2001 annual report

BROC Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
2001 ANNUAL REPORT
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY STATE OF GEORGIA

2001 Members of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Senator George Hooks, Co-Chair and Chair of Senate Appropriations Committee Senator Nathan Dean, Chair of Senate Finance and Public Utilities Committee Senator Jack Hill, Chair of Higher Education Committee Senator Terrell Starr, President Pro Tempore Senator David Scott, Chair of Senate Rules Committee Senator Charles W. Walker, Majority Leader
Representative Terry L. Coleman, Co-Chair and Chair of House Appropriations Committee Representative Tom Buck, Chair of House Ways and Means Committee Representative Butch Parrish, Chair of House Banks & Banking Committee Representative Calvin Smyre, Chair of House Rules Committee Representative Ralph Twiggs, Chair of Transportation Committee Representative Larry Walker, Majority Leader
BROC Research Office Staff
Kevin Fillion, Director Erik Kind, Deputy Director Sarah Spaulding, Senior Performance Evaluator Fred Miller, Performance Evaluator Glynnell Lewis, Office Manager
Phone: 404.657.4600 Fax: 404.657.4606
Email: glewis@legis.state.ga.us Internet Address:
http://www.broc.state.ga.us

January 2002
Chairman's Report to Members of the General Assembly and the Governor:
The State of Georgia continues to be one of nine states with a triple A bond rating from the three major rating agencies. We have had this excellent rating since 1998. The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee continues to do its part in helping the state to maintain this rating by reviewing and evaluating the state programs that make up the $15 billion budget.
During calendar year 2001, we continued our efforts to evaluate programs around a common theme. We have requested and received from the State Auditor seven program evaluation reports on peace officer training. Additionally, we are now requesting that the State Auditor review and evaluate the ResultsBased Budgeting Goals and Desired Results of each program on the annual BROC list.
The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee commends the staff from the Department of Audits and Accounts for their invaluable aid to the committee during 2001.
The BROC Research staff continues to oversee the program evaluation process and answer specific BROC questions. Our staff developed a new format for their work. The one-page question and answer sheet provides the committee with succinct information directly related to the budget.
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. This annual report is a full accounting of the activities of the committee during the last calendar year.
Summaries of the reports produced for BROC are included for your review. If you desire the full report, please contact our staff.
Sincerely,
George Hooks Senator, District 14 2001 Chair, Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Selected sections of the Budget Accountability and Planning Act of 1993 .... 1
2001 Evaluation List
Youth Challenge Academy .................................................................................. 5 Driver Examiners..................................................................................................7 Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Certified State Employees .............9 Peace Officer Standards and Training Council Results Based Budgeting and Organization.........................................................10 An Assessment of the Georgia Police Academy's Results-Based Budget Goals and Desired Results ...............................................11 A Review of Specific Aspects of the Regional Police Academies ........................12 Georgia Public Safety Training Center ................................................................13 Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund .......................................................14 Georgia Community Policing Institute ................................................................15 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program ......................................................17 School Health Nurse Program ............................................................................19 TANF Funding Evaluation..................................................................................20 Undergraduate Medical Education Funding ........................................................22 USG Institution Funding.....................................................................................25 Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles..................................................................27 Daily Offender Cost............................................................................................28 New Programs 2003...........................................................................................30 SAT Score Improvement Program......................................................................31 Drinking Water Contract Fee Schedule...............................................................33
2000 Evaluation List
Adult Protective Services ...................................................................................37 Indigent Care Trust Fund....................................................................................40

2001 Annual Report
BROC

Selected sections of the Budget Accountability and Planning Act of 1993: Code Section 28-5-5: (a) There is created the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee which shall be composed of six members
of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and six members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate. The members of such committee shall be selected within ten days after the convening of the General Assembly in each odd-numbered year and shall serve until their successors are appointed. (b) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint a member of the committee to serve as chairperson and the President of the Senate shall appoint members of the committee to serve as vice chairperson and secretary during each even-numbered year. The President of the Senate shall appoint a member of the committee to serve as chairperson and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint members to serve as vice chairperson and secretary during each odd-numbered year. Such committee shall meet at least six times each year and, upon the call of the chairperson, at such additional times as deemed necessary by the chairperson. (c) It shall be the duty of such committee to consult with the Governor and the Office of Planning and Budget concerning the development and implementation of the strategic planning process, the development of outcome measures for program evaluation, and the implementation of related actions. (d) It shall be the duty of such committee to review and evaluate the following: (1) Information on new programs submitted in accordance with Code Section 45-12-88; (2) The continuation budget report submitted in accordance with Code Section 45-12-75.1; (3) The strategic plans for the state and individual departments submitted by the Office of Planning and
Budget; (4) Program evaluation reports submitted in accordance with Code Section 45-12-178; (5) Information or reports to be submitted by the Office of Planning and Budget identifying moneys received
and purposes for which moneys are expended in any case in which the receipt or expenditure is not contemplated by an appropriations Act; and (6) Such other information or reports as deemed necessary by such committee. (e) The Office of Planning and Budget and the head of each budget unit shall cooperate with such committee and provide such information or reports as requested by the committee for the performance of its functions. (f) The committee shall make an annual report of its activities and findings to the membership of the General Assembly and the Governor within one week of the convening of each regular session of the General Assembly. The chairperson of the committee shall deliver written executive summaries of such report to the members of the General Assembly prior to the adoption of the General Appropriations Act each year. (g) The members of the committee shall receive the allowances authorized for legislative members of legislative committees. The funds necessary to pay such allowances shall come from funds appropriated to the House of Representatives and the Senate. (h) The committee shall be authorized to request that a performance audit be conducted for any department which the committee deems necessary.

Code Section 45-12-75.1: (a) On or before October 1 of 1994 and each year thereafter, the Governor, through the Office of Planning and
Budget, shall prepare and submit to the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee a continuation budget report. On or before May 1 of 1994 and every year thereafter, the Governor, through the Office of Planning and Budget, shall consult and coordinate with the chairperson of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee to develop a list of agencies and programs in agencies which will be included in the continuation budget report for the year. Each state department shall be included in the continuation budget report not less than once every five years. The continuation budget report shall contain a detailed analysis of the funds necessary to provide services in the current fiscal year for each state agency and program examined. Such report shall address all programs and shall include a description of the purposes and accomplishments of the programs. (b) The committee shall consider the budget report prepared pursuant to this Code section in conjunction with the audit report prepared pursuant to paragraph (4) of Code Section 50-6-24. (c) The committee shall submit to the membership of the General Assembly within one week of the convening of each regular session of the General Assembly a list of all programs included in the continuation budget report for each department examined as well as actions recommended, if any, by the committee. (d) It is the intent of this Code section to examine all state departments not less than once every five years.

BROC Research

1

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Code Section 45-12-88: When any budget unit has plans to institute any new program, it shall be the duty of the head of such unit to furnish to the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee, on September 1 prior to the convening date of the session at which appropriations to finance such program are to be sought, a description of the program, the reason for seeking to institute such program, the operating procedure of such program, the manner in which it conforms to the organization's strategic plan as well as the state strategic plan, the extent to which the facilities and staff to implement or provide the program will be decentralized, and any other information which would be helpful to the members of the committee in determining whether or not to appropriate funds therefor. The members shall also be furnished with the projected cost to implement the program fully.
Code Section 45-12-178: (a) It is the intent of the Governor and the General Assembly that taxpayers' money be spent in the most effective
and efficient manner possible in order to obtain the maximum benefit from such expenditures. In furtherance of this objective, the Governor, through the Office of Planning and Budget, shall assist the General Assembly in establishing an ongoing review and evaluation of all programs and functions in state government. (b) The chairperson of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee shall maintain a list of those programs for which the committee is requesting evaluations. The chairperson shall provide the list, and any subsequent revisions to the list, to the director of the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and to the state auditor. (c) The Office of Planning and Budget, the Department of Audits and Accounts, and the Research Office of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee shall undertake and complete evaluations on as many of those requested programs as resources will permit. The Office of Legislative Budget Analyst, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, and all other state agencies are authorized and directed to provide assistance to the Office of Planning and Budget, the Department of Audits and Accounts, and the Research Office of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee, as requested, in the performance of these evaluations. The Office of Planning and Budget, the Department of Audits and Accounts, and the Research Office of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee are also authorized to contract with private contractors to perform, or assist in the performance of, these evaluations. (d) The Office of Planning and Budget, the Department of Audits and Accounts, and the Research Office of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee shall report to the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee on the results of program evaluations as such evaluations are completed. Such reports shall include: (1) Appropriate background information on the affected program, including how and why it was initiated, its
functions, what group it serves, how it is organized structurally and geographically, what are its staff size and composition, and what is its workload; (2) Financial information including the source and amounts of funding and unit costs, where applicable; (3) A description of the program's mission, goals, and objectives and an assessment of the extent to which the program has performed in comparison; (4) Comparisons with other applicable public and private entities as to their experiences, service levels, costs, and staff resources required; (5) Recommendations concerning the program, including whether it should be continued as it is currently operated, continued with identified steps to remediate deficiencies or institute improvements, or discontinued. Consideration should also be given to possible privatization or consolidation with other similar programs; (6) Information describing the locations at which the program is operated and administered and the extent to which the operation and administration could be decentralized; and (7) Such other information as is identified as appropriate. (e) It is the intent of the General Assembly that all programs be evaluated at least every ten years. (f) Department heads shall respond, in writing, within 90 days of the receipt of the report to recommendations and findings by the Office of Planning and Budget or the Department of Audits and Accounts setting forth in detail the action to be taken by said department to address the recommendations and findings. Said written response shall be made to the Office of Planning and Budget, the Department of Audits and Accounts, and the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee. (g) The Research Office of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee shall verify with state departments the implementation of the departments' plans set forth in their 90 day responses as submitted in accordance with subsection (f) of this Code section. The Research Office shall inform the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee about each department's progress at reasonable intervals.

2

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
2001 Evaluation List

BROC Research

3

2001 Annual Report
BROC

Status Report for the 2001 Evaluation List

Title Youth Challenge Academy Driver Examiners Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Certified State Employees Peace Officer Standards and Training Council Results Based Budgeting and Organization An Assessment of the Georgia Police Academy's Results-Based Budget Goals and Desired Results A Review of Specific Aspects of the Regional Police Academies Georgia Public Safety Training Center Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund Georgia Community Policing Institute Erosion and Sedimentation Control School Health Nurse Program TANF Funding Evaluation Undergraduate Medical Education Funding USG Institution Funding Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles Daily Offender Cost New Programs 2003
SAT Score Improvement Program Public Water Systems' Drinking Water Contract Fee Analysis of Agency Overtime Practices
Conveyance of State Property
Bond Funded Projects

Assigned to Audits Audits Audits
Audits

Status of Report A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page.
A summary follows this page.

Audits

A summary follows this page.

Audits

A summary follows this page.

Audits Audits

A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page.

Audits Audits BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research

A summary follows this page A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page.

BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research
BROC Research BROC Research

A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page.
A summary follows this page. A summary follows this page.

BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research

See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this report. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this report. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this report.

4

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Youth Challenge Academy
Evaluated: August 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The purpose of the Youth Challenge Academy is to provide Georgia's high school dropouts with academic and life skills training aimed at improving employment potential and creating productive citizens. The academy, which is operated by the Georgia National Guard of the Department of Defense, has two facilities in Georgia. One facility is located in Fort Stewart (Hinesville) and was established in 1993 and the other facility is located at Fort Gordon (Augusta) and was established in September 2000.
Summary of Findings:
The Academy should take the steps necessary to establish an effective method of tracking graduates in order to evaluate its effectiveness in fulfilling the mission.
The Academy has adequate measures for determining its success in meeting the objectives of the residential phase of the program.
The Academy cannot ensure the reliability of the information found in the CHAMEIS database, due to limited computer controls.
The Results Based Budgeting (RBB) goals and objectives are not adequate to determine whether the Academy is successful in accomplishing its mission.
Action should be taken to ensure that students who do not receive a GED are adequately prepared to succeed following graduation.
Agency Response:
Student mentors are volunteers from across the state. Various methods have been attempted to collect information concerning the post-residential student. These include postcards, e-mail, and telephone calls. The telephone calls have been the most successful to date, but these calls are made with great difficulty. The National Guard Bureau has recognized the need to staff the Challenge Programs with caseworkers to track the students through the mentoring phase. Caseworker positions have been authorized at the academies, but not funded at any state except Arkansas where they have been very successful at gathering post-residential data from the mentors. Hopefully, this success will result in funding for case managers at all Challenge locations. Originally, a stipend was available to graduating students. The $2,200 amount was intended to be used in securing employment or in furthering education. Georgia terminated the student stipend during a reduction of federal funds in 1995 in order to maintain the same number of students enrolled. Never was the student stipend intended to be used as a reward for reporting post-residential information. Challenge staff does not have access to the records of DOL, DTAE, DOE, or DOC to track students after graduation.
The tracking of student success during the residential phase is accomplished through a computer-based database furnished by Social Consultants, Inc. Many improvements have been made to this software over the past six years. Another upgrade to the system is scheduled in the fall of 2001.

BROC Research

5

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Youth Challenge Academy (continued)
Evaluated: August 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
Currently, the CHAMEIS information and database are limited to the two computers in a single office. Two people enter all information into this database. The new upgrade to this system will enable CHAMEIS to be accessed by virtually all computers in the complex. Each functional area, i.e., medical, counselor, teacher, cadre, operations, admissions, will be able to manipulate the data in their domain. This will require specific authorizations, codes and passwords, which are currently under development. The anticipated upgrade to Windows NT/2000 will allow these protections.
Youth Challenge Academy will incorporate additional measurable goals into the next submission of results based budgeting goals.
National standards for the Youth Challenge Academies deem attainment of the GED as paramount to their future success. To this end, students who struggle with attainment of the GED are afforded more and more time to work on GED as the residential phase progresses. This additional GED time is, however, given at the expense of job shadowing or technical college coursework for employment. The few students who ultimately do not achieve the DED are referred to Job Corps and encouraged to continue their education and GED work at Job Corps. These students are also given information on how to continue GED work in their local communities through the local literacy teachers.

6

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Driver Examiners
Evaluated: November 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
In July 2001, Driver Examiners responsible for issuing new or renewal drivers' licenses were moved from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to the newly created Department of Motor Vehicle Safety (DMVS). In calendar year 2001, Driver Examiners issued over 2.3 million documents. Licensing sites included 26 renewal sites, 40 testing sites, 10 reinstatement/testing sites, sites visited by 11 Travel Teams, and 1 Georgia Licenses on Wheels (GLOW) mobile testing unit. The fees associated with these issuances totaled approximately $40 million, which was remitted to the State Treasury. Fiscal year 2001 expenditures for the drivers' licensing function totaled $23.8 million; of this amount $18.6 million (78%) was for personal services.
Summary of Findings:
During the evaluation, the newly created Department of Motor Vehicle Safety acknowledged the need for action to reduce the long lines present at some of the testing facilities. In addition to workload factors addressed in subsequent findings, the long lines also appear to be influenced by inadequate testing facilities and problems with equipment.
Based on information collected by the evaluation team, Georgia's overall workload per examiner ranked 22nd out of 41 states. However, Georgia's workload has seasonal peaks that are as much as 55% higher than seasonal lows and the current distribution of staff has resulted in excessive workloads at some facilities while the staff at other facilities appear to be underutilized.
A salary survey by the Merit System in May 2000 found that the average salary of driver examiners in Georgia was 7.7% (Driver Examiner 2) to 13.9% (Driver Examiner 1) lower than the average salaries of examiners in other Southeastern states.
While comparable figures on Driver Examiner turnover in other states were not available, Georgia's Driver Examiner 1 turnover rate of over 30% is high. Region Chiefs and examiners attributed the high turnover to low pay, stress, and heavy workloads. The Region Chiefs also thought that the career ladder needed more steps and that it took too long to promote employees to Driver Examiner Chief.
A stringent screening process for hiring new Driver Examiners appeared to make it difficult to fill vacant positions. As of June 2001, 17 (21%) of the Program's 82 Driver Examiner 1 positions were vacant.
While there were no indications of any serious problems at driver license facilities, security measures at some facilities need to be strengthened before problems occur. The security measures in place at the facilities visited by the evaluation team varied widely and a significant proportion of the Region Chiefs and examiners felt that better security measures were needed.
There is little difference between security measures at testing sites located at Georgia State Patrol barracks and security measures at other sites; however, examiners did indicate that they felt that the close proximity of State Troopers seemed to reduce unruly behavior by customers.

BROC Research

7

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Driver Examiners (continued)
Evaluated: November 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
Although there have been no reported security problems involving cash deposits, better training on the safest methods of making deposits is needed and a risk assessment should be performed to identify additional locations, which collect large amounts of cash, that might justify the use of a courier service for deposits. Additional safes are also needed to better safeguard the petty cash kept by the examiners.
While Travel Team visits to some counties may be justified, the General Assembly may wish to consider changing the requirement of having driving tests offered at least once a month in each county. A majority of the residents of the counties served by Travel Teams are going to permanent sites to get service, and the resources devoted to some Travel Teams could be used better elsewhere.
Agency Response:
Response due March 14, 2002

8

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Certified State Employees
Evaluated: August 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (POST) was established in 1970 by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Act. The mission of POST is to provide the citizens of Georgia with qualified, professionally trained, ethical and competent peace officers and criminal justice professionals. POST has the responsibility for establishing certification requirements for state and local law enforcement officers and administering their certification.
Summary of Findings:
POST has not established a system for classifying peace officer certifications; however, POST has specific individual certifications that provide for equivalent flexibility regarding minimum training requirements for POST certification.
POST has not developed guidelines to help state agencies determine the appropriateness of requiring POST certification for particular jobs since existing laws defining law enforcement agencies and the responsibilities of a peace officer appear to provide sufficient guidance.
The state has 15,882 employees in 388 job titles with 59 agencies/entities that are required to be POST certified (as of June 30, 2000). Salary range information and staffing information for each of the job titles is included in Appendix C of this report.
The cost involved with obtaining POST certification for state employees is primarily a function of the training time required. A review of entry-level certification costs for the seven state agencies that employed over 90% of state employees in positions that required POST certification found that the cost to certify employees for these positions ranged from $2,806 to $49,017. (The cost per training hour ranged from $17.92 to $36.35.)
Individual state agencies evaluate and select law enforcement equipment that meet their requirements for issue to their personnel. For the most common types of purchases, the Department of Administrative Service (DOAS) consolidates agency preferences into statewide contracts that are competitively bid annually. In addition, some agencies develop agency contracts for items that are not on statewide contracts, and agencies must seek competitive bids for purchases over $5,000 that are not on previously existing statewide or agency contracts.
Agency Response:
POST Council agrees.

BROC Research

9

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Peace Officer Standards and Training Council Results Based Budgeting and Organization
Evaluated: July 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The mission of the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council is to provide the citizens of Georgia with qualified, professionally trained, ethical and competent peace officers and criminal justice professionals. To achieve its mission, the Council is responsible for certifying and regulating peace officers and other various public safety personnel and establishing minimum training standards and curriculum for these personnel. In addition, POST certifies training facilities, instructors, and training academy directors across the state.
Summary of Findings:
As they are currently worded, the POST Council's fiscal year 2002 results-based budgeting (RBB) desired results measures are not good indicators of its effectiveness. At the request of the evaluation team, POST and the Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) met during the evaluation to clarify the desired results for fiscal year 2003 to better measure the Council's effectiveness and to ensure the correct data is collected and reported.
The Executive Director of POST cited that a concern of the Governor and the General Assembly was the length of time it takes POST to resolve cases that involved revoking or suspending an officer's certification. While this issue is not addressed in POST's RBB goals or its Annual Report, our evaluation found that POST needed to review stages within the investigation and hearings processes to identify areas in which it could improve processing times and determine whether POST needs additional resources to ensure cases are resolved expeditiously.
POST does not maintain data to support two of the three desired results measures. However, the evaluation found that the data used for the third measure is accurate and reliable.
POST needs to address concerns regarding the reliability of its database system and the accuracy of the data being entered into the database.
To preserve its independence and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, the POST Council should remain an organizationally separate state agency and should not be combined with the Georgia Public Safety Training Center.
Agency Response:
POST Council agrees.

10

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
An Assessment of the Georgia Police Academy's Results-Based Budget Goals and Desired Results
Evaluated: August 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The purpose of the Georgia Police Academy (GPA) is to improve law enforcement personnel's knowledge, skills and performance in the execution of their duties. The GPA is primarily responsible for providing advanced and specialized training to state and local law enforcement personnel and has responsibility for training County Coroners.
Summary of Findings:
The GPA's fiscal year 2002 Results-Based Budgeting (RBB) goals and desired results are valid indicators of its effectiveness. However, the desired results could be improved. In addition, there are several factors that adversely impact the validity of the RBB data.
The evaluation found that there are several factors that adversely impact the reliability of the RBB data.
Agency Response:
GPA disagrees-- new RBB goals were submitted. The performance evaluation process instigated a reevaluation of programmatic goals and desired results. The Public Safety Training Center stated their belief that subsequent revised goals provided more valid indicators of program effectiveness in three areas; the ability to meet the demand for training, the ability to offer certified accredited programs and the ability to document survey feedback to gauge participant perception of course relevance.

BROC Research

11

2001 Annual Report
BROC
A Review of Specific Aspects of the Regional Police Academies
Evaluated: August 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts The purpose of the Regional Police Academies (regional academies) is to provide law enforcement training to peace officers, jail officers, and communications officers.
Summary of Findings: The current organizational and financial structures of the regional academies are reasonable. As the operational control of the regional academies moves from the sponsoring agencies to the GPSTC, the organizational and financial structures of the regional academies will change. The regional academies are operating under sound financial principles. There is not unnecessary duplication between the services provided by the regional academies, the Georgia Police Academy/GPSTC, and other law enforcement training centers. Generally, the current number of regions is reasonable. The current regional system and number of regions was developed based on a set of six criteria which incorporate accessibility, efficiency, and standardization. In regard to these criteria there are advantages and disadvantages to a different number of regions. Agency Response: The Georgia Public Safety Training Center agrees with the report's accuracy in depicting the current structure of the Georgia law-enforcement training delivery system.

12

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Georgia Public Safety Training Center
Evaluated: August 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The purpose of the Georgia Public Safety Training Center (GPSTC) is to develop, deliver, and facilitate training, which promotes professionalism and competency within the ranks of Georgia's public safety agencies.
Summary of Findings:
The GPSTC's fiscal year 2002 Results-Based Budgeting (RBB) goal and desired results are valid indicators of its effectiveness. However, the desired results could be improved. In addition, there are several factors that adversely impact the validity of the RBB data.
The evaluation found that there are several factors that adversely impact the reliability of the RBB data.
The Georgia Public Safety Training Center provides training free of charge to eligible public safety personnel within the state of Georgia but does charge fees to private citizens, out-of-state residents, and federal agencies to offset the cost of training.
The Georgia Public Safety Training Center (GPSTC) does not anticipate that its capital outlay budget will be significantly impacted when control of the regional academies is moved from the sponsoring agencies to GPSTC. However, this conversion will have an immediate impact on GPSTC's operating budget.
Agency Response:
The Georgia Public Safety Training Center disagreed that the RBB goals and results were adequate indicators of program effectiveness. As a result of the performance evaluation process, The Georgia Public Safety Training Center instigated a re-evaluation of programmatic goals and desired results.

BROC Research

13

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund
Evaluated: August 2001 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund Act of 1983 was enacted by the Georgia General Assembly for the purpose of providing funds for the training of law enforcement and prosescutorial officers.
Summary of Findings:
The Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund collected more than $222 million from fiscal year 1984 to fiscal year 2000.
It is not feasible to determine the amount of Peace Officer & Prosecutor Training Fund fees that should be collected because of numerous weaknesses in its assessment, collection, and remittance.
The Department of Revenue (DOR) should take steps to offer reasonable assurance that courts are assessing, collecting, and remitting the proper amount of POPTF fees. DOR should also notify juvenile courts that they are improperly remitting the POPTF fee.
State and local funds were identified as the primary source of training funds. While many of the facilities and organizations that provide training are largely state funded, local law enforcement agencies do expend local funds for training.
It is not possible to track appropriation of POPTF funds because funds are not appropriated to a single training fund or state agency. However, the evaluation team did identify approximately $21.1 million in state funds spent on law enforcement and prosecutor training in fiscal year 2000, compared to collections of $19.3 million in the previous year.
The allocation of state contract funds to the regional academies is based on contract amounts that were in effect prior to May 1996. The allocation should be based on a variety of factors, such as the region's law enforcement population, the demand for training, and the fixed costs of operating a facility.
The creation of the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety should not have a significant impact on law enforcement training costs.
Agency Response:
The Department of Revenue is not authorized to audit for, assess or collect moneys which should have been collected by the various courts but simply to receive the sums that are collected, O.C.G.A. 15-2174. Based on the requirements of law, we have been receiving, depositing and accounting for the moneys which have been collected by the court officers. As further stated, we will explore opportunities with our contract partners with questions on collection issues as suggested in the program evaluation.

14

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Georgia Community Policing Institute
June 25, 2001
The Honorable George Hooks Chairman Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee Room 234 State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Dear Chairman Hooks:
In response to the Committee's request dated August 3, 2000, we initiated a program evaluation of the federally funded Georgia Community Policing Institute. At the end of February 2001, however, the Institute ceased operation as a result of not receiving any federal funds for fiscal year 2001. When we began our evaluation, the Institute was operating on funds that it had received during its first two years of operation (fiscal years 1998 and 1999).
It should be noted that the Institute never received any state funds and was not part of state government. The Institute was established in fiscal year 1998 as the Georgia Regional Community Policing Institute. Kennesaw State University served as the Institute's academic and fiscal agent. In January 2000, Georgia State University became the Institute's academic agent and Bridging the Gap, Inc. (a non-profit corporation) became the Institute's fiscal agent. After receiving federal funds for its first two years of operation, the Institute was denied funding for its third year as a result of not having a fiduciary agent at the time. The denial of third-year funding resulted in the Institute having to drop the word Regional from its name (even though it continued to provide training throughout the state).
Although the Institute has ceased operations, we have addressed the specific issues that you requested in your August 3rd letter. Each of these issues is discussed below.
To what extent is there coordination between state, federal, and local government programs? Prior to discontinuing its operations, the Institute taught POST-certified courses to local law enforcement personnel that complemented the more-traditional types of law enforcement courses taught at the state and regional police academies. For calendar year 2000, the Institute reported training 675 police officers and civilians in over 80 Georgia counties.
Are local and state agencies taking advantage of all federal funds available for training? Although it could not be fully determined if local agencies were taking advantage of all available federal funds, it was verified that federal funds are being used to train both state and local law enforcement personnel. For fiscal year 2001, for example, the Georgia Public Safety Training Center was budgeted to receive approximately $2.1 million in federal funds. Data obtained from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council indicated that local government agencies and community groups were scheduled to receive approximately $32.5 million in federal sub-grants for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 (at least some of which could be used for training purposes). It was also determined that the Georgia Public Safety Training Center conducts a grants workshop to show local government officials how to apply for grants.

BROC Research

15

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Georgia Community Policing Institute (continued)
Why does the state not have a regional community policing institute? As previously discussed, the Georgia Community Policing Institute had been required to drop the word Regional from its name even though it continued to serve the entire state.
How much money has Georgia received from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? Information obtained from the U.S. Justice Department shows that state and local government agencies in Georgia have received grants totaling $223,669,774 from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. These grants funded a total of 3,855 law enforcement positions.
Sincerely,

RWH/sr

Russell W. Hinton State Auditor

cc: The Honorable Terry Coleman, Co-Chairman Members of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee Kevin Fillion, Director, BROC Research

16

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
DNR: Environmental Protection Division State Soil and Water Conservation Commission
September 2001
The overall purpose of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program is to conserve and protect the state's land and water resources. The Program was established by the General Assembly in 1975 with the passage of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act. Persons and firms engaged in land-disturbing activities on more than 1.1 acres are required by the Act to obtain a permit from their local government or the Environmental Protection Division (EPD). They are also required to implement procedures for preventing and minimizing erosion and the resultant sedimentation. Additional requirements governing erosion and sedimentation were established in August 2000 by the General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities issued by EPD in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. Under the terms of the Permit, persons and firms engaged in land-disturbing activities on five or more acres (up to 250 acres) are required to file a Notice of Intent with EPD, implement erosion and sedimentation control procedures, and conduct monitoring and record-keeping activities to document the amount of sediment entering the state's waters.
Program Effectiveness Recommendations:
Action should be taken to develop a more effective system for protecting the state's rivers, streams, and lakes from sedimentation caused by land-disturbing activities.
Consideration should be given to revising the Erosion and Sedimentation Act to combine the best provisions of the current Act and the provisions of the General Stormwater Permit.
Consideration should be given to making one agency accountable for the overall effectiveness of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program.
Enforcement of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Act could be enhanced through increased coordination between EPD and the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Action should be taken to establish specific goals and objectives for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program.
Local governments should be required to more fully demonstrate their ability to implement an effective erosion and sedimentation control program as a condition of being certified as an issuing authority by EPD.
Consideration should be given to requiring builders, developers, and other firms engaged in construction activities to meet certain minimum standards as a condition of conducting land-disturbing activities under an LDA permit or a General Stormwater Permit.
Action should be taken to ensure that EPD and the Commission have the personnel and other resources necessary to fully implement the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program.

BROC Research

17

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program (continued)
DNR: Environmental Protection Division State Soil and Water Conservation Commission
September 2001
Consideration should be given to authorizing EPD to charge user fees sufficient to offset the additional costs it incurs as a result of issuing permits, inspecting sites, and taking enforcement action.
Action should be taken to facilitate and encourage the development of partnerships between local governments for the purpose of administering erosion and sedimentation control programs.
State Soil and Water Conservation Commission Recommendations:
Action should be taken by the Commission to improve its procedures for reviewing local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs.
Action should be taken to improve the Commission's procedures for handling citizens' complaints regarding erosion and sedimentation control problems.
Local governments that have been certified as issuing authorities should be subject to more frequent reviews by the Commission's District Assessment Teams.
The continued involvement of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts in evaluating local governments' erosion and sedimentation control programs should be reconsidered.
The Commission should be commended for its efforts to educate local officials, developers, builders, and other persons regarding erosion and sedimentation controls.
Environmental Protection Division Recommendations:
The Division should take steps to ensure that its six regional offices conduct inspections of LDA-permit sites in accordance with its Enforcement Manual.
The Division should consider revising its procedures to make it easier for its regional personnel to take enforcement action against persons and firms who violate the provisions of the state's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program.
Additional action should be taken to ensure that complaints filed with EPD are resolved appropriately.
The Division should continue its efforts to develop a database for keeping track of the Notices of Intent filed in compliance with the General Stormwater Permit

18

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC

School Health Nurse Program

Question: To what extent was the FY2001 $30 million (tobacco funds) appropriation for the salaries and benefits of public school nurses obligated?

Essential Facts:

Each of the 180 school districts received $20,000 plus $18.50 for each FTE (full-time equivalent) student. The DOE provided each local school district with a School Health Nurse Resource Manual in January 2001. The DOE did not set guidelines for how the local systems are to use the money aside from specifying that funds be used exclusively for salaries and benefits or contracts.

Answers: From a BROC Research staff survey of 60 Georgia school districts, it is estimated that $29 million of the $30 million was obligated by:

57% - Hiring nurses directly (102 of 180 districts) 20% - Contracting with Public Health Departments (36) 10% - Combining hired nurses with a Public Health Department contract (18) 5% - Combining hired nurses with a local hospital contract (9) 5% - Contracting with local hospitals (3) 2% - Contracting with a local doctor's office (3) 1% - Contracting with both a local hospital and Public Health Department (1)

Combining survey data from BROC Research and the Georgia Health Policy Research Center, BROC Research estimates that in FY2001 there were around 1000 Georgia school health care professionals. This compares to 505 in FY1999 and 628 in FY2000. For FY2001, is estimated that approximately 52 percent were RNs, 23 percent were LPNs, and 25 percent were UAPs (Unlicensed Assistive Personnel).

No performance data is collected for this program and no state agency is overseeing how well the program is meeting legislative intent. For example, there is no statewide data on the number or type of nurses hired, amount paid for these nurses, or the level of care provided.

The School Health Nurse Resource Manual states that there is no state board rule regarding school health services and that local systems transmit no data to DOE about nurses hired, such as RNs, LPNs, etc. Local school systems are not required to report any programmatic performance data over and above a financial completion report, required for categorical grants.

Forty-three percent of Georgia school districts entered into some form of contract agreement for school nursing services. These districts reported that contractor agreements provided more efficient leveraging of available funds in providing comprehensive nursing coverage as well as access to coordinated medical guidance, nursing resources and supplies.

BROC Research

19

2001 Annual Report
BROC

TANF Funding Evaluation

20

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
TANF Funding Evaluation (continued)

BROC Research

21

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Undergraduate Medical Education Funding

22

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Undergraduate Medical Education Funding (continued)

BROC Research

23

2001 Annual Report
BROC

Undergraduate Medical Education Funding (continued)

Question: What issues are involved with calculating the Mercer University School of Medicine and the Morehouse School of Medicine operating grants by a funding formula?

Essential An input based funding formula: # of students X per student amount = operating grant Facts:

State Appropriations and Leveraged Funds

Operating Disproportionate SFY Enrollment Grant Share / Medicaid

Total

Per Enrollment

Medical Student Capitation Program
Georgia Students Percent Amount

1999 2000 2001 2002

136 $7,394,890 148 $7,394,890 153 $7,894,890 160 $7,394,890

MOREHOUSE $11,105,815 $18,500,705 $11,466,932 $18,861,822 $11,200,000* $19,094,890 $11,200,000* $18,594,890

$136,035 $127,445 $124,803 $116,218

84 61.8% 93 62.8% 93 60.8% 93 58.1%

$785,400 $869,550 $869,550 $869,550

1999

216 $7,660,000

2000

208 $16,728,668

2001

211 $19,308,766

2002

211* $18,790,098

* Estimated

MERCER $10,715,289 $18,375,289 $3,445,056 $20,173,724
n/a $19,308,766 n/a $18,790,098

$85,071 $96,989 $91,511 $89,053

205 94.9% $1,916,750 205 98.6% $1,916,750 210 99.5% $1,963,500 210 99.5% $1,963,500

Answer:

1.) Students Georgia residents or all medical students
2.) Per Student Amount a.) Similar schools in other states - Of the 126 allopathic medical schools in the country, Mercer University School of Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Eastern Virginia Medical School are in an exclusive group of private community-based medical schools. There are 18 community-based schools in the country with 10 of them in the AAMC southern region. b.) Medical College of Georgia
3.) Federal Medicaid Dollars a.) Morehouse uses 100 percent of its state appropriation as a match b.) Mercer no longer uses its state appropriation as a match
4.) Medical Student Capitation Program

24

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC

USG Institution Funding

BROC Research

25

2001 Annual Report
BROC
USG Institution Funding (continued)

26

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles

March 12, 2001

M E M O R A N D U M

To:

Senator George Hooks, Chairman

Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee

Representative Terry Coleman, Vice-Chairman Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee

From: Kevin Fillion, Director BROC Research Office

Re:

Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs)

As requested, I have attached a couple of articles that summarize the use of GARVEEs.
Federal authorization: the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998.
Definition: debt repaid directly with Federal-aid funds (bond-related costs include principal and interest payments, issuance costs, insurance, and other incidental costs).
Uses: any project eligible for assistance under Title 23, Section 115 (such as highway and road construction, and transit)
Responsibility: The State assumes the responsibility and the liability for the bond issuance. The Federal government makes no guarantee.
In addition to GARVEEs, states can also apply for financing under the Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act (TIFIA), if a project is of national or regional significance. Examples include: the Miami, Florida Intermodal Center, Farley-Penn station in New York, the Washington, D.C. Metro System, and State Route 125 South in California.
Let me know if you desire more information. Given the recent innovative financing techniques authorized by the federal government, further review by your Research Office may be warranted.

BROC Research

27

2001 Annual Report
BROC

Daily Offender Cost

28

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Daily Offender Cost (continued)

BROC Research

29

2001 Annual Report
BROC
November 19, 2001

New Programs 2003

M E M O R A N D U M

To: From: Re:

Senator George Hooks, Chairman Representative Terry Coleman, Vice Chairman Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Kevin Fillion, Director BROC Research Office
New Program Report for FY2003

In compliance with O.C.G.A. Section 45-12-88, fifteen (of 41) agencies have submitted responses to my request, sent August 14, 2001, for "new program" notifications due September 1. Of course, these programs were identified prior to the Governor's call for budget cuts.

Agency

New Program Name and Estimated Cost

Agriculture Community Affairs
Community Health
Corrections Education Forestry Commission GEMA Georgia Child Care Council

No new programs Georgia City Centers Program - $95k; and To add a position related to required administrative tasks under HB 443 $70k Implement the work of the Health Care Workforce Policy Advisory Committee effective FY2003. No new programs SBOE "mentor/master teacher pilot program." - $3m No new programs No new programs No new programs

Georgia Real Estate Comm. No new programs Industry, Trade and Tourism Contract representative and office in the United Kingdom - $150k

Motor Vehicle Safety

Automated License Renewal System - $3.8m Seven Customer Service Centers in Metro Atlanta - $7.5m

Natural Resources

Marine Sportfish Population Health Program in the Coastal Resources Division - $150k

Secretary of State

Elections - Statewide Uniform Electronic Voting - $21m

Student Finance Commission No new programs

Transportation

No new programs

30

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC

SAT Score Improvement Program

Question: To what extent was the SAT Score Improvement Program implemented?

Answer:
State Funds Appropriated Amount to Stanford Testing Systems Amount to North Georgia RESA

SFY97 $250,000 $175,000 $75,000

SFY98 $0
$65,000 End of Contract

SFY99 $0
End of Contract

March 1997

In the SFY1997 Amended Budget, the Georgia General Assembly appropriated $250,000 for the SAT Score Improvement Program.

June 19, 1997

The State Board of Education authorized the Superintendent of Schools to enter into a contract with Stanford Testing Systems, Inc. (STS) for an amount not to exceed $175,000. The contract was not publicly bid; it was awarded on a sole source contract. The Board also authorizes the Superintendent to enter into a contract with the North Georgia Regional Educational Service Agency (RESA) for services related to the SAT Score Improvement Program, for an amount not to exceed $75,000.

August 30, 1997

Contract with Stanford Testing Systems is signed for the period of August 30, 1997 to June 30, 1998. The contract provided for the Stanford Studyguide for SAT Success (SSGSAT) software, printed manuals, workbooks, "student home versions" of the software, and training seminars for educators. The contract allowed for a school that did not reach an increase of 100 points on their average SAT score to request a refund. (The money would be returned to the State Department of Education). No school requested a refund.

September 24, 1997October 1, 1997

Twelve one-half day training sessions are held at six sites around the state to train educators on how to use the Stanford Studyguide for SAT Success (SSGSAT). Represented in the training sessions were 319 high schools and 43 alternative schools, from 177 school systems, 14 Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and 46 regional libraries. (In 2000, there were 351 public high schools and 180 school systems in Georgia). RESAs were invited to participate in the training to ensure that all students (public, private, or home-schooled) would have access to the software.

December 18, 1997

Memo sent to the 28 schools that did not participate in the September 1997 training sessions inviting them to attend training seminars in January so they could receive the SSGSAT materials.

May 14, 1998

The State Board of Education approves authorizing the Superintendent to amend the STS contract in accordance with the Maintenance Agreement for the 1998-1999 school year, for a cost of $65,000. The $65,000 was from existing DOE funds.

September 10, 1999

Memo from Dr. Stephen Preston to local school contacts announcing the State legislature did not fund a renewal of the contract with STS. Schools wanting to continue using the Stanford program are instructed to contact the company directly for individual contract agreements.

October 30, 1999 Maintenance and Support Agreement with STS ends.

BROC Research

31

2001 Annual Report
BROC
SAT Score Improvement Program (continued)

32

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Drinking Water Contract Fee Schedule

BROC Research

33

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Drinking Water Contract Fee Schedule (continued)

34

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC

BROC Research

35

2001 Annual Report BROC
2000 Evaluation List
BROC Research 35

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Status Report for the 2000 Evaluation List

Title Adult Protective Services Indigent Care Trust Fund Public Well-Being through Vital Communities Study of Library Services to Special Needs Populations in Georgia Analysis of Agency Overtime Practices
Conveyance of Property
Correctional Industries Fuel Surcharge Policy TANF Unobligated Balances
Questions about Wright Express Fleet Card for State Use Implementation of O.C.G.A. 36-81-8.1: Grants to Local Governments The Georgia Academy for Children and Youth Professionals. Inc. Central State Hospital Ambulance Service Outsourcing South Georgia Regional Board
Rep. Snow's Letter to Rehabilitative Services on Counselor Training Eastman YDC
Roadside Historical Markers
Victoria Bryant State Golf Course
Policies at Georgia College & State University: No State Funds Used for Commencement Trip and Ceremony; Formal Policy Governs Use of Mansion Curriculum on Accessibility Design for Persons with Disabilities for Education of Engineers, Architects, & Tech School Enrollees Georgia Indigent Defense Council Funding to Local Program Performance Audit Statewide Inventory of Contracts for Outsourced Functions/Services and Consultant Services (including Interagency Contracts). Human Development Legislative Oversight Meetings Community Care Services Program and Aging Services

Assigned to Audits Audits
BROC Research Audits
BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research BROC Research
BROC Research
Audits
Audits
BROC Research OPB

Status of Report A summary follows this page A summary follows this page. Annual Strategic Planning Conference held at GWCC on January 6, 2000. Cancelled because DTAE contracted with a private vendor to study this. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this analysis. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this analysis. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this analysis. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this analysis. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter. See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter.
See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this letter.
See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this performance audit.
See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this special report.
See the BROC Research Office for a copy of this report. This report was cancelled by OPB.

36

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report BROC
BROC Research 35

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Adult Protective Services
Evaluated: December 2000 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The overall purpose of Adult Protective Services mandated under the Georgia Disabled Adult and Elder Person Protection Act is to protect disabled (mentally or physically) adults (18 years of age and older) and elder persons (65 years of age and older) who are not residents of long-term care facilities from situations of domestic abuse, neglect, and exploitation (A/N/E). The Department of Human Resources' APS Program is responsible for receiving and investigating reports of A/N/E, deterring the ongoing maltreatment of disabled adults and elder persons, and preventing its recurrence.
Summary of Findings:
Reviews of 47 counties performed by DHR's Evaluation and Reporting Section determined that APS staff are responding to allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation within 10 days for more than 90% of the cases evaluated.
The Program does not maintain the data necessary to determine if adult protective services are being effectively delivered. However, as discussed in subsequent findings, the evaluation team did make observations indicating effectiveness problems.
The Program does not have adequate information to determine if APS staff levels in counties are appropriate. An analysis of available information by the evaluation team indicated that some counties appeared to have extremely high caseloads while other counties had low caseloads indicating that they may not be appropriately staffed.
The lack of APS specialized case managers and inadequate training of APS staff contributes to varying levels of service delivery throughout the state.
Case managers at the county level who do not work fulltime on APS and a lack of APS management at the state level contribute to varying levels of service delivery throughout the state.
Overall, the Program coordinates well with programs responsible for investigating A/N/E in long-term care facilities. However, the Program needs to identify and evaluate all open cases in long-term care facilities that do not involve guardianship or representative payeeship to determine if these cases should remain open.
Agency Response:
The Review Team found, based on the Evaluation and Reporting Section's (ERS) reviews of May 2000 of 47 counties, that 91% of the APS cases were investigated within the policy time frame and that 96% had the initial determination within the timeliness standard of policy. The review team did not find any evidence that APS case managers were not promptly responding to reports of an emergency nature. However, we can and will work to increase the percentage of cases seen within 10 days and completed within 30 days. In addition to increasing already high levels of compliance, the Division will take the following actions to improve our ability to document program effectiveness:

BROC Research

37

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Adult Protective Services (continued)
Evaluated: December 2000 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
1. The Division will examine the feasibility of implementing peer case reviews in order to assess the quality of APS services. The type review is taking place in Illinois and has been deemed successful in evaluating the intake process, assessment, casework and case closures. This review could augment the record reviews performed by the social services supervisors in the local county offices.
2. Adult Protective Services will be included in the (statewide automated child welfare information system) SACWIS system scheduled for implementation.
3. The Division will analyze the current data collection process and examine the data collected in the Internal Data System (IDS) to determine if any interim changes could be made to gather additional APS data. The Division will assure that APS data needs are part of the social services data system (SACWIS) that is under development.
The Division will explore the feasibility of an APS workload study in order to assess if the current staffing of APS is adequate and the caseloads are distributed effectively.
DFCS Director will use all available data to formulate budget improvement requests in order to bring the number of FTE Adult Protective Services Case Managers to the nationally recommended caseload standard. This caseload standard of 25 cases for investigator/ongoing workers and 17 cases for investigators only was set by the National Association of Adult Protective Services Administrators.
The Division Director will initiate steps to specialize Adult Protective Services Case Managers in order to improve the quality of service delivery throughout the state. This will include a decision on whether to specialize the entire APS full time equivalent staff at once or to move toward specialization in incremental steps. The analysis of APS staff and caseloads in all counties is necessary to enable the Director/Program Manager to make this decision. The Division will study the feasibility of a specialized case manager covering more than one county.
The Division will ensure that each APS Case Manager and APS Supervisor attend APS initial and ongoing APS specialized training t include: law and policy interpretation; best practices; handling difficult clients/situations; resource development and other program specific areas. New workers and supervisors will attend basic APS training within three (3) months of beginning work in APS. APS workers and supervisors will receive follow-up and ongoing training yearly. A system will be developed and maintained to provide the APS Program Manager documentation of training compliance for the purpose of monitoring at the state level.
The Division will develop a budget improvement request for SFY 03 to address ongoing APS training on an annual basis.
The Division will explore the development of internet-based modules for training (long range).

38

BROC Research

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Adult Protective Services (continued)
Evaluated: December 2000 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The Division will request resources in SFY 03 to fund an Adult Protective Services Unit at the state level to ensure that APS has the appropriate resources to adequately provide adult protective services to its clients. This new organizational structure would provide proactive management of Georgia's APS Program and ensure effective and efficient delivery of APS services across the state.
The initial composition of the Adult Protective Services Unit will include a Unit Manager, one (1) Support Staff, and a minimum of three (3) Program Consultants/Trainers. This Unit, staffed with experienced APS staff, will serve as a strong advocate for the APS Program and coordinate with other Divisions within DHR toward enhancing short-term and ongoing services to clients.
The APS Program Manager, program consultants and trainers will provide ongoing instruction and recommendations to county staff related to closing APS cases on persons living in long-term care facilities once the risk of abuse, neglect or exploitation is reduced. This includes closing the case once a placement is stable, making efforts to transfer the responsibility of Representative Payeeship, and seeking an alternative Guardian of Person when possible.
The Division supports the long-term goal of removing DFCS Directors as the Guardian of Person of last resort. This will require a change in Georgia law and the formation of an Office of Guardianship.

BROC Research

37

2001 Annual Report
BROC
Indigent Care Trust Fund
Evaluated: December 2000 by the Department of Audits and Accounts
The purpose of the federal Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Program and Georgia's Indigent Care Trust Fund (ICTF) is to provide compensation to qualifying hospitals for services provided without charge or for a reduced charge to Medicaid and medically indigent patients. Two additional purposes of the ICTF are to provide primary health care programs for the medically indigent citizens and children of Georgia, and to expand Medicaid eligibility and services.
Summary of Findings:
DCH has taken steps to improve ICTF administration. Proposed changes should increase oversight of the use of ICTF funds and continue to improve program administration.
DCH has begun work to ensure that hospitals are complying with their primary care plans.
Coordination of the hospitals' primary care plans with other state programs is accomplished primarily at the local level with limited direction from DCH.
ICTF participating hospitals are required to provide effective notification of their participation in the ICTF to the public and to inform DCH of how the notification will be accomplished. DCH is working to ensure hospitals' compliance with the requirement.
Health studies directly relating to the impact of the ICTF on the health care of indigents were not found.
Agency Response:
DCH has contracted with the Georgia Health Policy Centers of Georgia State University to conduct an independent review of Indigent Care Trust Fund Hospitals to determine:
Compliance with approved primary care plans The degree that ICTF primary care dollars have improved primary care services to the
indigent in the community of service The scope of interaction between the facility and the Division of Public Health-District
Health Directors in the development and implementation of primary care plans The degree to which institutions are assessing community health impact
DCH wishes to further clarify that the coordination of a hospital's primary care plan with other state programs extends to those primary care plans that address one of the DCH approved uses. DCH developed the list of approved primary care uses in collaboration with the Director of the Division of Public Health within the Department of Human Resources.
DCH has completed Appendix P to the Hospital Services Policies and Procedures Manual that specifically addresses the Indigent Care Trust Fund. This new Appendix provides the conditions for participation policies and procedures, sample forms and notices identifying the facility as an ICTF provider, and sanction provisions for non-compliant hospitals.

40

BROC Research