1997 annual report

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
1997 BROC Annual Report
This document, linked to the homepage of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee (BROC) of the Georgia General Assembly, is the Web version of the BROC Committee's 1997 Annual Report. It describes the Committee, its Research Office, and its duties and reports. Contained also are summaries of reports presented to and acted upon by BROC.
BROC
BUDGETARY RESPONSIBILITY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
1997 ANNUAL REPORT
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
STATE OF GEORGIA
ORDER OF CONTENTS
Chairman's Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
BROC Vision, Mission, and Beliefs
Reports to BROC
Summaries
q Dept. of Labor--Job Training Partnership Act q Georgia Occupational Information Coordinating Committee q State Board of Workers' Compensation Processing of Claims q Human Resources/DFCS WorkFirst (formerly PEACH) Program q Teen Pregnancy Prevention q Child Fatality Review Process
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (1 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
q Drug Rebate Program of Dept. of Medical Assistance q Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program q Cancer State Aid Program q Gifted Education q Georgia Learning Resources System q University System's Auxiliary Enterprise Programs q Dept. of Revenue's Unclaimed Property Program q Telecommunications Program of Dept. of Administrative Services
Chairman's Report To the Governor and the General Assembly
January 1998
Over the last year, the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee (BROC) has been very successful at establishing legislative oversight and accountability in state programs. This "BROC Process" applies two primary tools to improve state budgetary decisions: Results-Based Program Evaluations and the BROC Oversight Calendar. Results-Based Program Evaluations determine the merit, worth, or value of state programs based on the quality of results we get from those programs. The BROC Oversight Calendar is a commitment we require from an agency for improvement in, and performance monitoring of, program results. The calendar sets clearly defined quantifiable goals and the dates for reporting on progress to BROC.
We are proud of these two techniques because they get at the heart of the Budget Accountability and Planning Act of 1993. The BROC Process spells out very clearly what is expected of program managers. As a result of this process, I can say that the legislature--the people's representatives--has the attention of agency heads and other stakeholders. Georgia's state government is becoming more responsive to the citizens, thanks in large measure to the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee.
Budgetary responsibility requires that Georgia's Legislature, the Governor, and state agency leadership work together to develop good, solid state government budgets that reflect an increasingly clear idea of the kind of future we desire for this state. To further this end, during 1997, the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee began to take a "thematic approach" to program oversight. Each year we review a sample of programs that define a particular theme. For this legislative term, we are focusing our evaluative resources on examining the state's role in economic development. For 1997, the theme was "Economic Development through Workforce Preparedness." For 1998, the theme is "Economic Development through Job Creation and Retention."
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (2 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
We are beginning to see positive effects of the BROC Process. Agencies have been very responsive to the committee's requests for change. A quick glance at the summaries in this report shows that agencies are beginning to define their goals more clearly and track their results measures. We are especially pleased that agencies are beginning to work more closely together to coordinate state resources in solving real problems. For example, the Department of Labor and the Department of Human Resources are now working together to measure the success of welfare reform. Also, the state is establishing a plan for reducing the out-of-wedlock birth rate with a major emphasis on teen pregnancy prevention. Finally, after a lengthy collaborative process, we are proposing legislation to reform the state construction process.
In summary and in accordance with O.C.G.A. 28-5-5(f), the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee submits this annual report of committee activities. Included are summaries of the program evaluation reports and agency responses to these reports for the past two years.
We hope the readers of this document will find the information useful.
Sincerely, George Hooks Senator, District 14 1997 Chair, Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
The Budget Accountability and Planning Act of 1993 established the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee (BROC) to evaluate and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of state operations.
Among BROC's duties is to consult with the Governor and OPB concerning the development and implementation of the strategic planning process, the development of outcome measures for program evaluation, and the implementation of related actions. In addition, the members of the committee review and evaluate the following: strategic plans submitted by OPB, program evaluation reports, the continuation budget report, information on new programs, information on reports submitted to OPB identifying dollars received or expended where not contemplated by the Appropriations Act, and other information and reports.
Programs and activities of Georgia's state government now cost over twelve billion dollars each year. Legislators and administrators are under intense pressure to allocate state taxpayer money effectively and to make government work more efficiently.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (3 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
In line with a majority of the other states, BROC's authorizing legislation 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.
BROC determines the programs or policies to be evaluated in consultation with the leadership of the General Assembly and the Governor. Legislators or others who want a particular topic to be reviewed by BROC should submit a formal written request to the chair of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee.
1997 Members of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
q Senator George Hooks, Chair and Chair of Senate Appropriations Committee q Senator Charles C. "Chuck" Clay, Minority Leader q Senator Sonny Perdue, Majority Leader q Senator David Scott, Chair of Senate Rules Committee q Senator Terrell Starr, Chair of Senate Finance and Public Utilities Committee q Senator Charles W. Walker, Majority Leader
q Representative Terry L. Coleman, Vice-Chair and Chair of House Appropriations Committee
q Representative Thomas B. Buck III, Chair of House Ways and Means Committee q Representative Bill Lee, Chair of House Rules Committee q Representative Larry J. "Butch" Parrish, Chair of House Banks & Banking Committee q Representative Calvin Smyre, Chair of University System of Georgia Committee q Representative Larry Walker, Majority Leader
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
1997 BROC Research Office Staff
q Kimball L. Peed, M.A., M.B.A., Director q Kevin Fillion, M.P.A., Deputy Director q Michael Murdoch, Ph.D., Senior Analyst q Hilda L. Jackson, M.P.A., Policy Analyst II q Bryan Bezold, M.A., Policy Analyst II q Lee McElhannon, M.B.A., Program Analyst II q Leslie Blauhut Chesley, M.B.A., Program Analyst II q Glynnell Lewis, Office Manager
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (4 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
BROC Vision, Mission, and Beliefs
The joint Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee evaluates itself in light of its own Vision, Mission, and Beliefs:
Vision
The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee shall be the principal state program review arm of the Georgia General Assembly, measuring program performance against commonsense standards of efficiency while comparing program goals with legislative intent.
Mission
The mission of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee is to follow the intent of the General Assembly that taxpayer dollars be spent in the most effective and efficient manner possible. We will recommend that the General Assembly deny resources to unworthy or redundant programs. We will recommend improvements for worthy programs to allow them to become effective and efficient. We will, further, advise the General Assembly whether the strategic plans of individual agencies are consistent with the intent of the legislature and with the state strategic plan.
Beliefs
The members of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee believe that . . .
1. The General Assembly has the responsibility to decide which, out of the many needs and wants of human existence, are the appropriate social problems to be addressed by legislation and the expenditure of tax dollars in state programs.
2. Legislative responsibility properly pertains to the recognition of a social problem to be addressed by state action. Such legislative responsibility is not discharged merely by funding wellintentioned programs, but includes oversight of the programs themselves through evaluations of their functions and performance.
3. Social problems recognized as properly in the domain of government intervention should be addressed in a coordinated manner by relevant state agencies.
4. The people of Georgia deserve assurance that their elected representatives are engaged in an ongoing review of expenditures by state agencies.
5. A vigilant effort to determine if tax money is actually being put to use according to legislative
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (5 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
intent is the proper duty of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee. 6. Sound advice based on objective and impartial research is the product we are constituted to give to
the General Assembly of the State of Georgia.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)

Reports to BROC
Evaluation Reports
Program evaluations determine the value of a program, assess the efficiency of a program, and judge the effectiveness of a program as compared to Legislative intent. Such evaluations aid legislators in their decisions about whether to continue, expand, or eliminate particular programs.
The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee focuses the state's evaluative resources on a policy area that is of particular interest to the committee. For the 1997-1998 legislative term, BROC will examine the state's role in economic development. For calendar year 1997, the theme was "Economic Development through Workforce Preparedness." For calendar year 1998, the theme is "Economic Development through Job Creation and Retention."
During calendar year 1997, professional evaluators from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts and the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget conducted 12 program evaluations in the areas of Economic Development, Efficient and Effective State Government, Education, and Public Well-Being. Additionally, on behalf of BROC, Emory University and Georgia State University collaborated on an evaluation of the Child Fatality Review Process. The following is a listing of these program evaluations and their publication month and shortcuts to the report summaries:

Economic Development
q DOL Job Training Partnership Act (September)
q DOL Georgia Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (September)
q SBWC Processing of Claims (December 1996)

Public Well-Being
q DHR Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (May)
q DMA Drug Rebate Program (January) q Child Fatality Review Process (September) q DHR Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening
Program (January) q DHR Cancer State Aid Program (January)

http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (6 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee

Efficient & Effective State Government

Education

q DOAS Telecommunications Program (August) q DOR Unclaimed Property Program (January)

q DOE Gifted Education (September) q DOE Georgia Learning Resources System
(June) q USG Auxiliary Enterprise Program (March)

Highlights from the reports, as well as agency responses to the program evaluations, are summarized below.
The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee commends the staff from the Performance Audit Operations Division of the Department of Audits and Accounts, and from the Program Evaluation and Management Services Division of the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, for their invaluable aid to the committee during 1997.
Follow-Up Reports
Follow-up reports revisit programs that have already undergone formal evaluation review. The follow-up process begins immediately after a program evaluation report is released by the committee. The purpose is to work with the appropriate stakeholders to improve the performance of the program. During a followup study, staff from the BROC Research Office work with agency personnel, legislators, and other groups to determine how to use the information gathered from the original program evaluation to improve the program.
The BROC Research Office completed and presented to the committee two follow-up reviews. The first was a review of the 1993 evaluation of the WorkFirst program, formerly called the Positive Employment and Community Help (PEACH) Program, within the Department of Human Resources. The second was a review of the Georgia Child Care Council. Both reviews established a BROC Oversight Calendar that sets in writing the expected goals for each of these programs.
Continuation Reports
Continuation reports are prepared by policy analysts from the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget. These reports give a general background and operational description of currently funded state government programs. BROC received no continuation reports in 1997.
Strategic Planning

http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (7 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
The BROC Research Office works cooperatively with the Strategic Planning Division of the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget to review agency planning efforts. The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee's primary interest in overseeing this important process in state government is to promote consistent and compatible strategic directions among state agencies. Realizing that strategic planning is an ongoing process, BROC, on behalf of the General Assembly, sponsors an annual strategic planning conference each January to highlight some of the strategic directions of the state. At this conference, the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget presents an update on the state strategic plan.
As part of the strategic planning effort, the BROC Research Office, with help from the Legislative Budget Office and the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, is developing an inventory of all state programs along with their purpose, goals, objectives and performance measures to be used for evaluation purposes.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Summaries of Findings and Agency Responses
Job Training Partnership Act Evaluated: September 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of the Georgia Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) is to train and assist economically disadvantaged youth and adults and dislocated workers so that they will have the necessary skills to participate in the labor market. The program is composed of sixteen service delivery areas (SDAs), each of which is responsible for a different geographic region in the state. The program is administered by the Georgia Department of Labor.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u The state's JTPA program is guided by a logical structure of a mission, broad goals, measurable objectives, and federal and state standards; all of which are designed to ensure that the Program is effective in putting the unemployed into jobs at a living wage.
No response.
u Based upon the combined performances of all of SDAs, the state exceeded all federal standards. Georgia's national ranking in attaining JTPA Program objectives was average.
No response.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (8 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u The Georgia Department of Labor has used an objective and equitable system of evaluating SDAs performances to distribute incentive awards to local programs which have succeeded in attaining or surpassing federal and state objectives. Program management should consider, however, using the full 25% of incentive money allowed under the federal regulations to emphasize the attainment of State defined objectives.
Since the program evaluation was conducted, program management has learned that the U.S. Department of Labor will allow states to use 6-month data to calculate national performance. Since state standards are also based on 6-month data, there may no longer be a need to retain these measures, let alone determine needed incentive award levels. Retaining state standards and other performance issues are being considered by a work group of local and state staff.
u The Department of Labor has properly used the system of evaluating the performance of local JTPA Programs to initiate corrective actions to improve the performance of SDAs which to fail to meet minimum standards.
No response.
u The federally mandated distribution of JTPA funds throughout the State is equitable and promotes equal access to JTPA services for Georgia's citizens.
No response.
u The Department of Labor used an increasing amount of state funds to pay JTPA administrative costs as federal funding declined over a two year period.
No response.
u Georgia has a state wide system for coordinating the activities of state and local agencies which provide job training services.
No response.
u Training provided to JTPA participants appears to be appropriate to the needs and desires of the participants and local businesses based upon the number of participants hired.
No response.
u The management information system used by the Department of Labor to asses the performance of the local JTPA Programs produces reliable information.
No response.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (9 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Georgia Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Evaluated: September 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of the Georgia Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (GOICC) is to coordinate the development and dissemination of occupational and career information and to provide training for persons assisting others with career exploration, decision making, and preparation. GOICC is administratively attached to the Department of Labor.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u Action should be taken by the committee to make more efficient and effective use of taxpayers' dollars. Currently a significant percentage of the Committee's expenditures is for personal services and other personal expenses. In fiscal year 1997, the Committee expended approximately $98,000 for personal services and administrative costs, including $77,000 for a full time director.
The Committee views the director's salary as a program related cost incurred carrying out the work of the Committee. The Committee has prepared a detailed work plan for the remainder of the current program year. The GOICC will review needs, priorities, available funds, findings of the audit team and other relevant factors in order to reach a decision about staffing for the program year that will begin on July 1, 1998.
u The General Assembly should consider enacting legislation to provide for the oversight and management of a comprehensive labor market and occupational supply and demand information system.
The Governor's Employment and Training Council was assigned this responsibility The Committee takes no position as to whether there should be further action by the General Assembly. At the same time, however, the Committee is working to provide more complete labor market supply data.
u Action should be taken to clarify the Committee's overall mission, duties, and responsibilities. Currently, the Committee does not have an up-to-date mandate regarding its overall role or mission and has not established any specific goals or measurable performance objectives.
At its most recent meeting the Committee took action to update its bylaws, in which the Committee's mission and goals are clearly stated. As mentioned in the response to item 1, a work plan with monthly objectives has also been developed.
u The Committee should take active steps to improve its internal operations by meeting on a regular basis, by developing current bylaws, and preparing some type of annual report. The Committee met only one time in fiscal year 1995, did not meet at all in fiscal year 1996, and met only once in fiscal year 1997.
The members of the Committee met infrequently because the Committee believed that federal funding of state Occupational Information Coordinating Committees was unlikely to continue. Funding for the coming year is expected to continue, and new Committee bylaws provide a regular meeting schedule.
u With the current division of responsibility between the Committee and Georgia State University's Career
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (10 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Information Center, the Committee has little opportunity to generate sufficient funds to offset a decline in the amount of federal funds it receives. This finding is provided for informational purposes only.
At the time the GOICC was established, Georgia State University was already developing Georgia's Career Information System. GOICC chose to support GSU's efforts rather than develop a new system. The Committee sees no advantage in changing this method of operation if the sole purpose would be to create a revenue stream for the Committee.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
State Board of Workers' Compensation's Processing of Claims Evaluated: December 1996 by Department of Audits
The State Board of Workers' Compensation administers Georgia's Workers' Compensation Act, which provides relief to injured employees and protects employers from excessive damage awards.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u The Board should be commended for developing a five-year strategic plan. The plan and the Board's annual report could be improved, however, by formally including measurable objectives that the Board currently uses on an informal basis.
The Board has updated its strategic plan and annual report to include measurable objectives.
u The total operating cost of Georgia's State Board of Workers' Compensation compares favorably with the total costs of other state's workers' compensation boards.
Although proud of its favorable comparison to other states, the Board notes that there is no way to make true comparisons of states' workers' compensation costs due to differences in each state's law.
u Improvements have been made in the length of time it takes the Board to resolve disputed claims.
While maximum time reductions have been achieved in the hearing process, the Board is striving to expand the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, to further reduce the time required to resolve disputed claims.
u Georgia's overall percentage of cases in which injured workers begin receiving their benefits within required time frames has improved.
Georgia is continuing to improve in the overall percentage of cases in which injured workers receive their benefits within the 21 days required by statute.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (11 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u The Board should improve its review of claims to ensure that injured workers receive the full amount of income benefits to which they are entitled.
The Claims Processing and Quality Assurance Units have initiated random checks of 10% of the indemnity cases closed each month to determine if correct payments have been received by the injured worker. Furthermore, the Board has updated written procedures for the review of claims and increased training for examiners.
u Board reviews do not always ensure that injured workers who are not paid promptly receive associated late payment benefits.
The Board has instituted several procedures to ensure that late payments or underpayments are identified and that insurers take corrective actions.
u The Board should determine whether it would be advantageous to use nationally standardized reporting forms, which could increase the number of insurance carriers that report benefit payment records electronically to the Board.
The Board's research has revealed viable electronic reporting alternatives; however, implementation costs would be several million dollars. Insurance carriers and self-insured employers may be willing to pay a higher assessment to obtain the convenience of electronic filing.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
WorkFirst (formerly PEACH) Program Evaluated: August 1997 by BROC Research Office
The WorkFirst program is Georgia's employment program for welfare recipients. Under the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, this program is Title I [Block Grants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)]. Increasing employment and reducing outof-wedlock births are the two primary goals of TANF. The program is administered by the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) within the Department of Human Resources (DHR). The mission of the program is to reduce the number of Georgians living in poverty.
From July 1, 1995, to December 31, 1996, 55.7 percent (approximately 35,000) of the estimated 63,200 welfare recipients exiting WorkFirst were employed in the quarter they exited. However, only 14.2 percent were working for more than minimum wage for full-time service over a nine month period. The division should be commended for achieving an acceptable employment rate at time of exit. However, there are several steps the division could take to improve its performance:
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (12 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u Make the federal "high performance bonus" a priority within the division (Georgia is eligible for up to $16.5 million [5.0% of Georgia's grant] of a $200 million bonus for all states). The bonus is payable federal FY99 based on federal FY98 data.
The Division of Family and Children Services will communicate this as a top Division priority in its communications to staff. Once the formula and performance thresholds are issued [from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services], the Division will include these into the performance appraisal process of county directors and field coordinators.
u Pay particular attention to those counties with below average employment rates (as noted on the map in the original bulletin).
DFCS is working through the DHR/DOL/DTAE collaborative to remove barriers to employment. District Field Coordinators will monitor individual counties to insure that this is a high priority.
u Increase the number of welfare recipients who reach an economically viable milestone.
The Division will focus attention on case management services to assure that they are doing everything possible to assist [DFCS'] clients to make a successful transition to the work force.
u Develop and implement a TANF evaluation model that uses the Department of Labor Unemployment Insurance Wage files to monitor progress toward achieving the division's employment goals.
A Memorandum of Agreement with DOL to cover exchange of data has been signed. [DFCS'] plan is to replicate the BROC model and to monitor progress on an ongoing basis.
u Report to BROC the results of its progress over the period specified in the BROC Oversight Calendar.
The Division will report its progress on a yearly basis as identified in the BROC Oversight Calendar.
The Department of Human Resources is proposing a statewide multi-agency task force to devise strategies to reduce all out-of-wedlock births in Georgia. The department should be commended for responding to the BROC request to expedite the development of a plan with how to deal with out-ofwedlock births. However, there are several steps the department could take to improve its performance:
Summary of Recommendations and Agency Response (in italics):
u Make the federal "illegitimacy bonus" a priority within the department (Georgia is eligible for $20 million of a $100 million bonus for all states). The bonus is payable federal FY99.
The Department has and will continue to make the illegitimacy bonus a priority. [DFCS'] key strategy will be to focus on the greatest investment, outreach and resources on the teen population.
u Pay particular attention to those counties with above average out-of-wedlock rates (as noted on the map in the original bulletin).
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (13 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
The Department will rank all counties based on rates and designate the priority counties for out of wedlock birth reduction action. In addition to looking at birth rates, the strategy will also include an assessment of programs and services that are currently in place to help prevent unintended pregnancies among the targeted age group.
u Focus on the 15-24 year old age group (this group represents 70 percent of out-of-wedlock births in Georgia).
Section 402(a)(1)(a)(V) indicates that a state plan must "establish goals and take action to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, with special emphasis on teenage pregnancies. . . ." [DHR is] focusing on reducing all out-of-wedlock pregnancies, but [DHR believes] that [its] greatest need is in the area of teenage pregnancy prevention (ages 13-19).
u Report to BROC the results of its progress over the period specified in the BROC Oversight Calendar.
The BROC Oversight Calendar requires reporting the numbers and percentages for out-of-wedlock births for 1524 year olds by the following dates: August 1998, August 1999, August 2000. The Department will comply with this requirement.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program Evaluated: May 1997 by Governor's Office of Planning and Budget
The purpose of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program is to reduce the pregnancy rate among school age girls and to reduce the percentage of teenage mothers who have a second or higher order birth before age 20. These Programs are administered jointly by the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the Family Connection Initiative fund. The Family Connection Initiative operates under the direction of the Georgia Policy Council on Children and Families. Family Connection staff work with local collaboratives composed of Community providers, officials, and service providers and users. These local collaboratives identify service needs and provide services.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u Effective teen pregnancy prevention programs are needed because Georgia has the highest reported teen pregnancy rates in the nation, resulting in substantial economic and social costs.
Based on 1992 data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Georgia did have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Since that time, however, the teen pregnancy rate in the state has declined.
u Georgia has not had a well-defined teen pregnancy prevention program; however, DHR is developing a comprehensive, multi-agency initiative.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (14 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
An interagency staff team, Teen Plus, has been assigned to work full time on coordinating the state's teen pregnancy prevention efforts. This office is a collaboration between the Divisions of Public Health, Family and Children Services, and Family Connection. The Teen Plus staff also collaborates with the Governor's Children and Youth Coordinating Council, the Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families, and the Department of Juvenile Justice.
u A comprehensive approach is the state's most promising strategy for addressing teen pregnancy prevention.
The Teen Plus program takes a comprehensive approach to the problem of teen pregnancy. Its plan includes abstinence education, comprehensive family life education, male involvement programs, public awareness, youth entrepreneurship programs, and teen friendly clinics.
u DHR's teen pregnancy prevention action program should be modified to specify goals, desired results and results measures for subprograms.
Teen Plus has engaged a team of evaluation experts to assist in the development of an evaluation process that will define the elements for measurement of outcomes in the teen friendly clinics, male involvement, community involvement, and abstinence education programmatic components.
u DHR's teen pregnancy prevention action plan should be augmented to more clearly specify each agency's role in teen pregnancy prevention and identify areas of further coordination.
Teen Plus seeks to identify opportunities for partnership and collaboration with other agencies and organizations working on this issue. To strengthen its coordination role, Teen Plus will convene an on going work group at the program manager level to meet regularly.
u Two subprograms, Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI) and the Family Connection's Youth Futures Authority, have been effective in decreasing teen pregnancy.
Teen Plus has funded the Grady Teen Services Program to conduct 10 statewide orientations in Postponing Sexual Involvement in FY 1998. The Savannah Youth Futures Authority serves as the model for 86 Family Connection community collaboratives throughout the state.
u The DHR should require that subprograms identify desired results, develop valid results measures, and regularly report program results as a condition of funding.
In collaboration with the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch and the State Family Planning Office, Teen Plus has developed a new programmatic reporting system for the Teen Plus Centers that will be used beginning in the second quarter of FY 1998.
u The methods used to develop teen pregnancy prevention programs encourage responsiveness to various community and cultural needs.
Teen Plus is committed to community driven approaches to address teen pregnancy prevention. The strong emphasis on community involvement in planning and decision making has been well received in the communities in
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (15 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
which Teen Plus is currently being implemented.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Child Fatality Review Process Evaluated: September 1997 by Emory University & Georgia State University
Established by the Georgia General Assembly in 1990, and amended in 1993, the Child Fatality Review Process is intended to create a comprehensive, statewide program of child abuse and child fatality prevention. Under the process, county-level "Child Abuse Protocol Committees" are given the responsibility of developing local protocols to investigate and prosecute alleged cases of child abuse and to implement treatment programs for the perpetrator, the family and the child. Child Fatality Subcommittees, also working at the county level, review child fatality reports and determine if any deaths might have been prevented. The county subcommittees issue reports that are collected and analyzed by a Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Panel which, in turn, prepares and disseminates an annual report of findings and recommendations.
The Child Abuse Protocol Committees have enhanced the enforcement of child abuse laws by facilitating interagency communication and cooperation, but the Subcommittees have been less successful at preventing child deaths by reviewing fatality reports. The evaluation identifies a number of problems with the review process: inadequate investigations of child fatalities, incomplete documentation of investigations, insufficient funding, sporadic reporting by counties, lack of oversight and accountability, little dissemination of the annual report, and the inability of the Statewide Panel to enforce compliance with the process.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u To improve the quality of child fatality investigations, law enforcement officers who investigate child fatalities should receive special training, local authorities should ask the GBI for assistance when needed, a clear investigative protocol should be established and funding should be provided for a statewide network of medical examiners and crime labs.
No response.
u The General Assembly should work through the District Attorney in each Judicial Circuit to enable subcommittees to conduct high-quality reviews.
No response.
u Counties in rural areas should be permitted to form multi-county Child Fatality Subcommittees.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (16 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
The Panel believes that though there is a strong argument for creating multi-county subcommittees, caution must be taken to consider the possible consequences. A cluster of counties [surrounding] Emanuel County have formed a voluntary alliance for the management of the fatality review process, but continue to conduct reviews at the county level.
u Child Fatality Review Subcommittees should study accidental deaths as carefully as deaths due to abuse or neglect. Many accidental deaths can be prevented by relatively simple measures.
The Panel agrees and has introduced a new reporting form that requires subcommittees to provide the same level of detail on all deaths.
u The General Assembly should fund no less than three subcommittee training sessions per year in different regions of the state.
No response.
u The General Assembly should amend legislation to clarify roles, responsibilities and performance standards of subcommittees.
No response.
u The General Assembly should assign responsibility for coordination of county subcommittee activity to the District Attorney in each judicial circuit.
No response.
u The General Assembly should provide the Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Panel with sufficient funding to carry out its mandated responsibilities and provide training and technical assistance to subcommittees.
The Panel agrees with this recommendation.
u The General Assembly should give the Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Panel the authority to notify the Chief Judge and the District Attorney of a judicial circuit if one or more counties in the circuit is having recurrent problems with inadequate, delayed or incomplete investigations. If this does not correct the problem, the panel should have the authority to request that the GBI provide assistance by assuming the investigative role.
The Panel agrees with this recommendation.
u The Annual Report of the Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Panel should identify important causes of child fatality and recommend specific measures to prevent these deaths. The report should also highlight county-level compliance or non-compliance with the child fatality review process.
The Panel agrees with this recommendation.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (17 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u The Judiciary Committees of the General Assembly should hold an annual hearing to receive the panel's report. This hearing should take place each autumn before the start of the legislative session.
The Panel agrees with this recommendation.
u The General Assembly should provide sufficient funding to prepare and disseminate the Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Panel's annual report. The panel's report should be widely distributed to state and local officials, interested citizens, and the news media.
The Panel agrees with this recommendation.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Department of Medical Assistance: Drug Rebate Program Evaluated: January 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of the Drug Rebate Program is to collect federally mandated rebates from drug manufacturers whose prescription drugs are purchased with state and federal Medicaid funds. The program is administered by the Department of Medical Assistance.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u DMA management has not established a mission or goals and objectives for the Drug Rebate Program. Lacking leadership or direction, the program has evolved into a patchwork of inefficient and ineffective procedures unsuitable for optimizing the collection of drug rebates owed to the state.
The department has established goals including maximizing the collection of drug rebates owed by manufacturers and minimizing the number of drug rebate disputes through accurate and timely invoices and resolving all pending disputes. The department is committed to continue to dedicate the resources necessary to accomplish these goals.
u DMA cannot support the decision to transfer work to EDS either on the basis of cost savings or the benefit of improved program operations.
The Department engaged the consulting firm of Ernst & Young to analyze and identify problems with the current drug rebate system and assist in defining requirements of a new system. Ernst & Young has also been engaged by the Department to study the feasibility of whether a contractor or departmental personnel should operate the new Drug Rebate system.
u DMA does not have a clear contractual basis for holding EDS responsible for substandard work since DMA's contract with EDS does not include many of the Program functions performed by EDS and also lacks the meaningful performance standards for the work which is specified.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (18 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
No response.
u DMA management has not adequately monitored EDS's performance and failed to take effective actions when significant problems have arisen.
DMA has directed EDS to make numerous changes and improvements to the current drug rebate process.
u The program's billing system produces invoices containing large, obvious, and preventable errors which are sent to drug manufacturers without review.
The rebate invoices have been modified to contain three sections. Section I includes the rebate amounts due for the current quarter based on the HCFA tapes; Section II includes any "prior period adjustments" sorted by quarter; and Section III includes an information summary page listing the amount due by quarter. The "remit address" on the invoice has also been changed to a lockbox address in an effort to increase security in collections.
u The Drug Rebate Program's financial records do not follow standard accounting controls and internal controls are inadequate, so the programs records are untrustworthy and the programs assets are unprotected.
The Department's financial reporting unit has contracted with an outside consultant for an analysis (currently in process) of potential improvements in accounting for revenues and receivables.
u The Drug Rebate Program's accounting records cannot provide DMA management with the information necessary to asses the performance of the Drug Rebate Program or to make informed management decisions.
As noted above, DMA has hired an outside consultant to evaluate its accounting procedures and suggest any appropriate changes.
u The program has been ineffective in resolving disputes because disputes have been resolved in a haphazard manner; there is no accurate record of unpaid or disputed balances; and contracted program staff have felt overwhelmed by the number of disputes.
The department is working closely with its contractor to resolve disputes, and has already resolved some of them.
u Program management established a policy that unpaid balances less than $10,000 were not to be pursued, which resulted in the write off of a total of $1.7 million without contacting the manufacturers to determine the basis for their failure to remit payments.
As part of its improvement plan, the DMA will more aggressively pursue manufacturers who do not respond to rebate invoices, and begin charging interest on late payments. Additionally, the DMA will not pay pharmacists for dispensing drugs whose manufacturers are 90 days delinquent in paying rebates.
u The program has not charged drug manufacturers interest on unpaid claims as permitted by federal regulations. As a result, revenue has been lost and manufacturers have no incentive to pay promptly.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (19 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
The changes in invoice and billing procedures include a new procedure for handling late payments and calculating interest due will also become a priority.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Department of Human Resources: Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program Evaluated: January 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program is to decrease morbidity and mortality from breast and cervical cancer by establishing a comprehensive breast and cervical cancer early detection and prevention program for women in Georgia. The program is administered by the Division of Public Health within the Department of Human Resources.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u DHR has recently developed goals and objectives for its Cancer Screening Program. The Department should continue the process by defining performance measures to monitor the effectiveness of screening services.
The Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program will monitor statewide breast and cervical cancer mortality rates yearly. The program will also monitor the stage of diagnosis of women screened by the program who are detected with breast and/or cervical cancer.
u Program personnel should continue efforts to improve the quality of management information used to monitor and manage the Cancer Screening Program.
In April a letter was sent to all health districts from the Branch Director reminding all districts to submit individual client data in a timely manner in order to continue receiving funding. Since that time, data submission has improved significantly and now data are being submitted from all health districts.
u The large number of exceptions to age eligibility criteria granted by some health districts (allowing women with potentially lower cancer risk to receive screening services) dilutes coverage of the Program's "target population" of higher risk women.
Age eligibility criteria are associated only with mammography screening, not with clinical breast examination or Pap smear screening. For mammography screening, the target audience is uninsured, under-insured, low income women 50 years of age or older and women 40-49 who have symptoms suspicious of breast cancer, have a mother/sister who has had breast cancer, and/or have had breast cancer themselves. [The DHR] program does not have large numbers of exceptions for age eligibility. Statewide, the number of women screened less than 50 is 24.7%, in compliance with CDC grant guidelines.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (20 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u Program personnel need to monitor health district effectiveness in reaching their "target populations" to ensure that eligible clients throughout the state have equivalent access to screening services.
The Program agrees with this finding.
u The Program's cancer screening services do not significantly duplicate services offered to low income women through other public, private, or not-for-profit organizations.
The Program agrees with this finding.
u The Program needs to improve controls over payments for diagnostic services provided through the Cervical Cancer Screening Program that are made by the state office.
New control procedures have been put in place to ensure payment is made only for appropriate procedures. District health personnel and state office personnel have been given a list of approved CPT codes and approved Medicare rates. The nursing consultant reviews and approves any exception to the list.
u Program management also needs to improve controls over reimbursements made to health districts for BreasTEST and BreasTEST & MORE Program expenditures.
New procedures are being developed and instituted to improve controls over reimbursements to the districts for cancer screening expenditures. New procedures are being developed with the districts to submit appropriate documentation for the Grant-In-Aid patient benefit expenditures. A quarterly report showing the breakout of the Grant-In-Aid client benefit expenditures by district will be monitored monthly. Wide variances will be addressed with each district by the Program Director.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Department of Human Resources: Cancer State Aid Program Evaluated: January 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of the Cancer State Aid Program is to provide financial assistance to medically indigent patients for the diagnosis and treatment of all types of cancer. These treatment services are intended to extend the lives of indigent cancer patients who otherwise would not have access to care. The program is administered by the Division of Public Health within the Department of Human Resources.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u Cancer Control personnel should continue their strategic planning efforts by developing goals, specific objectives, and performance measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of cancer treatment services provided with state funds.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (21 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
The Cancer State Aid Program has continued its strategic planning process with the development of well-defined goals, objectives and performance measures for FY98 and with the development of a three-year strategic plan. The performance measures include not only the number of patients served and the cost per patient, as [the program is] currently doing, but also other indicators such as those recommended in the review, e.g., survival rates for patients served, cost per patient by facility; and the percentage of the target population served.
u Program personnel need to develop better "management information" to monitor and manage the Cancer State Aid Program.
The Program agrees with this finding.
u Program personnel need to monitor their effectiveness in reaching their "target population" to ensure that Program efforts are focused on providing treatment services to clients that would not otherwise have access to such services.
The Program agrees with this finding.
u Provisions of the law regarding goals for the location of authorized treatment clinics have been met. However, the requirement that a licensed physician administer the Program should be reevaluated.
The Program agrees with this finding.
u Documentation should be maintained to demonstrate that all participating hospitals meet the standards specified in the Program's rules and regulations. In addition, standards are needed for free-standing radiation clinics utilized by the Program.
The Program agrees with this finding.
u The Program needs to ensure that it does not pay for services that are allowable under Medicaid or Medicare.
The policy for Medicare is to cover the deductible and then to consider individually any services that are not covered by Medicare. Medicaid eligibility is checked before CSA approval is given; approval is not given to clients known to be eligible for Medicaid at the time of the application. Medicaid eligibility, however, often takes 6-9 months and then Medicaid often makes the approval retroactive. The program concurs with the need to again check Medicaid eligibility prior to payment of bills.
u The Program needs to develop procedures to maximize the use of free drugs available through patient assistance programs sponsored by drug manufacturers.
The Treatment Subcommittee of the Cancer Advisory Committee will be looking at this issue this year. The Subcommittee will review the Evaluation Report at their September/October meeting and prioritize the issues to be resolved. The Cancer Advisory Committee will determine the feasibility and procedures for maximizing the use of free drugs.
u The Program needs to coordinate its activities with the Indigent Care Trust Fund (ICTF) activities since both
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (22 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
programs provide funding for the same client group of medically indigent cancer patients. The Program should identify if it is filling a "niche' by providing needed assistance to patients that would not otherwise have access to treatment, or merely paying for services that would otherwise be supported through the $524 million Indigent Care Trust Fund Program.
The program made a request through the Public Health liaison person with DMA for a representative from DMA ICTF program to work with the Cancer Advisory Committee, Treatment Subcommittee, regarding this issue. The subcommittee will begin to address this issue at the September/October meeting. Some inherent problems which will need to be addressed are the fact that ICTF activities do not include payment for chemotherapy, radiation, medications, home care and physician services and the fact that the patient financial criteria may be different for each hospital.
u The Program has adequate controls over expenditures to medical facilities and pharmacies since it directly pays these bills after ensuring they are mathematically accurate and sufficiently documented.
The Program agrees with this finding.
u The Program needs to establish maximum reimbursement guidelines for treatment procedures and should better enforce existing reimbursement guidelines for drugs.
A new "medications form" has been established that physicians must complete and submit to the program before any medication is approved for patients needing cancer medications from a private pharmacy. Hospitals providing medications must comply with the Rules and Regulations of the Program.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Gifted Education Evaluated: September 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of Gifted Education is to provide special services to K-12 students who have demonstrated a high degree of intelligence, academic achievement, creativity or motivation. These services should enable gifted students to achieve at levels commensurate with their abilities. The program is administered by the Department of Education.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u Although the Department appears to recognize the need, there is no information available or procedures existing by which to gauge the overall performance of Georgia's gifted education program or to ensure that Georgia's gifted and talented students receive benefits beyond being identified (and labeled) as "gifted."
DOE does not believe it is appropriate to mandate the goals and objectives of local gifted programs. The Department does monitor districts' adherence to the requirements of state law and State Board of Education rules
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (23 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
related to gifted education, including the submission of local program descriptions. DOE believes that it is primarily the responsibility of local systems to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs so they can be modified to better meet the needs of their students. The Department is committed, however, to providing the technical assistance local educators need to evaluate instructional programs.
u Although auditors were unable to review the methodology used in developing Georgia's "new" multiple eligibility criteria, the criteria appear to be consistent with recent national recommendations for identifying gifted and talented youth.
DOE agrees and notes that its efforts in the area of multiple eligibility criteria have gained national recognition.
u The recent implementation of multiple eligibility criteria should result in the identification of gifted and talented students who might not otherwise be identified to be served through Georgia's gifted education program. However, the benefits afforded by the new criteria may be limited as a result of several impediments: a) the lack of accepted assessment instruments in the "creativity" and "motivation" categories, b)questionable validity of GPA as an indicator of motivation, c) lack of technical assistance and guidelines for evaluating products and performances, which may qualify a student in the "achievement," "creativity," and "motivation" categories.
Since the audit, DOE has proposed revisions that would expand the instruments for assessing "creativity." DOE has also proposed a change in the wording of the GPA option in the motivation category which will allow districts to set (in their local administrative procedures) the GPA cut-off at that point achieved by no more than 10% of their students, as they will be advised to do in the regulations in the revised Resource Manual for Gifted Education Services. Other proposed revisions clarify the requirements which should be met by any individual who evaluates students' products or performances for the purpose of determining gifted program eligibility. Since the audit, DOE has increased training in assessment and programming practices for Georgia's gifted students.
u Georgia's gifted and talented students may not benefit significantly from the gifted education program unless gifted education services are sufficiently differentiated and targeted to the specific areas of giftedness.
DOE disagree with the audit report's implied finding that insufficient attention has been paid to the development of appropriately varied and differentiated program options. Since the audit, DOE has provided workshops, manuals, and administrative procedures that encourage districts to provide multiple program options.
u Additional operating guidelines, standards and criteria should be established for the Facilitator Delivery Model, which may not be providing gifted students with the appropriate level of educational services.
DOE agrees and has proposed revisions to SBOE Rule 160-4-2-.38 that would eliminate the Facilitator Model as it is now practiced.
u The implementation of multiple eligibility criteria will increase the number of students eligible for participation in the gifted education program, which will result in additional State expenditures under the existing QBE funding mechanism. Unlike other states with multiple eligibility criteria, Georgia has no means to programmatically control the magnitude of total gifted education program expenditures.
DOE disagree with the audit report's implied finding that insufficient attention has been paid to the development of appropriately varied and differentiated program options. Since the audit, DOE has provided workshops, manuals, and administrative procedures that encourage districts to provide multiple program options.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (24 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u Local school systems are required to meet certain criteria to receive full-time equivalent (FTE) funding at the gifted weight. However, the Department does not make any effort to ensure that the criteria are met or to verify the reported FTE student data upon which the gifted funding is based.
DOE does not have sufficient staff to conduct extensive on-site monitoring, but it requires stringent documentation of gifted services and conducts numerous workshops to instruct teachers and administrators on identification and reporting guidelines.
u There are no substantial impediments that prevent students who meet the gifted program's eligibility criteria from receiving gifted program services.
The Agency agrees with this finding.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Department of Education: Georgia Learning Resources System Evaluated: June 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of the Georgia Learning Resources System (GLRS) is to offer support services to educators and parents of students with disabilities. A network of 17 GLRS regional centers provides training and information, specialized instructional materials, identification and referral services, and assistance in developing individualized educational programs. The program is administered by the Department of Education (DOE).
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u The GLRS service delivery method, which utilizes 17 autonomous regional centers, does not effectively or efficiently address the needs associated with the education of disabled students in the current educational environment. DOE should reassess the educational needs of disabled students to determine the services needed and an optimal method of providing those services.
DOE believes that the Georgia Code requires the number of GLRSs and the specific service areas to be the same as Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs). Based on this interpretation, the First District RESA and the Metro RESA should meet with the local school systems within their service area and review the existing structure to determine the need for having two GLRS centers within their service areas.
u DOE has not provided the GLRS Centers with oversight and guidance. Specific goals, objectives, and outcome measures to monitor GLRS activities and to demonstrate the benefits and associated costs resulting from operation of the individual GLRS Centers are needed.
Each GLRS will devote 40 percent of its time to state activities. The remaining 60 percent of the resources
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (25 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
allocated to each GLRS area will be determined by the local school systems receiving service. These services will be identified with appropriate budget narratives and summaries and methods of evaluating outcomes. In addition, the GLRS Network is developing a method of evaluating its training activities that will measure their benefits to educators and parents of disabled students. These measures will be piloted during FY98 and fully implemented in FY99.
u The Department has not ensured that the output data it receives from the GLRS Centers is accurate and needs additional output data to monitor and guide program activities
No response.
u The GLRS Program's funding allocation is not equitable because it is based on providing a staff of three in each of the 17 GLRS Centers and is not related to the workload at the Centers.
DOE has devised a funding formula that allocates resources to GLRS centers based on the number of students in a service area.
u The GLRS centers need to coordinate their training and information services statewide. In particular, a single consolidated "lending library" of instructional materials should replace the small libraries currently operated at each of the 17 GLRS centers.
As of FY98, GLRS centers will be grouped into five larger regions to enhance communication and planning. DOE intends to work with GLRS to develop methods for sharing expertise and for providing services across regions. During FY98, DOE will examine the most effective way to house and distribute library materials.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
University System of Georgia Auxiliary Enterprise Programs Evaluated: March 1997 by Department of Audits
The purpose of Auxiliary Enterprise Programs is to provide goods and services to students and faculty. The types of enterprises operated by the programs include bookstores, dormitories, and cafeterias. The programs are administered by the colleges and universities of the University System of Georgia.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u The Board of Regents should take steps to ensure that schools' Auxiliary Enterprise Programs are providing the best possible services while charging the lowest possible fees consistent with their financial objectives. Although schools' auxiliary enterprises generate annual revenues of approximately $229 million, schools are not required to prepare formal business plans documenting their financial objectives.
The Board of Regents concurs with this finding and has taken several steps to address the issue. These steps
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (26 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
include hiring a consultant to study fee differences between institutions initiating, an internal audit, and requiring that institutions develop business plans for their auxiliary enterprises.
u Action should be taken to more clearly define the role of the Central Office for monitoring the operation of schools Auxiliary Enterprise Programs. Although the Board has adopted specific policies governing schools' Auxiliary Enterprise Programs, the Programs operate with minimal oversight by the Central Office.
Because of staffing limitations, the Board feels it is unrealistic for the Central Office to manage the local auxiliary enterprises.
u Consideration should be given to revising the method for determining the dollar amount that schools are required to reserve each year for renewal and replacement of their auxiliary enterprise facilities and equipment.
The opinion of the Board is that it would be best to establish reserve requirements within the context of individual institutional business plans. The board does acknowledge, however, that some clarification of the 5% guideline may be appropriate.
u The Board of Regents should consider requiring schools to establish specific goals for having all of their major auxiliary enterprises operate on a self sustaining basis.
As part of the responses to item 1, institutions will be required to produce financial statements based on defensible assumptions regarding enrollments, costs, and reserve expenses in support of any proposal to increase fees.
u The Board of Regents should consider requiring schools to establish specific goals for having all of their major auxiliary enterprises operate on a self-sustaining basis.
The Board concurs with this statement, but also recognizes the need for flexibility in this policy in order to accommodate programs that offer services that benefit students but are not self sustaining.
u Action should be taken to ensure that schools rebid their auxiliary enterprise contracts on a periodic basis. Reviews of 53 contacts at 12 schools identified that 19 had not been rebid for six to 20 years.
The Board concurs and has instructed Institutions to review their current contracts and revise them as needed. Compliance will be closely monitored.
u The Central Office should ensure that schools' Auxiliary Enterprise Programs are charged their fair share of the indirect costs incurred by schools to operate the programs.
The Board concurs with this finding and plans to use the internal auditing process to deal with this issue.
u The Central Office should more carefully review schools' auxiliary enterprise budgets to verify that they are based on reasonable expectations.
The Board intends to require institutions to submit financial statements annually in order to encourage greater
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (27 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
care in the development of revenue and expenditure projections.
u The Board of Regents should establish specific guidelines regarding schools use of Major Repair and Rehabilitation funds for their auxiliary enterprise facilities.
Current Board policy does not allow Major Repair and Rehabilitation funds to be used on auxiliary enterprises. Enforcement of this policy is expected to increase as a result of new leadership in the facilities office.
u The Central Office should require schools to follow uniform procedures in accounting for and reporting on the financial performance of their Auxiliary Enterprise programs.
Institutions' accounting practices are governed by Board policy and Central Office procedures. Compliance with these policies will be monitored through the audit process.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Department of Revenue: Unclaimed Property Program Evaluated: January 1997 by Department of Audits
The Unclaimed Property Program seeks to recover, safeguard, and allow the State to benefit from the retention of unclaimed property until it can be returned to its rightful owners. The program is administered by the Department of Revenue.
Summary of Findings and Agency Response (in italics)
u Management information necessary to properly administer the Act is often inaccurate, incomplete or nonexistent.
Commissioner Jackson has approved a new computer system which is the key element to rectifying this deficiency. [The agency] will now have the resource to develop new applications and complete or modify existing applications for compiling information to better administer the Act.
u The program should develop appropriate budgetary controls over unclaimed property funds.
A unique budgetary code has been assigned to the program. On July 1, 1997, the Assistant Director of the Property Tax Division began giving the Program Manager a weekly summary of budget activity detailing all expenditures by date, FPO#, object code, description, and amount.
u To ensure that the Program is funded as needed to properly administer the Unclaimed Property Act, the Department should better manage the unclaimed property funds retained for Program operations. Proper administration of the Act would help serve to maximize the amount of unclaimed property recovered by the State
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (28 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
and returned to the rightful owners.
All program-operation expenditures are justified and approved by the Unclaimed Property Manager.
u Georgia's overall recovery of unclaimed property is comparable to other states surveyed. However, as addressed in the remaining findings of this section, improvements in this area could be realized.
The program has added two desk/compliance auditors to its staff.
u The program should enter into reciprocal agreements with other states.
The property exchanges, the initial step in reciprocal agreements will begin in August 1997. Formal reciprocal agreements will not be pursued until the implementation of the new computer system is completed in March 1998.
u Allowing holders to submit unclaimed property reports to the Program in a computer media format would benefit holders, the Unclaimed Property Program, and the actual owners of unclaimed property. However, past efforts by the Program to accept holders' unclaimed property reports electronically failed because of improper planning and implementation. As a result, 180,000 owners of unclaimed property totaling about $5 million over a three-year period and does not currently benefit from the advantages afforded by electronic submission of holders' reports.
On June 9, 1997, Commissioner Jackson approved [DOR's] proposal for a new computer system to be used exclusively by the Unclaimed Property Section. The unclaimed property application will be converted by April 1998. [The DOR] goal is to implement the NAUPA electronic filing standards by December 1998.
u The Program does not have adequate internal controls and procedures over the tangible unclaimed property remitted by holders.
A new security system has been designed by CardKey Systems and will be installed by September 1997. In the interim, written procedures have been developed and copies distributed to personnel who will regularly be entering the security area.
u The program does not have adequate internal controls and procedures over intangible unclaimed property remitted in the form of checks by holders.
Check amounts are compared to reported amounts upon receipt of the report. The checks from the reports are deposited daily.
u In order for the state to receive the maximum benefit of using unclaimed property funds until such funds are claimed, tangible property and securities should be converted into cash in a more timely manner. In addition, the Program should do a better job of notifying the public prior to sales of tangible property.
[DOR is] placing more emphasis on turning the tangible items to the owners or their families instead of preparing the contents for future auctions. Since taking this approach, [DOR has] had great success in reuniting these items with the rightful owners. A policy for liquidation of securities is being developed and will be presented to Commissioner Jackson September 1, 1997.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (29 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u Although one of the goals of the Unclaimed Property Act is to reunite lost owners with property that is rightfully theirs, the Program is not making a reasonable attempt to locate owners of unclaimed property. In addition, the attempts that were initiated during [the] evaluation were inadequately implemented.
The Unclaimed Property Section began a major ad campaign the week of September 16, 1996. Owners names from 1989 through 1995 were advertised in each county throughout the state. [The DOR] goal for percentage of accounts returned to owners for FY 1998 is 20%. FY 1999 is 28% and FY 2000 is 35%.
(Return to Top) (Return to Index)
Department of Administrative Services: Telecommunications Program Evaluated: August 1997 by Governor's Office of Planning and Budget
In 1973, the Georgia General Assembly passed the "Telecommunications Consolidation Act" centralizing state government telecommunications programs under the Department of Administrative Services. The purpose for consolidation was to have more effective and efficient telecommunications services in state government and to achieve maximum efficiency in the utilization of those telecommunications services.
Summary of Findings: Agency Response:
u DOAS' Telecommunications Program is providing needed telecommunications services to customer agencies on a statewide basis.
No response.
u The Program does not have adequate goals, objectives, or performance measures in place for state telecommunications; however, the establishment of the Information Technology Policy Council should help facilitate that statewide.
DOAS is currently developing automated support systems for task management and status reporting. Specific measurement modules are being incorporated into these systems. Performance measurement elements and methods are being developed with input from customers, employees and service providers. In view of the large amount of work that is outsourced by DOAS/IT, it is recognized that development and maintenance of performance measures is critical to operate efficiently.
u DOAS is using technology comparable to other large organizations.
No response.
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (30 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
u The Program should examine the status of its TCP/IP networks.
In early 1997 an extensive study of the TCP/IP network design, operation, and support was undertaken. Assistance from Georgia Tech was obtained to provide a detailed study of the network and to make recommendations for changes to improve service and support. Work has begun on one of the first recommendations which was to replace the concentrator routers at the hub sites with equipment designed to handle large volumes of data and customers. In early 1998, 58 smaller hub routers will be replaced with eight large hub routers greatly reducing the configurations and the complexity of the network. Another initiative is the positioning of the Capitol Hill fiber network to enhance service to Capitol customers allowing for high speed communications across the fiber links to mainframe systems and to the Internet. The connection from the TCP/IP network to the Internet is being increased from a single T1 to multiple T1's from separate providers for increased throughput and reliability.
u The Program has taken a progressive step in combining the former Telecommunications and Computer Services Divisions into the new Information Technology Services.
The reorganization of DOAS was announced September 1996. A new entity was formed to handle the Telecommunications and Computer Services business of state government. This new entity, Information Technology, is structured to address the technology convergence that is occurring in the voice, data and video technologies.
u The Program should establish a systematic plan for upgrading the technology used by state agencies.
DOAS has implemented a Budget Committee made up of senior executives within major DOAS programs. The former telecommunications program, now included in IT, has a representative that must bring all major capital expenditures to this committee with justification. This committee will enable DOAS to set more broad and long range spending plans throughout the entire organization. As the first half of FY98 is approaching, this method of developing spending priorities appears to be working well.
u The Program has privatized most of its operations.
No response.
u DOAS should explore the feasibility of converting its accounting basis for the Telecommunications Program to an internal service fund and establishing a capital reserve to finance needed capital improvements.
DOAS agrees with this finding and is prepared to pursue this recommendation.
u The Program should revise its internal accounting record keeping to capture more accurate cost information on the individual services provided to agency customers and revise its billing rates to reflect recovery of those costs.
DOAS agrees with this finding. One of the actions of the September 1996 reorganization was to establish a centralized rate section. DOAS is implementing an Activity Based Costing system for DOAS. Activity Based Costing is the service industry view of implementing cost accounting. Each and every service will be analyzed based on the resources it consumes. These "activities" are the justification used to more accurate allocate costs across and large and complex organization such as DOAS. The ABC system will be used to allocate overhead costs
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (31 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:18 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
in a consistent and equitable way. Additionally, the ABC data will allow DOAS to set billing rates with better cost data since costs will be more accurate than traditional expense data.
u The Program should consider eliminating its practice of applying fluctuating discount rates to agencies' monthly GIST bills to satisfy overall cash needs.
This recommendation had already been implemented before this study was completed. Historically, DOAS did adjust the monthly GIST rates according to the actual expenditures of that particular month. Depending on call volumes and expenses, the amount of the discount from market rates could vary by as much as 20%. Since September 1996, the discount from market rate fluctuated from 44% to 55% with an average of 49% for these months. During FY98, the discount rate has been set at 55% for the entire fiscal year. This rate will hold constant throughout the fiscal year barring unforeseen events that would justify any adjustment.
u The Program must address the GSAMS Fund level.
Since all monies that were available through the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Act of 1992 have been depleted or allocated, it is hoped that the Universal Service Fund (USF) will bring discounts for a large number of GSAMS users. However, at this time no firm implementation date has been established for these discounts. In addition, there remains the need to serve the many areas of Georgia that do not have resources locally and would benefit greatly from GSAMS access to educational and medical resources, as well as the opportunity for economic growth. There is no proposed funding allocated for future installations. One aspect of the strategic planning initiative will be to identify potential funding sources for future growth of the capacity.
u The Program has received generally good ratings on customer satisfaction surveys, but must aim for higher scores as a service agency.
Plans for the future include development of surveys based on specific service agreements, cards for customers to fill out when service is rendered, and development of interactive Web Page feedback to monitor large projects while the work is underway rather than waiting until the project is finished.
u Survey information shows some portions of the Program effectively communicate with their customers; however, some situations can be improved.
A central Help Desk approach was recommended by a DOAS business process Design Team to facilitate repair reporting and providing status. [DOAS has] made significant progress in providing status on work requests and repair requests and anticipate new automated process and support systems will substantially improve the process.
BROC Research Office
206 Legislative Office Building 18 Capitol Square Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 657-4600
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (32 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:19 AM]

1997 Annual Report from the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Content by the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee Research Office Kevin Fillion, Director
Return to BROC Index
http://www2.state.ga.us/broc/97annl.html (33 of 33) [1/17/2003 8:21:19 AM]