore Senator David Scott of the 36th District, Senate Rules Chair Senator Charles W. Walker of the 22nd District, Senate Health and Hum~n Services Chair
Representative Terry L. Coleman of the 142nd District, BROC Vice Chair, and House Appropriations Chair
Representative Tom Buck of the 135th District, House Ways and Means Chair Representative Bill Lee of the 94th District, House Rules Chair Representative Butch Parrish of the 144th District, House Appropriations Vice Chair Representative Calvin Smyre of the 136th District, University System Committee Chair Representative Larry Walker of the 141st District, Majority Leader
In line with most of the other states, Georgia's authorizing legislation for its legislative budget oversight committee redirects the focus of program budgeting away from simple continuation of established line item expenditures to funding based on outcomes and achievement of agreed upon goals and objectives.

1995 ANNUAL REPORT
Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee Page 2
BROC decides the programs or policies to be evaluated in consultation with the leadership o(the General Assembly and the Governor. Legislators or others who are interested to have a particular topic reviewed by BROC should submit a formal written suggestion to the chair of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee.
Among BROC's duties are the development and implementation of the strategic planning process, the development of outcome measures for program evaluation, and carrying out related actions.
BROC is authorized by law to review and evaluate the strategic plans for the state and individual departments as submitted by the Office of Planning and Budget. Budgetary responsibility is predicated upon the notion that Georgia's Legislature, the Governor, and the agencies have an increasingly clear idea of preferred future directions and organizational missions.
During the 1995 Legislative Session, the committee opened the BROC Research Office to give staff support to the committee. BROC Research employs six full-time staff members. This new office provides assistance with review topic selection, special evaluations, follow-up on agency progress after an evaluation is completed, legislative initiatives, and strategic planning reviews. BROC Research works cooperatively with the Department of Audits and Accounts and the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, whose staff present evaluative reports to the Committee.
Continuation Reports
Continuation Reports give a general background and operational description of currently funded state government programs. BROC received nine continuation reports in 1995:
Department of Administrative Services, Executive Administration, Departmental Administration, Statewide Systems, Space Management, State Purchasing, Mail & Courier Services
Department of Children and Youth Services, Detention Services Division, Regional Youth Detention Centers
Departme~t of Education, Local School Construction Capital Outlay Department of Human Resources Division of Family and Children Services
(DFCS), County DFCS Operations Department of Human Resources, Public Health Division Department of Public Safety, Divisions of Administration, Driver Services, and
Field Operations

1995 ANNUAL REPORT Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee rageJ
Department of Revenue, Administration, Information Systems, Field Services, and Central Audit
Office of Secretary of State, Department of Ar.chives and History Office of Secretary of State, State Examining Boards
Evaluation Reports
Department of Administrative Services, Purchasing Department of Agriculture, Consumer Protection Field Force Food Store
Inspection Department of Children and Youth Services, Division of Community Programs,
Community Schools Program Department of Children and Youth Services, Division of Community Programs,
Community Treatment Center Program Department of Corrections, Inmate Construction Program Department of Education, Non-Vocational Laboratories Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Forensic Sciences Division Department of Human Resources, Division of Family and Children Services, Child
Protective Services Program Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation,
and Substance Abuse, Outdoor Therapeutic Program Professional Standards Commission Department of Public Safety, Commercial Driver's License Program State Merit System, Training and Organizational Development Division Programs Department of Technical and Adult Education, Quick Start Business and Industry
Services Training Program Department ofTransportation, Mass Transit Grants Program
In the appendix to this paper are executive summaries of the listed program evaluations. Currently, the Audits Department, OPB, and BROC Research have over a dozen additional program evaluations in process.
Strategic Planning
BROC, along with the governor and the leadership of the General Assembly, sponsored two major conferences in 1995 on Strategic Planning for Georgia State Government. Additionally, the BROC Research Office works cooperatively with the Office of Planning and Budget's Strategic Planning Division to review agency planning efforts. The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee's primary interest in overseeing this

1995 ANNUAL REPORT Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee Page4
important process in state government is to promote consistent and compatible strategic directions among state agencies.
Conclusion
The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee will continue to improve its ability to carry out its several statutory obligations. The committee has initiated a plan to focus its attention on areas of the state budget most likely to benefit from constructive legislative oversight. There will be a far greater emphasis in the future on follow-up with agencies to find out if BROC findings and recommendations for change have been addressed.
As the General Assembly's primary organization scrutinizing the continuation portion of the state budget, the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee is engaged in an ongoing review of expenditures by state agencies. A vigilant effort to determine if tax money is actually being put to use according to legislative intent is BROC's proper and explicit duty. Sound advice based on objective and impartial research is the product BROC is constituted to give to the General Assembly of the State of Georgia. This committee is intent upon steadily improving the quality ofour service.

7
~ Ii
The Purchasing Program is responsible for providing centralized purchasing services to all state agencies and colleges. Our review ofthe Program found that:
a-Tue Program is effective in reducing the cost of goods and services acquired by state agencies and colleges through statewide and agency contracts. For Fiscal Year 1994, it is estimated that the Program's use of statewide and agency contracts saved the state approximately $20 million to $30 million. (Pg 11)
Action should be taken to update the role and mission ofthe state's Purchasing Program and to establish meaningful performance objectives for the Program. Consideration should also be given to making state agencies and colleges responsible for more of their own open-market purchases.
(Pg 12; Pg 13; Pg 18)
B"The Program could achieve additional dollar savings by: increasing the number of goods and
services covered by statewide and agency contracts; increasing the number ofvendors who receive invitations to bid; soliciting bids from all qualified vendors when establishing statewide contracts; and revising bid specifications to increase competition among different manufacturers. (Pg 14; Pg
16)
B"Additional efforts should be made to control the cost of implementing the Statewide Purchasing Information Network (SPIN). As of June 30, 1995, the cost of developing SPIN totaled $3.8 million, or $1.2 million (46%) more than the original cost estimate prepared in June, 1993. (Pg 19)
a-Toe Purchasing Program should continue to explore the use of procurement cards for agencies and colleges to use in making small-dollar purchases. (Pg 21)
arToe Program should take steps to complete agencies' purchase requisitions in a more timely manner. (Pg 21)
arAlthough one ofthe Program's functions is to conduct audits ofagencies' purchasing practices, the Program has not released an audit since August, 1992. (Pg 22)
a-Toe Program should implement internal controls for detecting anti-competitive or fraudulent practices in the procurement process. Steps should also be taken to improve the Program's monitoring of vendors' performance and to verify that the commodities purchased by the state meet contract specifications. (Pg 23)
I-rToe Program has taken steps to increase the opportunities for small and minority-owned firms to do business with the state. (Pg 24)

======-"""'-""- .-----.."Pro!lram Ev.:,lualion

(:;<,.~, , Ocpartmc~t of;~gric1lltu~:F~od Storc lnspccti~r:1 Pr~~ram

~



>,

.. ~-

-Executive_ Su~mary

The Food Stor~ Inspection Program is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare by regulating food stores~ food processing plants. wholesale fish dealers, food storage warehouses. bottling plants, and bedding manufacturers and renovators. Our review of the Program found that:

a-The Prograrn'sr(?gulation of food stores and similar establishments serves to pro~ect the public from food-h<?me diseases and unfair business practices at a cost of less than $0.02 for each shopping trip to a retail food store. The continued need for the Program to regulate bedding manufacturers and renovators, however, should be reconsidered. (Page 8)

a-The. Departmerit of Agriculture should develop more meaningful performance objectives for measuring the Pro~s overall effectiveness. (Page 9)

a-Action should be taken to improve the Program's effectiveness in protecting consumers from unsanitary conditions. Of 9,582 food stores recently inspected, 29% (2,806) had two or more sanitation violations, including 895 with three or more violations and 361 with four or more violations. (Page JO)

a-Tue Program should update its rules and regulations and should revise its inspection fonn to better document the condition ofeach establishment inspected. Consideration should be given to requiring food stores to post-their most recent inspection reports. (Page 12)

"Action should be taken to ensure that inspections are conducted in aunifonn and consistent manner by all of the Program's sanitarians. In Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (to date), the percentage of in.speons in which one or mo~ violations were found ranged among-the sanitarians from 30% (463 of 1,540 inspections) to 80% (1,142 of 1,420 inspections). (Page 14)

a-food stores wlch repeatedly violate sanitation standards or engage in unfair business practices should be subject to timely and aggressive enforcement action. The Program has not required estab~ishrnents to correct violations within a specified period of time and has not always taken aggressive enforcement action against non-compliant stores. (Page I 5)

G"'The Program should consider utilizing the automated reporting system developed by the Food and Drug Administration to identify problem stores and monitor inspection uniformity. (Page 18)

a-The Program should be commended for conducting inspections in accordance with its established frequency standards. The number ofbudgeted sanitarian positions assigned to the Program should be reevaluated based on the actual time required to conduct inspections. (Page 18 and Page 19) .

G"(;onsid~tion should be given to revising or eliminating the license fees charged by the Program. The.dollar amount ofthe f~, set by statute, may not offset the collection costs in all cases. (Page 19)

- _- _ :-~_ ;;-:~~~~~~ro~r~/ri;E~~,.~~;i-i~:,~=/--_-_:-: / .--~~~~:-:-;:_~;~:~-i~:-:~i:_--]

:

. :

-

:



.~O!Jlfrlllllityscllc>6ls~Pfoi.1rfai11 ~ .. :- - - ~-: . .. \ !1 - ~-- :~

r:_ ~: _; .- :- _:_ :- i :,/ __ :___ - __.- .-_-Ocpar:nr:ent:cif_C-hil:i'r:c,i:i1-mii-Yo~'tti--Smviccs-~~:9,:-,=<-,-X.. -;-~.-j,;'\ji
.r - - ___../;: := ~-- ;- :-_.-\- ~- _:- -~;~-~;~_.>i)~::_-_.-_:.:_-:\-<--:-:r;~:;! ../- .,;.:~-,:";_;~- :-)}--~-t\::.i{t11:

i - -- . ---- : - - -_

-

-_. _.

j_-~-~ ..-~-:.. _::.....::._____ ..._ - . -- - .

=
..:..

x
..

c_.c, :u_.t..1.;;v..cc-:..:S:_u._m~:m. -a:.r

.

y-:=---.

:

~.-:...-.-=_.__

:

--

--

-,

..

'
:"":

--~- ,
"~~:.. .....:-..

-~ ,~::.-:-:=\-..:..:::::



1

'Tbe purposi::? of lh_c Comrnur,ily Schools Progr2m ,s to provide commun:!}-based '
\r.~~\!1:1'~ri_t,; supt::rvIs;o;1, and cdu::ation:a' ser1ices in l;-'?-.i of 1::stilui:on.Jli.a1tion for ju1-1eniles. co,n1:i1t~ed t,J u-.e Oc;.n:irtment of Cl1:1cr121 a'1d You:n Scrv:c:<:~s- .h1vc,11l~s
pl~~~;}n :~he P:~9,?.rn typ,cany have_ his!or1es ;jr sci mo: d1s.::p!1n;i;y prol,lems that

hav'e(~Sulti:;d in s~~.;JJn;irm and in som~ cas~~. E?X;i:.Jls:cn. B:~=ausc ;n most r.ases
Jl!'{,~niJ~s. !{uCC"'!ci in the Prog~~:n ~re r.cc.:dcmica!ly bc~low grade -1e ..i::i, th~ Prugra11_1

seeks t_d:i,:r_iprov:J Iii('! r,r ;iae leval at \1,frc.'1 cl jr.:-1C":11le is. l..J'lC~ionu,g J:.JVCil:!es cannot

. re~iv!=:.~-~Jgl, scno:ii diploma tluoug, the Prc~:-am- how~v~~- 1uvcrnlm: c.3n receive
'c;tedi( t6v1irdhigl1 school graduatio:, for the time t,p,~nl in t'lc Prooram_ Ttie Program

al~o P,~9.V\Q-Cs prc.:!p<Jratory .::ssis;:ance for !he Gene:-al Fc::.JivalPncy 01p!om:-::!-(G_E O_)

. ::~?(aini.rfl~tidn T~...-= Prcgram is located In Ct iu!harn. Del<a'b. ar.c! Fulion co.;ri~i;)s_



I

<

'<( <. I f

. Thisevalu~tiorfass"essecfwnetrneri'the:'.Progr~fr1,'is-effetli*einieducingth~:recic:i'i~i'sm ,

Of'dell~q~~n:!.a1;1d!'\.:JQ~rv:j~~~ile?;~iqd,.f!1P.~~~~'t9 cifo~r~:~a,i~b.(~-.~,t~.i;n~tjv~.~~ ~99 .

vmether.there-.ii:;1a..hee0df0h the'Prog'rart{in the state.. Tne,evaluati6'r:talsc>.'i8ehtift'e'a '

,, ' ~

}, '

~ 1,

t, ~' I ': >

I

I'

~

\" <

~

~ \.-'

I

~ "\

1; 1 I ", '

~

<

1,

~ t



othe( St?3tes. tbar:.r~e?r:t~~L ~!il~i.ng:, p,ro~ia.n:i.~ -~i~ilar:.~t9,, :t,be~GQfOIJll;l.riity?~cli~pr~

Prqgrarns.

f:_s '.~L!~~~~j~~O. :l?elp~;-m~:,~~s,u_!t~,."pf ttw ~-~?l.~H::~io9' s~~J9'.~t:tn~rv~e O~p~qrn~~t ,

st.toulacons.itj~r reallocating1resources usedto'ru~d thefCorn,:n,yr.ijty-S~qp9l~..Pr:qg~~u:n :

)p:9th_er q~_Y$,;"p,rcmra!TI~..

-





The:Departinent,,~foes,fildtikn6w,the: educatior-iafimpact;the~Pi"<)grari1 tifot made_: 'ifr.t6J;inhted;juv~flii~~-, Th~tlrif0rmalib'fi~rne~~d,lo.'evaidafo ',the :f?.rograrh's,.'

:;~~9~~!~1mp~pfis'~~~-1~0,~.tiq~.ty_cgll~ct~~,(?r ~~jht~!,h.~d~,PY'.~"r~fi~~~.;S!aff}it''

th,e''Oep.artrrieht. _

Toe.Prqgram' has;tne:K,ighe~frecidiv1sm:rat'e., of all :0'(ir?,$"}fog"fams.- S~venty.1.-..

/ ','

-

I

sj~q::;~r,~t:it.of:tb~jy~p\l_~,~J.~lf:ased

j

,f~C?m

-I
,th~.

--

'

'

_P,.r.ogra,rl)in:FY.

' '
t.9,9Q


r~igiv~t~~



;~vifnini'th~ee;'y,ea'rs":o'rthelfreleaseJrom :tfie Prograrrf

1

'

.1~inety:-efght 'P.ei:ceh~ or, 'tl:ie '6m!inties in the slate-. are1:noC:seived qy:'.the,:

'!Program:



.

', - ., t "\

!,fyib~i)uver:ii1~s'.,~ the rouritie's ,vhere;the P,r9grc!.~.'.~~is'is, ~~~;-~~vp,~i'.~.J9, r~~iy_e ~
'.,~_IJ$,'i-.~9t,iV~ .~_9u,t~~~i.ph. ,;s~rvtC:f$, si~i.l~t 'to:. ;~l~e\);~rvtc:~'$.,:,.p_fovi:?~~:-,.Q{ '.th~_:
,Rro'Qr-am, .thtough .Jlternative sehools operat~d :~y'~?,cI1 ..c.q.uqty:.s ~~~r,q_<cf
-E~t~catip.n,

i'r;1:1r,m1 LV.!h:.1\11>11 Cu1111i11mity 1r1?.1t111,?11t <.;1n:i1 "f'r.u1;,1111 D,?rJ,11 l_rmml uf Chihhcn ,md Youth S1:-":ir.n:,
l:xt.~1111,11 5L1111111.ir),'

I......
.., .
1

The Community Treatment Center Program is one of five non-residential treatment programs operated by the Department of Children and Youth Services. The purpose of the Program is to provide committed juveniles treatment in a non-residential, community-based setting in lieu of a more structured, institutionalized program. Because juveniles placed in the Program are a minimal threat to society, they are allowed to remain at home while receiving Program services. Some of the services providedby the Program include counseling, drug and alcohol education, vocational and career assessment, and recreational activities. The Program has 17 locations in 16 counties.

This evaluation assessed whether the Program is effective in reducing the recidivism of delinquent and unruly juveniles as compared to other available alternatives and what factors influence the effectiveness of the Program. The evaluation also identified other states that reported utilizing programs similar to the Community Treatment Center Programs.

As summarized below, the results of the evaluation suggest that the Department needs to determine if the Program should continue operating or if the associated funds should be redirected to other DCYS programs.



The Program has been less effective in reducing recidivism than some DCYS

programs. General supervision by Court Services Workers and some types

of residential treatment have been more effective in preventing recidivism.



Should the Department decide to continue operating the Program, the

Department should consider the following actions:

Develop a system to effectively manage and monitor the Program;

Identify and target the juvenile population best served by the Program;

Ensure that juveniles are appropriately placed in the Program; and

Ensure the Program is located geographically where the needs are the greatest.

Program Evaluation ln~ate C!)nstruction Program ,Department of Corrections
; ,, -xecutiv~..Summaor
The Inmate Construction, Program undertakes construction projects throughout the state for the Department ofQ:>rrections, other state agencies, and local governments. These construction projects range from small jobs (sue~ as installing fences and renovating offices) to large projects (such as building bootcamp facilities, law enforcement centers, community centers, and golf course clubhouses). To do these pr~jects, tJi~Program uses over 400 state inmates, comprising about 30 construction crews. Inmates assigned 'to the Program are skilled in construction trades and have been classified as low-security,risks. By using unpaid inmate labor the Program, theoretically, can save taxpayer dollars.
Ourp~ task was to deterinine i(-the Program actually resulted in a savings after considering the costs of operating the ,Program. Additionally, we determined whether the Program had properly selected and .prioritized its construction projects. Our review found that:
TheProgram saves taxpayers an estimated 11 %, overall, on the total cost of construction projec~ although the savings percentage varies widely among individual projects. Using this overall estimated,savings percentage, about $3 .5 million was saved on construction projects that the Program completed during fiscal years 1994 and 1995. (Page 8)
A managementinformation system needs to be developed that would 8:1,low management to determine if the Program is saving a reasonable amount. Absent such a system, we were unable to determine if the 11 % savings was reasonable. (Page 10)
The Program needs to include all of its operating costs when assessing and reporting whether it saves taxpayer dollars on construction projects. We identified nearly _$8.5 million of Program operating costs that 'were not allocated to the Program's projects. Because the Program dqes not include these operating costs when calculating its cost'savings, it reports an artificially high.cost-savings in documents such as annual reports and Governor's budget, reports. (Page 11)
The Department ofCorrections needs to clearly define the Program's purpose and objectives. Without these being clearly defined, we could not determine if th~ Program had properly selected and.prioritized its construction projects. Also, the Program cannot determine whether it is accompiishing its objectives and cannot establish criteria for use in selecting and prioritizing construction projects. (Page 12).

Program Evaluation Nonvocational Laboratories
Department of Education
Executive ,summary
The Quality Basic Education (QBE) Act of 1985 provides for funding High School Nonvocational Laboratories (NVLs) through the Department of Education (DOE). Nonvocational Laboratory classes are intended to have sialler student-teacher ratios and involve more "hands-on" student instruction using more equipment and materials than general high school classes.
In fiscal year 1995, the QBE formula funded base classes at approximately $1,689 per FTE student whereas the QBE formula's NVL funding amount totaled approximately $2,084 per FTE student. Thus, the NVL funding rate for fiscal year 1995 was about 23% (or $395 per FTE student) higher than the funding provided for a general high school class. In fiscal year 1995, DOE expended approximately $157-million on NVLs. Of this $157 million, about $30 million is attributable to the additional funding per FTE student. Our review found that:
The General Assembly should decide if the current method of funding Nonvocational Laboratorie_s results in the fulfillment of the legislative intent of QBE. (Page 8)
The number ofITE students in NVLs has in<?reased from 44,000 in fiscal year 1988 to 93,000 in fiscal year 1995, a 110% increase. In addition, the potential exists for further substantial growth inthe number of ITE students in NVLs, which could result in additional expenditures of up to $47 million. (Page 9)
The percentag~ of students enrolled in NVLs in local school systems ranged from 10% to 90% as of March 1995. This has resulted in significant differences in funding between local systems that-have an equivalent nwnber ofFTE students in high school. (Page 12)
Local school systems are using both state lottery funds and federal funds to obtain equipment used to qualify general high school classes as NVLs. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, these funding-sources. supplied approximately $22 million that was available for expenditure in high schools. (Page 15)
The two primary qualification criteria for NVLs have not been thoroughly defined. One criteria requires that replacement costs for NVL equipment/materials be at least 50% higher than a general high school class. The other criteria requires that 25% of instructional time be in "hands-on" activities. DOE has not defined the costs associated with a general high school class or what activities are acceptable for the "hands-on" requirl!ment. (Page 18)
DOE does not monitor local school systems to ensure that their NVL classes are meeting the criteria required to receive Nonvocational Laboratory funding. (Page 19)

,~; :~.' /~~ ~l f;-';_( =!f.ir~ :,
... "' ,~ --: . ;~/.....

GBI's Division of Forensic Sciences provides crime laboratory services to a variety of law enforcement and other agencies. The Division operates six laboratories and has 147 employees. More than 84,000 cases were processed in Fiscal Year 1994. The Division's Fiscal Year 1995 budget
authorization is nearly $9.5 million. Overall, Georgia's crime laboratory system is similar to those of
neighboring states in the types of services provided, customers served, and-procedures used.

This evaluation sought to address whether: (1) a need exists for this service to be provided at the state level and if services provided meet customers' needs; (2) if services are accurate and provided in a timely manner; (3) if resources are used efficiently and effectively; and (4) if safety controls are adequate. Our review found that:



The Division should continue its strategic planning process and establish specific programmatic

goals and measurable objectives. (Page 9)



Division services are needed since there are no practical alternatives that can fully meet the

state's crime laboratory service needs. A survey of customers indicated that more than 90%

were satisfied with the location oflaboratories, evidence handling, court testimony, and range

of services-offered by the Program. (Page 9)



While a majority of the Division's customers are satisfi.e4 with case,turnaround times, a

significant number are dissa~sfied with the time required to obtain written test results. The

Division does not have the data necessary to identify whether a .significant problem exists. A

customer survey indicated that 44% were dissatisfied witli the time.required for written test

results; however, only 18% were dissatisfied with the time required for verbal test results.

(Page 11)



While a customer survey indicated that'99% ofthe Division's customers were satisfied with

the accuracy of services, the Division needs to strengthen its quality assurance program

through increased documentation and monitoring ofprofi9iency tests and peer reviews. (Page

15)



The Division does not systematically collect and track the information necessary to manage

and monitor individual tests and their associated costs. (Page 17)



A thorough review of efficiency issues could not be conducted due to a lack of program data

and benchmarks. However, a comparison of the approximate cost to process a case (as

reported by other states' programs) indicated that Georgia's cost was less than the costs of

all but one of six other Southeastern states. (Page 19)

'

'

.,. __

~Ji

~~!ltf

~?te,~~ft,e

;~~'::-i~~'~f..~~r-~~

_(S:P~t~.~~~~:,~~/p,rev~9f~jld{_rnawealme'~tliY'

1

~:

.1qy~~.t~9?,Q~g:aBl!se~n~.1 0~gl~~t ~I l~g~lr.~r~..~r.id coordu:iat117g~~~ry1c~s :l~ fa_m~He.s',in-which , -
~a1tr~th-1~Al: h~s,-~~~~,~~91 . ~-~~H~;:,t~.ei P!ti~i-~.~-~ pf.,_f~,'9ilf~-~p: ~~.iJ,~f~-~1:~ervice~'. (DF.C$}

J_:en,t(~l-~offic~::.~ortj1qates ,tt.:ie.~prog~ar:n's' adm1n1strat1on~ DFCS: offices -in the stat~~. tS~-

coi:i"nfie'.s:cieirver pto~rafn s_ervi~E;S;.

,,

,. .

I

'

!

'

'This''.'eval~~:ilio9. ~ss~~~~,d' v~eth-er. 'CRS 'ha~.:pi;:o~/iP:~q pr.otec~iq~ jq_r:: m.?ltr~-~~d

~1~,k~~;9YBl"9~Rl!Y~-~Q9;,~~eqiy~l~:,r~~P~Q~ip~;t,?;'rrf~.lt~~~~:~~:~t-~J!:~~~-tt99s;')he:~'.r~~ir~m,fra~\
,qeen ipr.op~My org~r;uzed,- st.3ffed,-.'m9r.iagea,.,ar.id mon,1t0red;i'ana CPS's effeGhveness ar,td.
op'er~tf6ns1 compar~ -f~Y-?.ra~(Y,witti o_ther,: s~~t~s'.':c~i,!i;:lip_r:9t~JiYe:/s,EirYi~es progrartis:-,fi-i~',:
;~~_?1.i.Ja,ti_on-~h~~'.led itn~r.

.G~~)m.~r.v:~f"!t~or., h1ps: deter.,je~eat ab:8s,~ and~:t~;~ .lesser extent. }~peat, n~~~~ct

._(P~ges-232~)



<f9. provfdei aa,dition'~I' p~rofedio~ for ~alfrea'~ed'. qhilclrer<. mo9itja~iqrsi to ):ps,,;

p0Jicies:i~~1h.~:.~~!~9-~,i?9,; ~[~~~:~~-?~-'-~;~_13; e~.n1;i~~~~p: . ' ' '... .' ':

.' V

'

D,eterry,1r:ur.ig,hoW,,qu_1c~ly allegations:should-~e;m'.'est1gated (Pages,29-30):

,

I

1,

, I~

,

A





,

',

,r

R_emovihg chil~r~n fr:pm\their,-h9,m~?. N:>ag~s:.2~~26,~7~28);

-. ,

1

I ,

l~y~;tiga~)fl9?~-h-~,:h~ndlihtt~e),;\laUa6,us~:allegatjons (.pages2s::21}28)~,

.~eali~~:,w.i:~n -ab~sive~~ -~~~1e9ff,~!'.:f~T!!~~-~-f~~~n-- pa_r~0t :ar.~: ~.u_q_s,t~m9~:

abu~~r~ (P.9ge}_~.. ~~)::~p~: . , . , ,,

,. . _ .

rnosirig-,:ca~res

,arter-.maltr.eatmen,t_

h~~::bee.o. :~.nfir"'~r:ne'd

....(Pag.e. _s,-~?

.,2~) ...



:QFCS n~.~$}~\(~prbve-~~an?Q~~en~sJp,P..dr.f.f,o~-'th_e,9~8;Pr~qgr~r:n t?_f
~ -~~f~olli_s,hi~~. --me~.Hingfli.tr 99~1_; \)Jbj,~9~iv,s,. anq_:p~'1:forr;nab,ce:: 'f'!'le'asur~

' ':I

.(Prages::~2;:.3~k:

.

. .

,-

a~more.specific,risk assessmeht~tooi'(Pages 3032);- 'Deveilop>ing

.A

l ',.):"~- ,--_~,v~"<I

~,r ~~ll\.,,-~~ ~,'.l,)-1 1(~ ;' :~ 1,','1,'h"\~!-j,-~'\.~',.t.,~' ,"',,):~ ',. ...

'i~

\!,I<

., '

D,~x,el,~p,r:ig'arr 1nlE;lQf~teq, ,sta~ew1de:ma,magement,:informat1on system. .(Pag~s,

'. >

.34;3s);



.

,

_11):sntutiog::e;:pn~(~tl~, t~' _:@'.rjure'/tti~t a~eyra~\(>f :ttie 'Cer,ilral Child Abu~e ' :

, Re$istry.:(pa~~s 38-4(:)_),: .

,,

_ ,

'

lmpr.0.?.i?Q:~~?!i\Y.,''.~~~~(~,~~1~-prpf~~~f~~!::1t~tf,~Jlocal1on! P[flqlic~(s: _l?:fid: th~

coordination and:assessm';'!Al- of staff-trainu1g,(Pages 41'-45,.46~$):

~' ~ I



"Georgia;s;'av.e'r~~ie qes --~~~ld~a\tar;t1p,atsailvo/ably, ,~ith a~er.:ige -caselba~fa ' -

"rep_9rteq by!child;prqt~,v~:i~9-~l)Cies 11:\.0~~~r ~_la\~~i" ~IJ1e_cp~prog~~rn-is;.g~.fl~r?IIY I

v~.~ :cb~1~a(ab1e tci:011\er :sfot~1:cni]!-f}l_r,otecVon'.pr~9g'r.~ms allti~ugh Geo~gia'.s:crt~ristaff . _J

, :1,~v'0, less ~l:Jth~ri~:l t9 rem_gve_,d~il~r~rr;rrorn :t-1?.m.'e._ {Pag~s 1;~.:.19}

_,

''

I , - -- . . .; ,--=:.-.:..;..:..::.-.= - -- =-=- -.:..__ -.--- -==----~-------. -- - -- ------

-

-

-- - - -=---i~

.Pr.ograrn:Ev.ilunticm

. . . -:,

.= .- .- _ .':~: til~-PArtrMEl':i=ifr<iiurlANHr::souRcEs

-. .:. >- ..--/!1

<<~;: p

11111,

1"'1



"'

-.:,,

f p

, .. I :

~1 I~-- ''II ...

':ii,."

.-.:,1,(,, 1 , ," , _..,_,1 , :.. ,

.. , ,

: _- :,- :' : .. : ; ~----~-- _:out1.1~-~OR1o.:tHERAPEtJ;nc~eR0GRAr.i:- . _:. -, ...' \ , .---\;

I t _-::.'\.:~~-- i;".:: <~--~/--.{ :)::>-. _: _: .; ..:_:-.::_.--<;~->~}: \' 1:.<::.:; :~-
: ~-~1 '.::~i --;,.,.~

:.:__~. _.:~.._~;~.: ~

-.~:/..>.~ ~., --~-~!_::.:'i:~:::~'J:u_&~~~.H~)~Y..s~~:.

-

:.

:.~:~ .~".

:

:

:_:

_'~:-~~

The Outdoor Therapeutic Program (OTP) has two wilderness camps; one near Cleveland and one near Warm Springs. The Program's purpose is to assist emotionally troubled youth in developing responsible behavior so that they can return to their family and community and function at an acceptable social level.

This evaluation assessed whether: {1) the Program is effective in returning emotionally troubled youth to their families and communities without the need for additional state intervention sudl as placement in a more restrictive treatment or confinement facility; (2) the Program is a cost-effective alternative to other public and private programs that treat emotionally troubled youth.

Our review of the Outdoor Therapeutic Program found that:

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS - The Mental Health, Menta, Retardation and Substance Abuse Division does not have goals and measurable objectives to fully assess the effectiveness of the Outdoor Therapeutic Program. As a result, the Division is unable to show that its total expenditures of more than $3.5 million are being used effectively. Recidivism data compiled by the Program could not be validated and therefore may not be complete or accurate. The Program has not developed a benchmark against which existing recidivism data can be compared to evaluate if the Program's performance is acceptable or unacceptable. (Pages 13-15)

The recidivism data compiled for youth two years after release from the two camps shows the Cleveland camp has a 48.4% recidivism rate, 35.8% success rate, and 15.8% of the youth are lost to follow-up. The Warm Springs camp shows a 38.2% recidivism rate, 30.9% success rate, and 30.9% of the youth are lost to follow-up. (Pages 13-15)
..
- The Program's overall effectiveness is based on its ability to achieve underlying objectives in several operational areas. Problems were identified in the following areas: Screening/Selection, Treatment Plans, Camp Activities, and Release. (Pages 15-23)
EFFICIENCY - The average daily cost per youth of $97.26 at OTP camps is higher than most other wilderness programs in the contiguous states. In addition, because OTP has a longer than average length of stay required for completion, the total cost per youth completing the Program is higher than all but one other wilderness program. The average cost of a completer at the Cleveland camp is $47,326, and at the Warm Springs camp $61,128. The difference between the two camps is due to a difference in the length of stay. The Program should evaluate the feasibility of billing private insurance companies, Medicaid and possibly individuals (using a sliding fee scale) to offset a portion of Program costs. (Pages 25-27)
-- --------- ---- =-===============

------. ----~----
r
The Professional Standards Commission is responsible for the certification and preparation of professional education personnel employed in Georgia's public schools. Our review of the Commission found that:
a-Toe Commission should be commended for its effectiveness in meeting the four purposes for which it was reestablished by legislation enacted in 1991. The Commission has taken action to:
simplify and make more efficient the process ofcertifying educational personnel in Georgia
(Pages 10, 12, and 14);
attract the highest possible number ofqualifiedpersonnel lo become educators in Georgia (Pages
10 and 15);
promote the hiring ofqualified educatorsfrom other states to work in Georgia (Pages 10 and 15); improve the level ofpreparation ofeducators by requiring/or purposes ofcertification those
essential skills and that knowledge needed to deliver effective education. (Page 10) Overall, 151 (99%) of the 153 local school boards that responded to a question regarding the
performance of the Commission rated it as being Excellent or Good. (Page 11)
a-Toe Commission should continue its efforts to develop written performance indicators for measuring the extent to which it is achieving its statutory purpo~s. The Commission has indicated that its strategic plan will include specific performance measures. (Page 12)
a-Toe Commission is talcing action to improve the state's teacher testing program. At the time of this evaluation, the Commission was working to require colleges to test students' academic skills in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics prior to admitting them into a teacher preparation program. The current Teacher Certification Test will be replaced by the Commission effective July 1, 1997. (Page 16)
a-Toe Commission should compile more complete information regarding teacher shortage areas and the extent to which the state's teacher preparation programs are addressing these areas. There is a continuing imbalance between the demand for teachers in certain subject areas and the supply of teachers in these areas who are graduating from the state's teacher preparation programs. (Page 17)
crToe Commission and the Board of Regents should be commended for and should continue their efforts to improve the state's teacher education programs. Ofthe 150 school systems that responded to a question regarding teacher education programs, 103 (69%) indicated they were generally satisfied and 47 (31%) indicated they were not generally satisfied with the programs. (Page 18)
crToe practice of having the Commission provide funds for teacher preparation programs at the state's public and private institutions should be reconsidered. (Page 19)
a:srThe Commission needs to implement more detailed procedural controls for ensuring that funds provided to institutions' teacher preparation programs are expended in accordance with the terms
- - - - - - - - - of the contractual agreements. (Page 20)

--- -

Prnqr,m1 [:.1111:Jli:in

D!.:Pl,HH.~ENT or PU:JU: sr,FEi Y



0

cor.1r.U::RC:IAL DRIVcH'5 LICENSE 1'1~0-~RAi'.1 . .

t:xc:c1:l_ilm S11111m.u,

--JIl
- .. .
I . _:

~~~m I To address pub~ic

about unq-~alified t~ck dri~e~ and tr~ffic futalities on the nati~~s high~ays,

I the U.S. Congress passed the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. This Act established

national requirements for a single license per driver, knowledge and skills tests, uniform licensing 1
I standards, and a nationwide commercial driver's license information system. States were required to

fully implement these testing and licensing requirements by April 1, 1992 or risk losing a portion of their 11

federal highway funding. To implement these requirements, Georgia established its Commercial Driver's I

License (COL) Program in April, 1989 within the Department of Public Safety (DPS).

II

I I
This evaluation assessed whether the Georgia CDL Program is needed, is effective, and appears to be !

cost-efficient. Additionally, this evaluation identified issues which should be addressed to improve the :

Program's effectiveness and efficiency.

1

Our reviews of the CDL Program found that

There is a need to continue Georgia's COL Program as a part of the national COL Program which is administered by all 50 states. (Page 9)

The Program appears to have contributed to the overall reduction of traffic fatalities involving commercial motor vehicles. (Page 9)

The Program has been effective in ensuring that only qualified drivers obtain their Georgia commercial driver's license and in suspending the licenses of drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles in an unsafe manner. (Pages 14 and 17)

If Georgia did not participate in the national CDL Program, the state could lose over $50 million of , federal highway funds annually but would save only about $170,000 each year. (Page 12)

The e_timated cost to administer Georgia's CDL Program appears to be in line with the estimated operating costs of other states' CDL Programs. (Page 13)

To improve the Program's effectiveness and efficiency, the following issues should be addressed;

A loophole in the national CDL Program which still makes it possible for commercial drivers to

obtain more than one driver's license (Page 13),

I The Department's lack of internal controls to properly account for the traffic convictions received I (Page 16),
Management's need to more closely assess Program operations to be aware of operational

I

problems (Page 12).

I
t



Increasing the number of courts that submit traffic convictions electronically to DPS (Page 19), Courts' untimely submission of traffic convictions to the Department (Page 21).
=

_ Progra:n Ev..1!u~t_ion

.

-1

ilcp.uta:i:a~nt of.-Adn:iinistr;:itiv1: Srrviccs

_ Merit ~ys~cm_-Traini1ig . _ _

::-
Exccan~vc Summa~

-

-

--

--

-----

-

-

--- - - --- -

---

- ---=- . ---

=--- -- - - -

The Merit System of Personnel Administration's Training and Organizational Development Division provides centralized training and organizational support for State agencies. The Division's primary role has been to develop and deliver training courses. Approximately 70 percent of these course have been management training, the focus of which is the Certified Public Mana_ger program.

This evaluation assessed whether: the Division effectively coordinates and provides training; the Division's role in facilitating training is cost-effective; and the Division coordinates effectively with other State agencies. The evaluation also compared the Division's training program to similar programs in other states.

Some types of State training needs are most cost-effectively met through a centralized training office such' as the Division. While State officials and employees are generally satisfied with Merit System training, effectiveness can be improved if the Division:

Redirects its role from primarily delivering Statewide training to primarily coordinating training and organizational development (page 18);

Revises the its strategic plan to reflect changes in the Division's rote and to specify measurable goals and objectives (pages 19 - 20);

Improves methods for identifying needed training and assessing program impact (pages 21 - 22, 28 - 30);

Considers the feasibility of legislation allowing credit hour reimbursement and release time for courses offered by post-secondary institutions (pages 23 24);

Re-examines the Certified Public Manager program's role and strategic direction (pages 25 - 27);

Considers options to ensure that employees in all parts of the State have access to training (pages 30 - 33); and

Uses the State Training Council more fully (page 33)

l'ru;:.1111 i.:,1!u.1t.~m .
QUICK SI l,I< I UUS!"t.. SS /\r:u IWJlJ_~; 1i~V Si :m:1c;Ls 1 U/\INING PHlj(:iHAr.i
Dl:P,'\RTr. r:Jff OF 1 ECI l~llCt,I. ,'\~~n ,,nut, r.nuc;, TION

-------------

----- - - - _______,

Georgia's Quick Start Business and Industry Services Training Program (hereinafter

referred to as Quick Start] is responsible for providing customized training for new, expanding,

and existing businesses in Georgia. Training is provided to companies statewide and includes

hands-on, skill-based training, interpersonal and employee development training, and computer-

based training.

This evaluation assessed: (1) how effective Quick Start is in aiding economic development agencies in attracting new businesses to Georgia and in expanding existing industries in Georgia; and (2) is the cost of providing training through Quick Start in line with other states' training costs for comparable programs.

This evaluation determined that:



The Program has goals, objectives, and a mIssIon statement and performs

evaluations to assess the Program's achievement; however, the objectives should

be restated to include measurable targets. (Page 22)

Quick Start aids economic development entities in their efforts to attract new businesses to Georgia by providing training services to all eligible companies that request services. (Page 24)



Additional steps should be taken to improve the reporting of program statistics to

reflect Program activities more accurately and provide management with useful

information. (Page 24)

As a result of Quick Start's response to requests, all regions of the state have benefitted from Quick Start's training services. (Page 26}

Costs to provide Quick Start training have shown a decrease on average over the last five years and the costs are in line with other states with comparable programs. (Page 28}

Consideration should be given to improving the criteria used to evaluate existing industry participation in the Quick Start Training Program and clarifying which companies sho~ld be targeted. (Page 30)

Quick Start staff work collaboratively with the public and private sector economic development organizations in the state. (Page 33)

. .Pru~Jrc.1111 Evaluation - ... .
MASS Tl~ANSll GRANTS PROGRAM. '

DEPAHTMl::NT OF TRANSPORTATiON







I

.. .Exucutiv9 Summary_.: : ..._;'::::

.. --

----. . - -----""=====.!!:i:~'2ll~

The Mass Transit Grants Program is responsible for providing state and federal funds to

city and county government agencies to operate local transportation systems. This

evaluation assessed whether. the Program was achieving its goals; was obtaining all of the

federal transit funds available; and was awarding grant funds in a fair and equitable

manner. Our review of the Program found that:

..-The state's voluntary participation in funding the Program has facilitated the operation of mass transit systems in the state and has assisted local governments in obtaining the maximum amount of federal transit funds available. (Page 9)
irThe Program's goal of expanding the state's mass transportation infrastructure has not been attained. Currently, 1.7 million citizens in 80 counties do not have access to a mass transportation system in their local area. (Page 10)
.-Toe Program should be commended for ensuring that grants are awarded in a fair and equitable manner. (Page 12)
.-Additional efforts should be made to coordinate the multiple types of transportation programs that are funded and administered by the Georgia Departments of Trans-portation, Human Resources, and Medical Assistance. (Page 13)
.-Program personnel should ensure that all federal grant funds are disbursed in accordance with federal regulations. (Page 14)
irThe Program should require current recipients of Rural Transportation grants to begin meeting the same criteria used by the Program in assessing the initial grant applications. (Page 15)
.-Action should be taken to streamline the grant application process and eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements. (Page 16)
.-Program personnel should more carefully review the Planning projects prepared by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations. (Page 17)