State Efficiency Report

State Efficiency Report
Kansas
Statewide Efficiency Review
January 19, 2016
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW |
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Budget Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Risk Management and Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Information Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Governor’s Grants Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
State Employee Health Plan Overview. . . . . . . . . . . 75
KPERS Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Real Estate and Lease Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Fleet Management and Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Print Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Children and Family Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Commerce and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . 124
Corrections - Programs and Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . 143
Education - K-12 and Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . 166
Medicaid and Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Department of Revenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Transportation and Turnpike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Lottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
National Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Boards and Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Budget Process Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW |
1
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of Engagement
Since being retained by the State in early October,
Alvarez & Marsal has been engaged in a far-reaching
review of State operations and spending. The team
included more than 40 professionals, including individuals who have worked with numerous other governmental entities around the United States and who
have extensive leadership experience in both government and the corporate sector. Over the past three
months, they have been collaborating with State employees at all levels, gaining a detailed understanding
of their missions, programs, objectives and challenges.
Approach
The departments and functions on which the A&M
team has focused include Transportation, Revenue,
Education, Corrections, Commerce, Human Services,
Procurement, Real Estate, Insurance, Benefits, Technology, Administration, and Budget Processes. It is important to note that, in several of these areas, the State
has already made considerable progress in achieving
efficiencies and has staff that is committed to this pro-
cess. Still, more can be done.
In approaching this work, A&M’s fundamental considerations have been:
• Finding ways in which government can function
more efficiently, so that it can maintain or improve services, while saving taxpayers’ money.
• Proposing recommendations that are practical,
around which consensus can be built and which
can be implemented within a relatively short period of time.
Total Potential Benefits to the State
This report includes 105 recommendations which
cumulatively would provide $2.04 billion in benefits to the State over the next five years. Each
recommendation includes background, analysis and
necessary action steps. It includes large recommendations and smaller ones – recommendations that
provide immediate benefits as well as some whose
benefits will grow over time.
Implementation
The recommendations in this report provide a roadmap for the state – a route toward achieving major
cost savings, efficiencies and other benefits. But those
2
| Executive Summary
benefits only become real when the recommendations are implemented. A&M has worked closely with
the staff and leadership of the departments it reviewed
and the proposals, as well as the dollar amounts associated with them, have been vetted. These proposals are practical and the benefits achievable. Once it
has been carefully considered by the Legislature and
the Governor, the State will need to begin that implementation process, which is at least partially laid out in
each section of the report.
Recommendations
Following is a sampling of a few of the report’s highlights:
Procurement
Recommendations in the area of procurement –
the purchase of goods and services by agencies
and other state-funded entities – could save the
State over $100 million over five-years.
• The State currently has many overlapping contracts with different entities for the same products or services at varying prices. It needs to
engage in a strategic sourcing initiative though
which it focuses on the categories of spending
that are the highest and begins to use its buying
power to negotiate better deals. For example,
simply by negotiating a central wireless contract
for all agencies, the State could save $800,000
over five-years on the 5,000 phone lines it currently pays for.
• The State is currently paying invoices in an average of 10 days even though most supplier contracts have stated payment terms of Net 30 Days
(meaning the vendor expects to be paid within
30 days). By increasing the payment cycle to 30
days and not having to finance these 20 days, the
state will save approximately $15 million dollars
in interest payments over a five-year period.
• If vendors wish to continue receiving payments
in less than 30 days, the State should negotiate
early payment discounts, which are standard in
most sectors and which most vendors will be accustomed to. Negotiating those types of early
payment discounts would likely save the State $5
million over five years.
Insurance
Changing the way the State bids out, purchases
and administers its insurance policies, will result in
a five-year savings to taxpayers of over $170 million.
• The State should create a centralized Office of
Risk Management to create a single point of contact with specific expertise in the insurance market and insurance issues. Among the functions of
this office would be to put up for bid insurance
policies the state needs in a way that is most likely to encourage the most participation and most
vigorous competition.
• Most of the staff that currently handles Workers
Compensation claims has limited background in
this field. The State should outsource this function to a third party administrator, as many other
states do, which will save money and likely improve outcomes.
Corrections
Several changes at the Department of Corrections
could provide $40 million in benefits over a fiveyear period. For example:
• Kansas Correctional Industry, which employs inmates to manufacture various products that are
purchased by State agencies, is not operating at
full capacity and its production facilities are underutilized. According to the KCI Director, if KCI
were to operate at 85% capacity and expand its
customer base to include non-state agencies,
even in a limited capacity, it could increase revenues by 11%, or $7.5 million over the next five
years.
Children and Families
Proposals for the Department for Children and
Families total $19 million over five-years and include:
• A number of measures to improve child support
collections, an area where Kansas currently lags
behind other states. When non-custodial parents
who owe child support don’t provide it, taxpayers foot the bill in terms of increased social services. Improving collections through the various
recommendations included in this report would
save the State $3 million over five years.
• As Kansas’ population shifts, the optimal placement of field offices shifts as well. Three offices
that no longer serve the population originally
envisions could be merged into other nearby offices, continuing to serve those who need them,
but reducing taxpayers’ costs by approximately
$600,000 over a five-year period.
Transportation
The Department of Transportation could produce
savings or additional revenue totaling over $80
million over five years through several initiatives,
including:
• Consolidating or co-locating offices that are nearby could save $28 million.
• Instituting or increasing sponsorships for rest
stops, travel assist hotlines, a roadside logo sign
program and motorist assist program would generate a five-year total of $8.5 million.
• Leasing or selling underutilized, non-essential
equipment could produce one-time revenue of
$3 million.
Revenue
The Department of Revenue, as the key collector of
tax revenues for the State, must operate as effectively as possible to ensure that all taxpayers are
paying their taxes accurately. Several recommendations for the department will result in increased
revenue of $381 million, without raising taxes or
asking taxpayers to bear any additional burden.
For example:
The State should fill 54 revenue officer positions and
14 auditor positions that are currently vacant. An insufficient number of auditors and revenue officers has
resulted in a backlog of taxpayers whose taxes need
to be reviewed. This is an area where spending the
money necessary to fill the vacant positions will be a
good investment for the state, likely producing $321
million in new revenue.
Reorganizing the audit and collections staff so that
teams work together rather than in silos will make the
agency operate more efficiently and will produce better results of as much as $50 million over a five-year
period.
Technology
Consolidation of data centers, network services,
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW |
3
service desks, security, project management and
other functions would produce over $40 million in
savings over five-years.
Education
Spending on K-12 education has been a particular
focus as it involves considerable expense. Questions
have been posed about a number of possibilities,
some of which have been discussed for years, including the possible consolidation of school districts as a
way of eliminating overhead costs. A&M’s focus has
been on developing practical recommendations that
can be implemented within a relatively short period of
time, which requires consensus among key stakeholders.
As a result, our recommendations focus on the
major cost-drivers of education - proposing consolidations of services that total $600 million over
five-years, comprise a significant percentage of total education spending and that are likely to have
support among many local school districts. By following this path, the State can achieve much of the
savings advocates of district consolidation hope for,
while avoid the fractious and prolonged debate such
a proposal would likely engender.
For example, over a five-year period:
• Health insurance and benefits is a fast-growing
part of school district’s budget and is presenting
them with an enormous burden. If districts statewide were to become participants in the State’s
health insurance and benefits plan, it would save
taxpayers a five-year total of $360 million.
• By consolidating procurement under a statewide
initiative, districts could save more than $40 million.
• Consolidating the purchasing of property and casualty insurance so that districts could purchase
insurance under a “pool” insurance program
could save $9 million.
Details on these and other recommendations follow.
4 | Introduction
Kansas
Statewide Efficiency Review
Introduction
The objective of the State of Kansas
Government Efficiency Study (Study)
The State of Kansas has implemented a number of
budgetary measures to address budget deficiencies
and drive efficiencies throughout the state government. The Legislative Coordinating Council (Council)
sought to engage an independent consulting firm to
define and develop an innovative, customized blueprint to reinvent government and drive transformational service delivery and cost efficiencies. In support
of the Council’s goals to identify opportunities for significant cost savings in the next budget cycle, we conducted an intensive effort informed by our leadership
and implementation experience driving cost reductions and increasing taxpayer value.
The Alvarez & Marsal Team (A&M) along with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) applied
experience gained from performing similar statewide
efficiency assessments, to review the financial and
operational challenges and opportunities facing the
state lawmakers and the citizens of Kansas. This report
reflects Phase I of our proposed effort providing three
components addressing the objectives of the Council
as expressed in the request for proposal released in
August 2015. These objectives include:
• Objective 1 (Budget Analysis) – A comprehensive
diagnostic analysis of the state’s budget to identify spending trends and outliers.
• Objective 2 (Efficiency and Cost Savings Recommendations) – A set of recommendations that
prioritizes target areas with large and substantial
expenditures of state general funds and where
the state can become more efficient and thereby
provide cost savings to the state’s taxpayers.
• Objective 3 (Budget Process) – An evaluation of
the state’s budgeting process and recommendations for improvement opportunities based on
leading private sector and government sector
practices.
Specific to objective 2 – the Phase I review includes
cross-agency recommendations for the following areas and agencies:
• Cross Agency
»» Insurance
»» Procurement
»» Technology
»» Governor’s Grants Office
»» Governor’s Crime Prevention Office
»» Human Resources
−− Benefits
−− Pension
−− Performance Review
−− Leave Administration
• Department /Agency Reviews
»» Department of Administration
−− Centralized Budgeting, Memo Billing, &
Centralized Service Functions
−− Fleet
−− Print Services
−− Real Estate
»» Department for Children and Families
»» Department of Commerce
»» Department of Corrections
»» Department of Education
»» Departments of Health and Environment
and Aging and Disability Services
»» Department of Revenue
»» Department of Transportation
• General Government
»» Boards and Commissions
»» Lottery Commission
»» National Guard
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW |
5
A team of more than 40 professionals from A&M and
our subcontractors devoted more than 6,000 hours
over the past four months to conduct an in-depth
analysis of the operations of the agencies. The A&M
team included former senior government officials and
corporate executives with extensive expertise implementing efficiency programs in the government and
private sector. A&M worked closely with more than 50
state government professionals and stakeholders to
develop, refine, and validate over 100 recommendations from across the in-scope agencies.
Milestones Delivery and Delivery Timeline
The graphic below presents the overall timeline associated with this effort. This report represents the draft
of the Phase 1 report. This report includes recommendations that will be further vetted and developed into
implementation plans in the resulting Phase 2 report.
6 | Introduction
Project Approach
Our approach to statewide fiscal and operational solutions is data-intensive and driven from the bottom
up at each department under review. The length and
structure of the approach is based on our successful
execution of other statewide reviews and focuses on
identifying the greatest impact opportunities while
developing implementation-ready plans that are realistic and achievable. Throughout the execution of
this methodology, we value collaborative interactions
with state staff, which increase the legitimacy of identified opportunities and build the basis for their “buyin” during eventual implementation.
The graphic below provides an overview of the tasks
that the A&M Team completes in each phase during
the project timeline and is structured around A&M’s
proven Statewide Fiscal and Operational Solutions
Methodology. This methodology is divided into three
broad phases: Assess, Improve, and Transform and
was adapted to meet the objectives of this effort. The
Transform phase was not included as part of the scope
of this effort. Yet, we believe that the Transform or implementation phase is a critical component that must
be undertaken so that the efficiency recommendations may be implemented.
Assess (Phase 1)
The assessment phase was a critical first step to setup
the framework and processes for the project. During
this phase, A&M created a comprehensive project plan
aligned to stakeholder expectations. A&M employed
the Statewide Fiscal and Operations Solutions methodology beginning with a diagnostic assessment of
the state’s budget and current operating environment.
A&M leadership developed a comprehensive data
collection request, and worked closely with agency
leadership and staff, to execute on the data request,
develop initial savings ideas, and pursue savings opportunities and new revenue recommendations. The
knowledge collected during this phase informed the
team’s identification and prioritization of opportunities.
Baseline Environment
It was critical to establish a project charter with objectives that align with the needs and expectations of the
state. At the start of the project, A&M convened a kickoff meeting with the Legislative Coordinating Council
(LCC) personnel to gain history of budgetary process
and priorities as well as an understanding of key statutory requirements specific to Kansas. A session was
convened with LCC personnel and state leadership, as
appropriate, to review the scope of the project, peer
states, and to identify priorities and goals for the effort.
We used this opportunity to understand the risks and
concerns from the state’s perspective, identify sources
of information for initial budget and process analysis,
and highlight additional stakeholders to serve as resources and change agents. A&M then conducted the
overall project kick-off with leadership from the LCC,
Legislative Research Department, Division of Budget
leadership, state leadership and employees, and other
interested stakeholders on October 12th, 2015.
Once the project objectives were identified, A&M
gained an understanding of each department’s baseline environment. In conjunction with Legislative Research, the Division of Budget, and individual agencies, A&M reviewed historical information, roles and
functions, critical issues facing and financial trends in
terms of spending, regulatory impacts, technology,
and personnel management. The team conducted
interviews and working sessions with staff to identify
and document as-is processes as the basis for process
improvement and increased efficiency. We also inventoried IT applications, systems and contracts and met
with relevant individuals to understand the IT gover-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW |
7
nance process. Finally, A&M completed a review of the
state’s budget and financial management, including
federal funds management, billing and collections
processes, and budget operations.
Objective I, the budget review included a trend analysis examining line item specific and overall spending
over a five-year time frame, to identify key expenditure categories, areas of risk, and spending that are directly related to federal mandates and shared federal
and state programs. Additionally, as part of the baseline environment effort, a project plan was created to
track progress.
Develop a Fact Base
Following the initial information gathering, A&M conducted a deeper dive into current operations to develop a fact base upon which decisions about quick
wins and long-term solution implementation plans
could be based. The A&M team met with leadership
from each department for strategic planning sessions
to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities
for improvement within each organization. These sessions also were helpful in determining change drivers
and any barriers to achieving the goals of the effort.
An understanding of the drivers of and barriers to
change allowed A&M to target its efforts to achieve
the desired results of efficiency and cost savings.
Additionally, the teams reviewed the current processed to identify non-value-add processes that can
be eliminated or transformed to more effectively
meet the needs of the state. As part of this effort, A&M
benchmarked existing processes, IT resources and
budget and expenditures against both government
and commercial best practices and the unique operational and fiscal goals of the project. Early on in the
effort, we determined a set of comparable states to
serve as peers as a basis of comparisons. To support
a more thorough review of the organization’s budget
and inform a revenue and expense forecast, the teams
examined historical budget and spending data to analyze the cost basis for key services.
Improve (Phase 1 and 2)
In the second phase of A&M’s Statewide Fiscal and Operational Solutions Methodology, the focus shifts to
improving the state’s operations and laying a framework for longer-term transformation.
8 | Introduction
Total Savings and Revenue Estimate [$000s]
A&M Work Stream
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
Total
Cross Agency
Insurance
$1
$33,883
$35,723
$35,723
$35,723
$35,723
$176,775
$750
$17,858
$27,308
$31,433
$32,183
$32,183
$141,714
Technology
$0
$8,713
$8,713
$8,713
$8,713
$8,713
$43,565
Governor’s Grants Office
$0
$4,086
$5,032
$5,082
$5,131
$5,181
$24,513
Governor’s Crime Prevention Office
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Human Resources
$0
$19,865
$39,865
$40,801
$41,810
$45,198
$187,539
$751
$84,405
$116,641
$121,751
$123,560
$126,997
$574,106
$1,333
$9,956
$6,040
$2,347
$2,416
$4,172
$26,264
Children and Family Services
$0
$856
$4,313
$4,280
$4,241
$4,211
$17,901
Commerce
$0
$15,939
$17,939
$12,939
$12,939
$12,939
$72,697
Corrections
$38
$6,155
$8,776
$8,496
$8,350
$8,171
$39,985
Education
$75
$88,724
$131,174
$131,674
$132,174
$125,674
$609,495
$0
$8,525
$43,965
$45,024
$46,242
$46,707
$190,462
$17,800
$67,600
$70,000
$72,700
$75,400
$78,300
$381,800
Transportation
$0
$12,850
$16,500
$17,500
$17,500
$17,500
$81,850
General Government
$0
$6,147
$9,554
$9,554
$9,554
$9,554
$44,363
Budget Process
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,997
$301,157
$424,902
$426,265
$432,377
Procurement
Cross Agency
Administration
Medicaid - KDHE & KDADS
Revenue
TOTAL Savings and Revenue Estimates
TOTAL Number of Recommendations
Identify Opportunities
$434,226 $2,038,923
105
Following the initial assessment and the development
of a fact base, A&M identified areas for potential fiscal and operational improvement and conducted
more detailed analyses in order to create specific recommendations. To identify opportunities, A&M conducted interviews, pursued follow-up data collection,
conducted budget and spend analysis, and reviewed
operational efficiency efforts (current and planned).
The teams were also cognizant of typical sources of
department inefficiencies—such as over-staffing and
incorrect assessment of current resources, which led
to reviews of opportunities for consolidation, shared
services, and privatization. Additionally, to identify areas for improvement, A&M reviewed available benchmarks such as the average service cost per person or
time frame for a specific process to help us to compare
the state’s baseline with public sector averages and
private sector industry-leading examples.
Once opportunities for operational and financial efficiencies were identified, A&M reviewed the effects
on the department’s operations as well as the state
as a whole. All recommendations are designed to balance against the available flexibility to make changes
considering charters, personnel agreements, existing
contracts, and legislated requirements. As we develop
recommendations, we met with the agency teams as
part of iterative processes in framing potential recommendations.
Develop, Quantify and Prioritize Opportunities
`
With opportunities identified, A&M developed, vetted
and prioritized operational and fiscal improvement
opportunities. Through the process of prioritizing potential opportunities, A&M worked to ensure that:
• The recommendations are realistic and fundable.
• The recommendations reduce costs without sacrificing quality or performance.
• The recommendations improve efficiency—either qualitatively through the adoption of best
practices or quantitatively via the adoption of financial, operational or other improvements.
• The recommendations may help agencies reach
or improve upon economies of scale.
• The recommendations sought to share services
and consolidate functions where possible.
• The recommendations identify areas where the
structure and capabilities of the State’s workforce
and infrastructure may be improved.
With these opportunities identified and categorized,
A&M set up review session meetings with each agency to discuss which efficiency solutions to vet, prioritize opportunities and jointly establish preliminary
discussions on critical implementation steps. A&M is
presenting this Phase 1 preliminary report, which includes the results of A&M’s diagnostic analysis of the
state’s budget, a prioritized list of recommendations,
and A&M’s analysis of options to make improvements
in the state’s budget process.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW |
9
10 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
Budget
Analysis and Benchmarking
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the Division of Budget, Legislative Research Department and Office of Chief Financial Officer. Alvarez & Marsal would
like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Shawn Sullivan, Director of Budget
•
Lisa Becker, SMART Processing Team
•
DeAnn Hill, Chief Financial Officer
•
Nancy Haufler, SMART Processing Team Lead
•
Julie Thomas, Deputy Director, Division of the Budget
•
Nancy Ruoff, Manager - Statewide Payroll & Accounting
•
JG Scott, Assistant Director for Fiscal Affairs
•
Roger Basinger, Team Lead - Federal Reporting Team
•
Dylan Dear, Managing Fiscal Analyst
•
Annette Witt, Internal Control and Systems Audit Team
Introduction
Background and Approach
Kansas Division of Budget is responsible for the state
budget process, including, but not limited to, budget
execution, financial administration and budget analysis. The Division of Budget annually produces The Governor’s Budget Report, which reflects expenditures for
both current and upcoming fiscal years and funding
sources. The Governor’s Budget Report is used by the
Legislature as a guide for appropriating the money
necessary for operating the state agencies.
Summary Scope of work
A&M utilized the June 30, 2015 Approved Budget to
conduct a comprehensive diagnostic analysis of the
State’s budget and identify spending trends and outliers.
Using the State Expenditure Report (Fiscal 2012-2014)
published by the National Association of State Budget
Officer’s (NASBO), A&M analyzed the State’s expenditures against benchmark states. The budget analysis
included, but is not limited to, the following:
• Trend analysis – A&M examined the State’s
spending over a ten-year time frame for all state
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 11
functions—Elementary and Secondary Education, Transportation, Corrections, Medicaid, etc.
• Analysis of State expenditures and spending
trends – A&M analyzed expenditures by funding source, such as general fund, federal funds,
bonds, etc., over a ten-year time frame.
• Benchmarking analysis – A&M compared the
State’s spending levels to peer states and other
recognized benchmarks.
Baseline Budget
Governor’s FY16 – FY17 Budget
The Governor’s Budget Report Fiscal Year 2016 (next
page) provided the baseline budget A&M used to perform benchmark comparisons and establish a baseline
for comparison.
In 2015, Kansas generated $15.4 billion of revenue and
incurred $15.1 billion of expenses. These totals represent a 3% increase in revenue and a 2% increase in
expenses. For 2015, the State General Fund accounted
for 38% of revenues. The largest driver of expenses
was Education, accounting for $7.2 billion in expenditures, or roughly 48% of all expenses. The next largest
expense driver was Human Services followed by Trans-
FY 2013 Actuals
State
General Federal
Fund
Funds
portation. For the Fiscal Year 2015, Kansas held a Net
Operating Balance surplus of $352 thousand, a 20%
increase from the year prior.
Fiscal Year 2016 and FY17 estimates show Kansas incurring Net Operating deficits of $65 million and $15
million, respectively. As a countermeasure, the state
enacted $15 million in statewide IT savings and an additional $50 million in Public Safety related savings.
Revenues in FY16 are estimated to decrease by $114
million, or roughly 1%, from FY 15. Concurrently, expenses are estimated to increase by $302 million, or
2%, from FY15 to FY16. The projected Net Operating
Balance in FY16 is a $65 million deficit. Principal drivers of revenues and expenses remain the same from
years prior. Finally, the state projects returning revenue growth for FY17 to $15.84 billion, compared to estimated expenses of $15.86 billion, effectively reaching a balanced budget.
National Association of State Budget
Officer’s (NASBO) – State Expenditure
Report (Fiscal 2012-2014)
NASBO’s State Expenditure Report (Fiscal 2012-2014)
provided the baseline A&M used to perform benchmark comparisons and to establish a baseline for comparison.
FY 2014 Actuals
Other
State
Funds
Bonds
203
4,909
FY 2015 Estimates
Other
State
Funds
Bonds
6,504
11,196
156
General Federal
Fund
Funds
Arkansas
4,744
6,068
10,433
Idaho
2,691
2,647
1,342
10
2,767
2,614
1,456
Iowa
6,299
5,727
7,398
107
6,564
5,928
7,747
Kansas
6,146
3,890
3,518
415
5,983
3,900
4,474
Missouri
8,022
7,209
7,711
-
8,349
7,201
7,622
Nebraska
3,589
3,014
3,559
-
3,792
2,911
Nevada
3,185
2,796
2,629
41
3,125
2,859
New Mexico
5,651
5,799
3,246
-
5,910
Oklahoma
6,630
6,653
7,764
383
Utah
5,098
3,462
3,529
National Aver13,733
age
9,975
8,978
General Federal
Fund
Funds
Other
State
Funds
Bonds
5,063
7,131
11,439
171
28
2,915
2,837
1,861
21
107
6,994
6,335
8,435
25
366
6,255
3,882
4,906
402
-
8,773
7,495
7,853
1
3,839
-
4,031
2,908
4,043
-
3,405
20
3,369
3,897
3,560
28
6,108
4,180
-
6,151
6,581
4,359
-
6,859
7,404
7,851
267
6,909
7,268
7,873
338
-
5,383
3,497
3,304
-
5,749
3,642
3,561
-
729
14,272
10,440
9,342
677
14,974
11,713
10,025
735
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers. This data is proprietary to the National Association of State Budget Officers. This data has been
modified by A&M Public Sector Services.
12 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
T otal K ansas R evenues and E xpenditures from FY13 – FY17 (A ctuals and E stimated )
FY 2013 Actual
FY 2014 Actual
FY 2015 Actual FY 2016 Estimate FY 2017 Estimate
Revenues
State General Fund
Taxes
6,333,197
5,632,080
5,717,353
6,041,800
6,209,900
7,927
21,118
211,428
124,100
75,800
Total State General Fund
6,341,124
5,653,198
5,928,781
6,165,900
6,285,700
All Other Revenue
7,971,607
9,362,628
9,512,420
9,160,826
9,559,356
14,312,731
15,015,826
15,441,201
15,326,726
15,845,056
6,321,342
6,428,967
7,242,248
7,336,314
7,395,916
Department of Education
3,741,543
3,808,653
4,533,992
4,614,267
4,643,034
Regents
2,545,863
2,589,523
2,674,328
2,690,764
2,721,137
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Education
Other Education
33,937
30,791
33,928
31,284
31,744
4,719,124
4,742,775
4,875,847
5,051,491
4,972,039
Health & Environment-Health
1,939,905
2,183,862
2,299,098
2,380,916
2,391,560
Department for Aging &
Disability Services
1,413,980
1,399,068
1,515,113
1,567,357
1,509,293
Department for Children &
Families
623,572
585,975
567,989
612,871
619,162
Other Human Services
741,668
573,870
493,647
490,347
452,024
Transportation
1,004,077
1,680,019
1,168,939
1,114,481
1,546,447
General Government
1,127,347
1,101,702
1,060,877
1,149,219
1,197,768
Human Services
Department of Revenue
131,654
113,401
119,224
119,771
101,245
Department of Administration
93,555
82,859
87,701
136,739
170,068
Department of Commerce
164,225
153,421
99,236
113,224
107,204
Other General Government
737,912
752,021
754,716
779,485
819,250
599,519
583,209
561,824
556,542
561,284
Department of Corrections
& Facilities
300,983
366,124
373,416
372,018
378,502
Other Public Safety
298,535
217,085
188,407
184,524
182,782
197,823
186,713
179,319
183,679
186,602
13,969,231
14,723,385
15,089,052
15,391,726
15,860,056
Statewide IT Savings
(15,000)
(15,000)
Other Public Safety
(50,000)
Public Safety
Agriculture & Natural Resources
Total Expenditures
Other Adjustments
Net Operating Balance
343,500
292,442
352,149
-
-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 13
Benchmark Comparisons
• Oklahoma
Benchmark Selection Criteria
• Utah
Throughout this report—and the immediately ensuing budget analysis—Kansas will be compared to
a number of peer states. The following benchmark
states were chosen for their demographic, geographic
and economic similarities to the state of Kansas:
• Arkansas
• Idaho
• Iowa
Within certain recommendations, some states not listed above may be included as benchmark states due to
other structural similarities with Kansas or their best
practice/exemplary status within a given criteria.
For our global benchmark states, however, socioeconomic fundamentals were used to derive an apt collection of peer states in order to contextualize Kansas’s
present budgetary reality.
Over the last thirteen years, Kansas has seen a 6.68
percent rise in population—roughly half of the average growth seen by its peer states. Kansas is the sixth
most populous state of the comparison group. Similarly, Kansas ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of
median family income. The scatter plot visually overlaps these two conditions:
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Mexico
Population and Income, 2014
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
Population, 2014
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Median Income Per Capita, 2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division
Release Date: December 2014
Kansas
Peer States
Rest of Nation
60,000
70,000
80,000
14 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
Kansas’ working age population—18 to 64 years old—constitute 61.26 percent of the state's population. This is
in line with its peer states, along with the nation as a whole (62.6 percent). These numbers are derived from the
Census Bureau’s 2013 population estimates:
Population by Age, 2013
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Under 18
Nebraska
Nevada
Working Age (18-64)
New Mexico Oklahoma
Utah
United
States
AVERAGE
Aging (65+)
Source: United States Census Bureau, 2014.
Economic activity (in this case, employment), by sector, speaks to the geographic and market realities that underpin the peer states. With the exception of Nevada and its significant tourism industry, Kansas’s peer states all
share the same top nine industries by level of employment:
Employment by Sector, 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Accomodation, Recreation and Food Services
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Educational Industry
Health Care
Construction and Manufacturing
Professional Services
Public Administration
Retail Trade Industry Employment
Total Trade and Warehousing
All Other Industries Employment
Source: Census Bureau estimates, 2014.
Utah
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 15
According to the Census Bureau, Kansas ranks near the median when compared to its peer states with the fifth
lowest percent of households earning less than $50,000 a year:
Income Brackets, 2013
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Utah
Nevada
Less than $25,000
Iowa
$25,000 - $34,999
Nebraska
$35,000 - $49,999
Kansas
$50,000 - $74,999
Idaho
$75,000 - $99,999
Missouri
Oklahoma
$100,000 - $124,999
New Mexico
$125,000 - $149,999
Arkansas
$150,000 or more
Source: Census’s American Community Survey estimates, 2013.
These demographic and economic factors combine with policy to ultimately affect Kansas’s unemployment
rate. As of 2014, Kansas has the fifth lowest unemployment rate when compared to its peer states, and nearly 2
percent lower than the National Average:
Historic Unemployment Rate, 2008 to 2014
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
National Average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015.
2014
Nebraska
16 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
Revenue Analysis
ate the tax burden elsewhere.
Estimated Revenues FY14
A comparison of tax rates from peer benchmark states
show that Kansas’ general sales tax is higher than peer
states, while the individual income tax and corporate
rates are in line with peer states. Additional detail on
the tax rate benchmarks can be found in the Department of Revenue chapter.
2014 Kansas Total Revenues by Type
590
Benchmark Analysis
The estimated FY15 revenues for the State of Kansas
are sourced from:
• 7 percent Corporate Income Tax (0.4 million)
• 13 percent Other Taxes and Fees (0.7 million)
This compares to the nationwide average revenues
that are sourced from:
• 30 percent Sales Tax (4.5 million)
• 42 percent Personal Income Tax (6.2 million)
• 6 percent Corporate Income Tax (0.9 million)
• 6 percent Other Taxes and Fees (3.0 million)
• 1 percent Gaming Taxes (0.1 million)
The largest differences, when compared to the nationwide averages are in Sales Tax (11 percent difference)
and Other Taxes and Fees (8 percent difference). The
state has undertaken significant tax policy changes in
2012, 2013, and 2014, which increased the reliance on
sales taxes to fund general operations. It is also important to note that there are likely significant opportunities to increase Other Taxes and Fees, in order to allevi-
Idaho
• 38 percent Personal Income Tax (2.2 million)
Arkansas
• 42 percent Sales Tax (2.4 million)
2014 Total Revenues by Type
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SALES TAX
PERSONAL INCOME TAX
GAMING TAX
OTHER TAXES FEES
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Analysis of State Revenues
Aside from Nevada and New Mexico, the other eight
peer states, including Kansas all collect between five
to seven percent of general fund revenues from Corporate Income Tax. Additional detail with regard to the
comparisons of tax collections can be found in the De-
Utah
CORPORATE INCOME TAX
Oklahoma
OTHER TAXES FEES
New Mexico
PERSONAL INCOME TAX
GAMING TAX
Nevada
SALES TAX
Nebraska
2,218
In comparing Kansas to the ten selected state benchmarks, Kansas receives the 43 percent of General Fund
Receipts from Sales Tax, which is the highest amongst
peer states, and 39 percent from Personal Income
Taxes, which is ranked seventh among peer states and
just below the national average of 42 percent.
Missouri
2,446
Kansas
399
Iowa
-
CORPORATE INCOME TAX
partment of Revenue chapter.
The amount that Kansas receives from Other Taxes
and Fees is ten percent, which places it in line with
Iowa and Utah. Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Nevada
collect between 19 percent to 45 percent from Other
Taxes and Fees, and the national average is 21 percent,
indicating some room for improvement in fee based
collections.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 17
Impact Analysis
10 Year Revenue Growth Rate As A
Percentage Growth from 2006 Baseline
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
-10.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-20.00%
-30.00%
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
Kansas 10 Year Revenue Growth by Type
$7,000
Kansas and its peer states (along with most of the
country) experienced increasing revenue growth rates
stemming from the nadir of the 2010 recession. According to the Rockefeller Insititute of Government,
flat revenue growth is predicted to continue through
at least 2017.1 This study predicts Kansas personal income tax revenue growth to decrease to 7.6 percent
for the years 2015-2016, and then reduce further to 1.4
percent for the years 2016-2017. Additionally, sales tax
revenue growth is predicted to slow from 7.6 percent
for 2015-2016 to 3.7 percent for 2016-2017. This reduction in growth may be attributed in part to slower
growth in the general economy, but also due to longterm demographic changes, such as an aging population increasingly exiting the workforce.
Expenditure Analysis
$6,000
Estimated FY15 Total Expenditures by
Function
Kansas 2015 Estimated Spend by Function
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
18%
$2,000
30%
$1,000
9%
Sales
Personal Income
Gaming
Other Taxes and Fees
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
$-
2%
Corporate Income
18%
23%
Trend Analysis
The estimated revenues for the State of Kansas have
grown 11.3 percent since 2006. This compares to the
10 state benchmark growth weighted average growth
rate of 16.2 percent since 2006.
Kansas’ overall rate of growth exceeds Oklahoma, Nevada, and New Mexico, but falls below the rest of the
benchmark states. Aside from the 2009 recessionary
impacts, the two largest percentage reductions occurred between 2012 and 2013 when a 32 percent reduction in other taxes and fees occurred and between
2013 and 2014 as a result of a 24 percent reduction in
personal income tax occurred.
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
Analysis of State Expenditures
Approximately 70 percent of Kansas’ spend goes to
three categories: Elementary and Secondary Education (4,578 million), Medicaid (3,548 million), and
Higher Education (2,713 million). Kansas devotes an
additional 11 percent to Transportation (1,345 million)
and Corrections (392 million), and the remaining all
other expenditures (2,849 million) constitute the final
18 percent of spend.
This compares to the expenditures across the nine
state benchmarks selected of 59 percent for the three
1
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_
finance/2015-12-By_Numbers_Brief_No2.pdf
18 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
largest categories: Elementary and Secondary Education (18 percent), Higher Education (15 percent), and
Medicaid (26 percent). Transportation and Corrections
make up 9 percent of the average state benchmark
spend, leaving 30 percent for all other expenditures.
Kansas 2015 Expense Growth by Funding Type
402
4,906
6,255
Benchmark State 2015 Expenditures by Function
100%
90%
80%
70%
3,882
60%
50%
General Fund
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
Bonds
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Arkansas
Idaho
Elem & Sec Educ
Iowa
Higher Educ
Kansas
TANF
Missouri
Other Cash
Nebraska
Medicaid
Nevada
Corrections
New Mexico Oklahoma
Transportation
Utah
All Other Expenditures
Benchmark Analysis
As a percentage of budgets, Kansas spends more than
all other states combined for Elementary and Secondary Education at 30 percent of state funds. The next
closest is Utah with 26 percent of state spend dedicated toward Elementary and Secondary Education.
Kansas spends the fourth most of the benchmark
states at 18 percent; behind only Iowa (26 percent),
Nebraska (24 percent), and Oklahoma (23 percent). It
is important to note that the educational expenditures
only consider state spending, although education as
a whole, is funded by both state and local funding. A
detailed look at funding inclusive of local funding is
included in the Functional Analysis section.
Kansas ranks sixth in Medicaid spend at 23 percent
with the other states ranging from 17 percent to 36
percent of total state spend. At nine percent, Kansas
ranks second behind Idaho (10 percent) for spending
on Transportation, and is in the middle of the benchmark states for Corrections spend at 3 percent.
Kansas’ spend on All Other expenditures is lowest at
18 percent with the next closest state being Iowa at
25 percent.
Funding Source Analysis
The General Fund covers 40 percent of Kansas’s 2015
estimated expenses (for a total over $6.2 billion), followed by Other State Funds (32 percent, $4.9 billion)
and Federal Funds (25 percent, $3.8 billion). The remaining $402 million, or 3 percent of funds are derived from Bonds.
Kansas ranks as the state with the highest percentage of its funds sourced from the General Fund compared to its peer states. Missouri sources 38 percent
of expenditures form the General Fund (second most)
while Arkansas sources 8 percent of expenditures from
their General Fund (the least among peer states). Most
states within Kansas’s peer group share similar composition of expenditure funding sources. However, Arkansas and Nevada deviate significantly, as both rely
more heavily on Other State Funds. In Nevada’s case
(63 percent of expenditures sourced from other state
funds), gaming revenues explain the dependency on
Other State Funds. Of the comparison states, Kansas
used the most funds sourced from Bonds, at 5 percent.
Trend Analysis
Kansas Total State Expenditures by Funding Type
FY06 - FY14
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 19
recessionary economic conditions.
10 Year Expense Growth Rate As A Percentage Growth
from 2006 Baseline
Kansas’ has the third lowest rate of expenditure growth
among benchmark states at 35.9 percent and is only
higher than Missouri’s 22.5 percent and New Mexico’s
32.5 percent growth rates. The slower rate of expenditure growth was achieved through cost containment
efforts in 2012 and 2013.
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-10.00%
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth by Function
18,000
16,000
The reductions in expenditures in 2012 were achieved
through reductions in Transportation and Elementary
and Secondary Education. The expense reductions in
2013 were achieved through cuts in Transportation,
Medicaid, and All Other Expenditures. The growth in
expenditures resumed in 2014 and 2015. As a result
of the cost cutting efforts, the overall rate of growth in
expenditures was reduced to 1.3 percent per year between 2011 and 2015. This should also be compared
to the forecast in FY16 and F17 in which future growth
in expenditures has been reduced to 2 to 3 percent.
14,000
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth Rate from 2006 Baseline
Total Expenditures
12,000
100.00%
10,000
80.00%
8,000
60.00%
6,000
40.00%
4,000
20.00%
0.00%
2,000
-20.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
2015
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-40.00%
-60.00%
-80.00%
The estimated expenses for the State of Kansas have
grown 35.1 percent since 2006. This compares to the
10 state benchmark growth weighted average growth
rate of 39.4 percent since 2006. During that same time
span, General Fund-sourced expenditures rose by 22
percent, Federal Fund-sourced expenditures rose by
19 percent, Other State Funds-sourced expenditures
by 74 percent. From 2006 to 2015, Kansas averaged
43 percent of expenditures covered from the General
Fund, 28 percent from Federal Funds, 27 percent from
Other State Funds and 2 percent from Bond funds. Deviation from this pattern occurred in the years 2010 to
2012, when expenditures sourced from the General
Fund as a percentage dropped while Federal Funds
made up a larger percentage of expenditures; this is
largely explained by the increase in contribution by
the federal government to states through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) during the
-100.00%
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
Growth Rate Analysis
Kansas’s estimated total expense growth rate from
2006 baseline was 35 percent. The largest driver of
growth, in terms of spending category, was Medicaid
spending which yielded an estimated growth of 64
percent. After Medicaid, Elementary and Secondary
Education and Higher Education spending grew 49
percent and 39 percent, respectively. Growth in Medicaid spending is in line with demographic and socioeconomic trends across both Kansas and the country.
The growth rate of General Fund expenditures differ
from those of total expenditures, though the number
20 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
Benchmark Comparison of Total Spend
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth Rate from 2006 Baseline
General Fund Only
While the blend of expenditures differs, to a degree,
between Kansas and its peer states, the four largest
spending categories in each state remain: Elementary
and Secondary Education, Higher Education, Medicaid
and All Other Expenditures.
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
one driver of expenditures by function from General
Fund sources remains Medicaid at 52 percent. After
Medicaid, Elementary and Secondary Education and
Corrections expenditures grew by approximately 28
percent a piece in expenditures that were covered
from the State General Fund.
In Kansas, Elementary and Secondary education
makes up 30 percent of spending in 2015. This is sixty
percent higher than the weighted average of its peer
states, which spend 18 percent of funds on elementary and secondary education. The is the opposite
spending mix for All Other Expenditures, which makes
up roughly 30 percent of expenses for the peer states
and 18 percent of spending for the State of Kansas. For
Medicaid, Kansas spends slightly less as a percentage
of total spend than peer states at 23 percent when
compared to 26 percent. For Higher Education, Kansas spends slightly more as a percentage of total than
peer states at 18 percent, when compared to 15 percent for the peer states weighted average spend.
Kansas 2015 Estimated
Spend by Function
Benchmark States 2015 Estimated
Spend by Function
-20.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-40.00%
-60.00%
-80.00%
-100.00%
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
18%
18%
30%
30%
9%
15%
2%
1%
1%
7%
18%
23%
2%
26%
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
Kansas 2015 Estimated Spend by Function
(General Fund)
Benchmark States 2015 Estimated Spend by Function
(General Fund)
10%
22%
6%
40%
20%
7%
51%
17%
13%
14%
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Elem & Sec Educ
Higher Educ
TANF
Other Cash
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
Medicaid
Corrections
Transportation
All Other Expenditures
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 21
Benchmark Comparison of General
Fund Spend
Functional Analysis
2014 Kansas Elementary and Secondary Expenditures
376
470
2,963
Federal Funds
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Utah
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Nevada
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Iowa
Idaho
General Fund
Bonds
Analysis of Elementary and Secondary
Education Expenditures
The vast majority of Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures are sourced from the State General Fund, a total of over $2.9 billion, or 78 percent of
expenditures. The second largest source of education
funds are Federal Funds, at $470 million, or 12 percent.
Other State Funds source 10 percent, or $371 million,
of education funds.
Kansas sources no significant expenditures from Bond
sources.
Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures by Type
General Fund
Arkansas
When solely considering the General Fund expenditures, Kansas expends roughly 51 percent of funds on
Elementary and Secondary Education, compared to 35
percent for the National Average and 40 percent for
the weighted average of its peer states. The large disparity when compared to peer states shows that more
could be done to source Elementary and Secondary
Education funding from other sources to relieve stress
on the General Fund. The next greatest source of expenditures—across all states—is All Other Expenditures, Higher Education and Medicaid. For the state
of Kansas, 20 percent of expenditures are on Medicaid, compared to 17 percent for its peer states. Next,
Higher Education accounts for 13 percent of spending,
which is roughly equivalent to 14 percent for its peer
states. The most significant deviation is for All Other
Expenditures, where Kansas spends considerably less
(10 percent) compared to the National Average (27
percent) and its peer states (22 percent).
FY 2014 Elementary and Secondary Expenditures
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other State Funds
Bonds
Elementary and Secondary Education
Benchmark Analysis
Kansas mirrors the spending patterns of its peer states.
New Mexico sources the greatest proportion of its education funds from the General Fund—86 percent, or
over $2.5 billion—while Missouri sources the least—55
percent. Kansas’s 78 percent of expenditures sourced
from the General Fund (compared to the National Average of 72 percent) ranks in the middle of the pack,
fifth most of the eleven in comparison. Kansas ranks
last in the amount of funding generated from federal
funding sources with 12 percent of the total funding
provided by federal dollars. This compares to the peer
and nationwide averages of 15 percent and 20 percent
for Nebraska. Kansas is in the middle of the pack when
it comes to sourcing funding from other state funds
with 10 percent of funding from other state funds. The
other states have a wide range of other state funding
levels from zero for New Mexico to 27 percent for Missouri. While a small percentage of bond funding has
22 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
occurred nationwide, no peer state sources significant
expenditures from Bond sources.
10 Year Expense Growth Rate As A Percentage
Growth from 2006 Baseline
Elementary and Secondary Expenditures
80.00%
the blend of funding sources remained similar (the
exceptions are the years 2010 and 2011, which saw
spikes in funding sourced federally in response to recessionary economic conditions). However, spending
from 2013 to 2015 saw funding sourced more predominantly from other state funds. The 2015 jump in
other state funds correlates to the spike in overall expenditures seen historically in the trend analysis.
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Impact Analysis
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
-10.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-20.00%
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth Elementary and Secondary Expenditures
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2006
2007
2008
General Fund
2009
2010
Federal Funds
2011
2012
Other State Funds
2013
2014
2015
Bonds
Elementary and Secondary Education
Trend Analysis
Kansas saw roughly a 25 percent increase in growth
rate for education expenditures from 2014 to 2015 (an
increase of nearly $1 billion). From 2007 to 2015, Kansas saw a steady increase in the growth rate of education expenditures, from approximately 10 percent
growth from 2006 to 2007, to almost 25 percent in total growth by 2014. This general increase in spending
rates is seen in Kansas’s peer states as well. The only
state to experience negative growth rates was Oklahoma, from the years 2007 to 2010. Conversely, Nevada
experienced a growth in education expenditures of 65
percent from 2006 to 2014.
While expenditures rose steadily from 2006 to 2013,
Kansas’s total K-12 Education spend has been historically impacted by significant local contributions (according to the Rockefeller Institute, Kansas spends
the eleventh highest percentage of Education funds
sourced from the state2). This trend is likely to continue
into the future. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
which replaces No Child Left Behind, provides states
more flexibility in education standards and accountability. These measures will allow for more budgetary
control to be wielded at the state level with less federal
intervention. According to the Rockefeller Institute of
Government, Kansas spends roughly $11,500 per pupil (from a 2009 study), which places the state squarely
on the median for the country as a whole.3 About 17
percent of Kansas’s population consists of those Kansans in K-12 enrollment.
Projected growth stagnation in state revenues and
Kansas’s significant state-level contribution combine
to illustrate a strained K-12 budgetary environment
in the future. Buoyed by the additional freedom provided by the ESSA, Kansas will succeed by pursuing increased efficiencies and shared resources within their
K-12 education system.
Funding Impact Analysis (including local funding)
Across the country, K-12 Education also receives a significant level of funding from local sources. The chart
below shows the funding sources for K-12 education.
Based on the 2013 census bureau estimates, Kansas
was in line with the peer states in terms of the level
of funding from local sources, as Kansas received 36
2
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_
finance/2012-05-22-Fed_State_Local_Ed_$.pdf
3
Ibid.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 23
in line with the national average spent per pupil in
Education with $11,496 spent per pupil compared to
$11,434 spent per pupil nationwide. This places Kansas third among peer states in terms of the total spent
per pupil, with Nebraska and Iowa spending $12,844
and $12,177, repectively. The lowest of the peer state
expenditures per student is Idaho with $7,232 spent
per pupil.
Education Revenue by Government 2013
(dollars in 000's, sorted from highest total revenue to lowest)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Higher Education Expenditures by Type
0%
Federal
State
2014 Kansas Higher Education Expenditures—Capital
Inclusive
Local
53
Education Revenue and Expenses, per pupil
(sorted from highest per pupil spend to lowest)
$14,000
762
$12,000
1,233
$10,000
$8,000
542
$6,000
$4,000
General Fund
$2,000
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
Bonds
$Average
FY 2014 Higher Education Expenditures—Capital
Inclusive
Expenses Per Pupil
Kansas’ low federal funding levels across the state
would require 62% increase in federal funding to get
to the average of the 10 benchmark states. Across the
state education system that would equate to more
than $260 million in new federal funding. This indicates that there is more that can be done to improve
Kansas’ award of federal dollars to alleviate spending
in other areas.
It is also important to look at the cost per pupil to
gauge the level of spending per pupil when compared
to the benchmark states, as well as the nationwide
averages. Using the 2013 census estimates, Kansas is
General Fund
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Utah
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Oklahoma
percent of funding from local sources while the peer
benchmark states receive 35 percent from local sources. The peer states ranged from 17 percent from local
sources for New Mexico to 58 percent of funding from
local sources for Nebraska. Kansas received the lowest
of peer states from federal funding sources at 7 percent of total funding. The next lowest was Iowa at 8
percent, the average was 12 percent, and the higest
was New Mexico at 15 percent.
New Mexico
Idaho
Nevada
Utah
Nebraska
Nevada Oklahoma
Missouri
Revenue per Pupil
New
Mexico
Kansas
Missouri Arkansas Kentucky
Iowa
Kansas
Idaho
Iowa
Arkansas
Nebraska
Bonds
Analysis of Higher Education Expenditures
The vast majority—48 percent or $1.23 billion—of
funding for higher education in Kansas is sourced from
state funds other than the General Fund. An additional 50 percent of funds are sourced between federal
sources and the state General Fund. The state of Kansas only sources 2 percent, or $53 million, of its higher
education expenditures from bonds.
24 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
Higher Education Benchmark Analysis
Kansas and its peer states differ significantly in terms
of where higher education expenditures are sourced.
Some states—such as Missouri at 76 percent—source
a significantly greater proportion of higher education
expenditures from their state General Fund. Meanwhile, states such as Arkansas and Iowa rely considerably more on funds other than the state general fund
at 78 and 76 percent, respectively.
ed for most of the increases in spending, growing from
822 million in 2006 to in $1.3 billion in expenditures in
2015. Similarly, federal funding grew from 360 million
in 2006 to 566 million in 2015.
Medicaid Expenditures by Type
2014 Kansas Medicaid Expenditures
544
1,176
10 Year Expense Growth Rate from 2006 Baseline
Higher Education Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
100.00%
80.00%
1,583
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
General Fund
0.00%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
Bonds
2015
FY 2014 Medicaid Expenditures
-40.00%
Arkansas
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
General Fund
1,000
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth Higher Education Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
Utah
Utah
Oklahoma
Missouri
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Kansas
New Mexico
Nevada
Iowa
Nevada
Nebraska
Idaho
Nebraska
Missouri
Arkansas
Kansas
-60.00%
Idaho
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Iowa
-20.00%
2006
Bonds
Analysis of Medicaid Expenditures
500
2006
2007
2008
General Fund
2009
2010
Federal Funds
2011
2012
Other State Funds
2013
2014
2015
Bonds
Higher Education Trend Analysis
From 2006 to 2015, Kansas exhibited an average 3.7
percent yearly increase in the growth rate of higher
education expenditures. Kansas’s growth over this
period rose steadily while some of its peer states exhibited much greater variation, such as New Mexico’s
drop in 2015 and Iowa’s much more dramatic increase
in 2010. Over that same time period, expenditures
sourced from the General Fund averaged $772 million.
Expenditures sourced from other state funds account-
The estimated FY15 Medicaid expenditures for the
State of Kansas are sourced from:
• 48 percent Federal Funds (1.7 billion)
• 36 percent General Fund (1.3 billion)
• 16 percent Other State Funds (0.6 billion)
This compares to the nationwide average revenues
that are sourced from:
• 62 percent Federal Funds (6.3 billion)
• 28 percent the General Fund (2.9 billion)
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 25
• 10 percent Other State Funds (1.0 billion)
The largest difference when compared to the nationwide averages is in Federal Funds (14 percent difference), indicating that Kansas relies more on the General Funds to pay for Medicaid services. The mix of
federal funding is largely driven from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pre-defined
Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) rates,
which are the percentage rates used to determine the
matching funds allocated to certain medical and social
service programs. The alternative to expand Medicaid
would not increase the FMAP for the existing population, but would increase the FMAP rates for the new
enrollees, also requiring an additional state match for
the expanded population.
Medicaid Benchmark Analysis
Comparing Kansas to the ten state benchmarks selected, Kansas Medicaid expenditure of 36 percent from
General Fund is the second highest among peer states,
and 48 percent from Federal Funds is the lowest. The
other benchmark states average Medicaid expenditure is 65 percent, which is in line with the nationwide
average of 62 percent.
10 Year Expense Growth Rate from 2006 Baseline
Medicaid Expenditures
160.00%
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth Medicaid Expenditures
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2006
2007
2008
General Fund
2009
2010
Federal Funds
2011
2012
Other State Funds
2013
2014
2015
Bonds
Medicaid Trend Analysis
Medicaid expenditures for the State of Kansas have
grown 22.3 percent since 2006. This is in line with the
benchmark states average growth rate of 24.3 percent since 2006. Kansas’ rate of Medicaid expenditure
growth is in the middle compared to the benchmark
states—higher than Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and
New Mexico, and lower than Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa,
Oklahoma and Utah.
Kansas’ Federal Funding has steadily declined since
2010, from 70 percent to 48 percent in 2015. While
General Fund spending declined between 2013 and
2014, 43 percent and 36 percent respectively, the use
of Other State Funds increased dramatically, from 2
percent in 2013 to 16 percent in 2014.
Impact Analysis
140.00%
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
-20.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
2015
Children and the Elderly are two of the largest recipients of Medicaid funds,4 according to the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid. This is significant; according
to the Kaiser Family Foundation, from 2000 to 2013,
Children comprised 25 percent of the total US Population and Elderly Adults was the fastest growing demographic, with a growth rate of 1.9 percent (nearly
double that of Working-Age Adults).5 Additionally,
while the growth of health care costs slowed since the
Great Recession, the growth rates are expected to outpace national gross domestic product by 1.1 percent
4
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chipprogram-information/by-population/by-population.
html
5
http://kff.org/report-section/economic-andfiscal-trends-in-expansion-and-non-expansion-statesdemographics/
26 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
over the next ten years. It concludes that Medicaid—
and health spending in general—will grow into the
future, at minimum, on pace with historical averages.
This likely reality testifies to the need for an effective
and flexible state Medicaid apparatus.
Corrections Expenditures by Type
variance between Kansas and its peer states ranges
from 10 percent greater than Iowa versus roughly 3
percent lower than Missouri). Other sources of funds
are blended at roughly the same rate as Kansas’s peer
states. Outliers include Iowa’s nearly 9 percent of funds
sourced from bonds and Oklahoma’s roughly 20 percent of expenditures sourced from other state funds.
2014 Kansas Corrections Expenditures—Capital
Inclusive
10 Year Expense Growth Rate from 2006 Baseline
Corrections Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
100.00%
2
23
8
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-20.00%
349
-40.00%
General Fund
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
Bonds
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
FY 2014 Corrections Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth Corrections Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
450
400
350
300
250
General Fund
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Utah
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Nevada
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Iowa
Idaho
Arkansas
200
Bonds
Analysis of Corrections Expenditures
In 2014, expenditures by Kansas Corrections—inclusive of the Department of Corrections and the state’s
correctional facilities—sources over 90 percent, or
$349 million, of its fund from the State General Fund.
The state spends an additional $23 million (6 percent)
of funds sourced from other state funds in addition to
$8 million (2 percent of overall expenditures) of bonded funds and $2 million, or less than 1 percent, of Federal Funds.
Corrections Benchmark Analysis
Kansas corresponds closely with the National Averages; nationwide, roughly 90 percent of all corrections
expenditures are sourced from state general funds
(within expenditures sourced from state general funds,
150
100
50
2006
2007
2008
General Fund
2009
2010
Federal Funds
2011
2012
Other State Funds
Corrections Trend Analysis
2013
2014
2015
Bonds
From 2012 to 2015, Kansas averaged a 2.2 percent yearover-year increase in corrections expenditures. This
three year period tracks within a margin of 4 percent
to 8 percent compared to the years from 2006 to 2015.
This low and steady growth rate is more consistent
than the variations seen by Kansas peer states. Utah
is an exception as the only state that has experienced
consistent negative growth in expenditure spending.
Expenditures have been increasingly sourced from
the General Fund, peaking in 2015. The years 2010 and
2011 saw disproportionately large portions of expenditures being sourced from federal sources (roughly
$50 million each year).
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 27
Transportation Expenditures by Type
The largest difference when compared to the nationwide averages is in Bonds (6 percent difference),
indicating that Kansas relied more on the Bonds for
funding in 2015. Conversely, Kansas relies less on the
General Fund and Federal Funds compared to nationwide average, 3.0 percent less and 5.0 percent less respectively.
2014 Kansas Transportation Expenditures—Capital
Inclusive
16
164
439
Transportation Benchmark Analysis
Comparing Kansas to the benchmarks selected, Kansas Transportation expenditure of 14 percent from
Bonds and 1.0 percent from the General Fund are the
highest among peer states. Federal Funds expenditure
of 24 percent is only higher than Missouri and Utah,
indicating opportunities to increase Federal Funds to
alleviate the tax burden on the state.
1,061
General Funds
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
Bonds
FY 2014 Transportation Expenditures—Capital
Inclusive
There are six benchmark states—Idaho, Iowa, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah—that did not use
the General Fund to fund Transportation expenditures.
Except for Utah, these states use of Federal Funds is
higher than the nationwide average, 42 percent for
the five remaining states.
General Fund
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Utah
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Nevada
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Iowa
Idaho
Arkansas
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Only three states utilized Bonds to fund Transportation expenditures: Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma,
with Kansas having the highest at 14 percent.
10 Year Expense Growth Rate As A Percentage
Growth from 2006 Baseline
Transportation Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
Bonds
Analysis of Transportation Expenditures
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
The estimated FY15 Transportation expenditures for
the State of Kansas are sourced from:
• 60 percent Other State Funds (0.8 billion)
• 24 percent Federal Funds (0.3 billion)
• 14 percent Bonds (0.2 billion)
• 1.0 percent General Fund (0.01 billion)
This compares to the nationwide average revenues
that are sourced from:
• 59 percent Other State Funds (1.7 billion)
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
-20.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-40.00%
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
Transportation Trend Analysis
Transportation expenses for the State of Kansas have
decreased 1.6 percent since 2006. This compares to
the benchmark states average growth rate of 11.6 percent since 2006.
• 7.9 percent Bonds (0.2 billion)
Kansas’ rate of expenditure growth is only higher than
New Mexico, whose expenditure declined by 7.0 percent since 2006.
• 4.0 percent General Fund (0.1 billion)
The nationwide average for using Bonds as a funding
• 29 percent Federal Funds (0.8 billion)
28 | Budget Analysis and Benchmarking
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth Transportation Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
2014 Kansas All Other Expenditures—Capital
Inclusive
1,800
1,600
141
1,400
714
1,200
1,000
800
1,237
600
400
843
200
2015
Federal Funds
All Other Expenditures by Type
Analysis of All Other Expenditures
The estimated FY15 All Other expenditures for the
State of Kansas are sourced from:
• 44 percent Other State Funds (1.3 billion)
• 28 percent Federal Funds (0.8 billion)
6
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/
top-5-issues-2016-transportation
Bonds
FY 2014 All Other Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
General Fund
Federal Funds
Other State Funds
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Impact Analysis
Federal funding nationwide has been stagnant since
2009. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act) of 2015 made in roads toward providing
federal funding stability to the states, but does not
appreciably increase funding levels.6 What FAST does
provide is stability to the state of Kansas when budgeting infrastructure improvements. While Kansas relies relatively little on Federal Funds for its Transportation spending, this stability may work in conjunction
with operational and structural efficiencies to deliver
improved services to the state.
Other State Funds
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Arkansas
source for Transportation expenditures is 9.3 percent
since 2006. For Kansas, the average is 12 percent since
2006. This is slightly higher than the nationwide average. Conversely, the nationwide average for using the
General Fund to fund Transportation expenditures is
4.0 percent since 2006, which is higher than Kansas’
average of 1.0 percent since 2006.
General Fund
Utah
2014
Bonds
Oklahoma
2013
New Mexico
2012
Nevada
2011
Other State Funds
Nebraska
2010
Missouri
2009
Federal Funds
Kansas
2008
General Fund
Iowa
2007
Idaho
2006
Bonds
• 23 percent General Fund (0.6 billion)
• 5.0 percent Bonds (0.1 billion)
This compares to the nationwide average revenues
that are sourced from:
• 39 percent Other State Funds (4.9 billion)
• 34 percent Federal Funds (4.0 billion)
• 34 percent General Fund (4.0 billion)
• 3.0 percent Bonds (0.4 billion)
The largest difference when compared to the nationwide averages is in the General Fund (12 percent
difference), indicating that Kansas utilizes less of the
General Fund for Other Expenditures than the rest of
the nation. Kansas uses Federal Funds and Other State
Funds more than the nationwide average, 4.0 percent
and 6.0 percent higher respectively.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 29
All Other Benchmark Analysis
increased since 2010 from 82 million to 139 million.
Comparing Kansas to the benchmarks selected, Kansas All Other expenditures of 5.0 percent from Bonds is
the highest among peer states. As for the other funding sources, Kansas falls within the median when compared to the benchmark states.
All Other Trend Analysis
All Other Expenses for the State of Kansas have increased by 17.2 percent since 2006. This compares to
the benchmark states average growth rate of 39.1 percent since 2006. Kansas has the second lowest growth
rate since 2006, just higher than Oklahoma’s 15.4 percent. To accomplish Kansas reversed a trend in which
10 Year Expense Growth Rate As A Percentage
Growth from 2006 Baseline
All Other Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
-20.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-40.00%
-60.00%
Arkansas
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
Kansas 10 Year Expense Growth All Other Expenditures—Capital Inclusive
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2006
2007
2008
General Fund
2009
2010
Federal Funds
2011
2012
Other State Funds
2013
2014
2015
Bonds
All Other Expenses grew by 63.2 percent between
2006 and 2010 from $2.4 billion to $4.0 billion. After
small reductions to $3.9 billion in 2012, Kansas cut All
Other Expenses to $2.8 billion in 2015. The funding for
these expenditures were nearly all derived from increases in funding from other state funds, keeping the
impact largely outside of the State General Fund. The
use of Bonds as funding for All Other Expenditures has
30 | Cross Agency Review
Cross Government
Review
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 31
Risk
Management and Insurance
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within
the Kansas Department of Health & Environment and Kansas Department of Labor. Alvarez & Marsal
would like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Mike Michael, Director - Kansas Department of Health & Environment
•
Bradley R. Burke, Deputy Secretary and Chief Attorney - Kansas Department of Labor
Agency Overview
Overview of Property/Casualty Insurance
and Risk Management Environment
This report encompasses A&M’s Property/Casualty
Insurance and Risk Management assessment and includes recommendations covering critical project
implementation steps. The implementation strategy
contemplates staffing and other resource needs to
support the proposed changes.
In creating these recommendations, A&M worked
closely with state representatives—specifically with
the Kansas Department of Health and Environment as
well as the Department of Administration’s Procurement Office, in order to develop recommendations
that are equitable and efficient. The team examined a
wide variety of factors—data provided by the state, interviews with key personnel and benchmarking data
from insurance industry sources and state governments around the U.S.
Project Approach
The A&M team used a three-phase process to create
these recommendations:
1. Information Gathering – The initial phase focused on data gathering, compilation & analysis,
interviews with state personnel (in departments
under review), research regarding industry bestpractices, and benchmarking with other states.
In this process, the A&M team developed a widerange of potential issue areas that could yield ef-
ficiency gains and budgetary savings in individual departments and divisions.
2. Business Case Exploration – In assessing opportunities for further exploration, the A&M team
considered a number of factors to weigh the benefits and impacts of each opportunity—evaluating practicality of implementation, revenue/savings potential (both short-term and long-term),
investment cost (if any), human capital impact
and ease of implementation. The list of recommendations was refined to only include opportunities with favorable and substantive five-year
outcomes.
3. Impact Planning – The team identified any crossdepartment impacts and opportunities through
the recommendations to present a comprehensive view of the net impact to the state government as a whole and advise of critical steps required to implement these recommendations.
Recommendations and Observations for Cross Agency
Centralization – Each A&M assessment team worked
collaboratively with state agency staffs as well as with
each other, to generate ideas for efficiency improvements that will positively impact operations across the
state. The recommendations presented are the result of a
rigorous process and represent the most promising
opportunities available to the State of Kansas for impactful savings.
32 | Risk Management and Insurance
Summary
trol, under a centralized Office of Risk Management (ORM)
The approach to property and casualty (P&C) insurance and risk management focused on the enhancement of current capabilities, cost reduction, and the
creation of new ways to improve the state’s ability to
function more effectively across all agencies, particularly among the Department of Administration (DOA),
Department of Labor (KDOL), Department of Education (KSDE), and the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment’s (KDHE’s) Workers’ Compensation State
Self Insurance Fund (WC SSIF). The team worked with
various state agencies to identify cost savings and efficiency improvement opportunities that can generate
financial savings over the next five years.
»» KDOL Administrative Fund revenue enhancement and investment
»» Operational changes to KDHE’s WC SSIF
claims management
• Long-term opportunities – All opportunities can
be implemented in the first three years, and there
are no recommendations that extend a start date
beyond FY20.
Short and medium-term recommendations are detailed in the chart above.
Recommendations
• Short-term opportunities – Two recommendations will achieve cost savings in FY16, and include re-bidding insurance policy procurement
and expanding participation of Department of
Education K-12 Unified School Districts (USDs) in
a new or existing insurance pool program.
Recommendation #1 – Establish a Department of Administration (DOA) Office of Risk Management (ORM)
• Medium-term opportunities – There are three
additional P&C insurance opportunities that will
generate efficiencies, savings and revenue over
the next three fiscal years. These recommendations are:
The state should establish a new Office of Risk Management (ORM) within the Department of Administration (DOA) to centralize the state’s insurance and risk
management functions. The ORM, should be led by
staff who have insurance, claims and safety industry
expertise, and should be responsible to:
»» Develop a shared service function for P&C
insurance procurement, claims management, and coordination of safety & loss con-
• Act as a single point of contact to provide risk
management, safety and loss control support,
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
1
Establish a DOA Office of Risk
Management (ORM)
2
KDOL Assessment Rate Change
3
Statewide Insurance Procurement Re-Bid
4
Replace WC State Self Insurance
Fund (SSIF) Claims Staff with an
Experienced Third Party Administrator (TPA) Overseen by ORM
Risk and Insurance Management Total
FY16
FY17
($70)
($417)
$-
$30,900
$71
FY18
($417)
FY19
FY20
FY21
($417)
Total
($417)
($417)
($2,155)
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$284
$284
$284
$284
$284
$1,491
$-
$3,116
$4,956
$4,956
$4,956
$4,956
$22,940
$1
$33,883
$35,723
$35,723
$35,723
$30,900 $154,500
$35,723 $176,776
and claims handling expertise across state agencies.
• Coordinate with the Department of Procurement
to competitively market and leverage insurance
procurement.
• Oversee administration of the Workers’ Compensation State Self Insurance Fund (WC SSIF) and
manage the new Third Party Administrator (TPA)
recommended to minimize WC claims costs and
improve the overall claims management process.
• Support and coordinate efforts of the Department of Labor’s Division of Industrial Safety and
Health to develop and implement safety programs and inspections for state agencies and
employees.
• Implement formal WC SSIF claims, safety, and
loss control process improvement initiatives to
reduce claims frequency and severity by preventing and mitigating accidents and injuries. These
initiatives include:
»» Educate agencies on the costs of WC accident reporting lag.
−− Encourage agencies to report claims
within one day of the Date of Accident
via the Employer’s Report of Accident
(KWC 1101-A).
»» Implement a more robust RTW program to
ensure, for example, that:
−− Agencies make interim work positions
available for employees who cannot return to normal duties.
»» Improve safety training and processes by:
−− Designing a Fleet Safety Manual/Process
for drivers of state owned and rented vehicles.
−− Working with DOL to coordinate safety
training and utilize insurance carrier assessment funds to help generate reductions in claim costs.
»» Improve data analytics and reporting processes so the ORM can:
−− Monitor WC claims trends—especially
for high-risk departments such as the
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 33
Department of Transportation—and
design and implement specific safety
training accordingly.
−− Provide agencies WC loss statistics and
experience data in order to measure
and monitor performance improvements.
−− Compare WC claims data with State
Employee Health Plan (SEHP) data to
identify any overlaps in claims reporting or payment.
−− Establish a Fraud Awareness Program
and educate agencies on the distinction between fraud and abuse. Expand
the Fraud Hotline to 24/7 functionality.
−− Convert to electronic delivery of checks
for bi-weekly Indemnity claim payments.
−− Develop automated red flags and perform data mining on WC claims to identify repeat claimants.
−− Advise state employees regarding
choices for their WC claims other than
hiring an outside WC attorney.
−− Encourage agencies to take recorded
and/or signed statements from employees and witnesses on the day of
the accident, in order to secure facts for
ORM / WC SSIF.
Background and Findings
• Kansas currently has no centralized insurance
procurement and risk management and safety
function.
• Interviews with various staff at Kansas state
agencies and departments found a desire for
a single point of contact on matters regarding
risk management, insurance, safety and claims.
• A review of all states found that at least 38 of
the 50 states have a centralized insurance and/
or risk management office or division to serve
state agencies. Most commonly, these offices
or divisions are organized under each state’s
Department of Administration. Specific responsibilities and services of these state ORMs
34 | Risk Management and Insurance
include but are not limited to:
»» Identify and analyze risk exposures to state
agencies, individuals, assets, and third-parties
»» Develop and implement safety and loss
control programs to protect life and state
assets, as well as reduce the costs and consequences of accidents, either directly or by
providing support to state Safety & Health
divisions
»» Procure insurance, manage policies, and allocate premiums
»» Administer State Insurance Funds including
State Self Insurance Programs and Insurance
Trusts
»» Investigate and manage workers’ compensation (WC), property, liability and specialty
claims, iincluding oversight of Third Party
Administrators (TPAs)
»» Develop and manage state employee assistance, workplace safety committee, and
other such programs to promote safety and
loss control
»» Manage equipment maintenance programs
»» Develop risk management programs and
documentation such as Safety Handbooks
and Fleet Safety Manuals
claims data.
»» Delayed injury reporting can increase WC
claim costs up to 51%, according to the
study “The Relationship Between Accident
Report Lag and Claim Cost in Workers Compensation Insurance,” published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance
(NCCI) in 2015.
• Kansas’ Return-To-Work (RTW) program is not
centralized and lacks a robust infrastructure.
»» The benefit of an efficient RTW program:
When safety professionals, adjusters, and
medical providers worked together to prevent accidents and quickly treated injured
or ill workers—helping them return to work
through jobs with restricted or modified
duties—lost-time decreased by 73% and
medical-only claims decreased by 61%, according to “Ten Years’ Experience Utilizing
an Integrated Workers’ Compensation Management System to Control Workers’ Compensation Costs,” published in the Journal
of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
in 2003. In addition, total WC expenses—including all medical, indemnity and administrative costs—fell from $0.81 per $100
payroll in 1992 to $0.37 per $100 of payroll
in 2002—a 54% decrease. The study also
found that the value of RTW programs does
not vary by industry classification.
»» Conduct safety training and awareness programs for state agencies and employees
• Vehicle accident reporting and handling procedure is inconsistent and varies by Agency.
»» Assist state agencies in answering questions
in matters relating to risk assessment, risk
management, and insurance and provide
guidance in specialty areas such as OSHA
Recordkeeping and Reporting
• The state currently maintains no list of employee
drivers and does not run Motor Vehicle Record
(MVR) checks to verify employee safety records.
»» Assist state agencies with contractual risk
transfer, including provision of rinsurance
and indemnification guidelines for state
contracts
»» Work with state agencies to ensure a safe
environment for state employees and the
general public who come into contact with
state employees or property as services are
provided, to mitigate third party risk
»» Host 24-hour hotlines for WC claims and
fraud reporting
• Claims reporting lag time is a notable issue for
WC SSIF, and significant reporting delays can be
attributed to various agencies based on reviewed
Recommendation # 1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
($70)
($417)
($417)
($417)
($417)
($417)
Key Assumptions
• Centralizing the P&C Insurance and Risk Management functions by establishing an Office of Risk
Management staffed with industry-experienced
personnel is the overarching catalyst to drive cost
savings and revenue enhancement for the state
across Recommendations 2 to 5.
• Projected cost savings generated through the
ORM will result in:
»» Enhanced operating efficiency
»» Centralized insurance and risk contracting
»» Alignment of risk with controls
»» Strategic risk transfer
»» Enhanced risk management brought by the
new ORM’s industry expertise and oversight
including claims reduction and insurance
cost management
• Savings assume cooperation by the state agencies with the new ORM, Department of Procurement and KDHE initiatives.
• Capital outlay breakdown for ORM includes new
salaries and wages of $200,000 for a staff of three,
plus an estimated 21% ($42,000) staff overhead
cost and $6,276 each employee benefits cost
(based on the State’s Budget Cost Indices for
FY16 and FY17), plus an estimated annual operational overhead expense of $150,000.
»» The first ORM staff hire, the Director of Risk
Management, is completed by the fourth
quarter of FY16, with the other two ORM
members to be hired in FY17.
»» Recruiting and hiring the ORM Director may
take approximately three months to complete. The FY16 investment cost estimate is
discounted accordingly to represent one Director at an estimated $100,000 salary plus
21% staff overhead and $6,276 benefits cost,
discounted to 25% of that cost for the fourth
quarter of FY16.
»» ORM implementation and operational overhead costs (other than salaries and benefits—recruiting costs, office space and utilities allocations) are estimated at $150,000
annually, with 25% of that amount allocated
to the final quarter of FY16 in conjunction
with hiring the new Director of Risk Management.
• The resultant efficiencies and cost savings of
centralized risk management will outweigh the
initial capital outlay and new salaries and wages
costs for ORM creation. The investment costs associated with coordination with the new TPA and
elimination of existing WC SSIF claims staff are
accounted for in recommendation #4.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 35
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of recommendation #1 include:
• Prompt recruiting process to hire Director of Risk
Management by fourth quarter FY16, and Claims
and Safety specialists in early FY17.
• Director of ORM to coordinate with Procurement
to develop and expedite an RFP for the new TPA
services discussed in recommendation #4.
Recommendation #2 – Adjust the Kansas Department of Labor (KDOL) Administrative Fund Assessment Rate to
1% on a Written Premium Basis
Specifically, the KDOL should:
• Increase revenue by adjusting the KDOL Administrative Fund assessment levied to state Workers’
Compensation (WC) carriers to a 1.00% rate using
carriers’ written premium as the rating base, from
the current 2.79% rate that uses prior year losses
as the rating base.
Background and Findings
• A review of National Council on Compensation
Insurance (NCCI) statistical data found that—
states that maintain an Administrative Fund (and
finance such fund by levying an assessment surcharge or tax to their state WC insurance carriers), mostly use one of two rating bases—either
written premiums or paid losses. A few states
take a different approach, such as assessing a flat
surcharge amount. Variations exist in each state’s
assessment methodology and application of the
two identified general rating bases. For example,
some states calculate assessments on net premiums (gross premiums less any returned premiums due to cancellations) while others use gross
premiums including taxes, fees and other assessments; or some states use paid indemnity or total losses for each individual carrier while others
use aggregated paid losses for all carriers in the
state, with the total assessment amount levied to
each carrier on a pro-rated basis. The most standardized methodology identified amongst all 50
states was to calculate assessments using prior
36 | Risk Management and Insurance
year net written premiums as the rating base.
• As its rating base, Kansas currently uses the prior
year paid losses for each individual WC carrier. Its
current 2.79% Workers’ Compensation Administrative Fund rate assessed to Kansas WC insurance carriers is set forth in Kansas Statute, Chapter 74, Article 7, Sections 74-712 through 74-7191.
The statute specifies a maximum 2015 3% assessment rate levied against calendar year 2014 Paid
Losses, to fund FY16. In 2015 the actual 2.79% assessment rate was levied against 466 companies
with paid losses totaling $426,557,683, generating a total revenue amount of $11,900,930.
• Using written premium as the assessment base
results in significantly greater revenue at a lower
assessment rate percentage, because the written
premium base is a significantly larger amount
and more widely applied than the paid losses
base. Specifically, written premium applies to all
carriers on a leveled basis, while a paid-loss basis
is a smaller funding pool that impacts some carriers more than others depending on their loss
experience.
• Kansas’ most recent written premium per National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI)
statistics was $4,841,778,073. The NCCI 2016 rate
filing received by the Kansas Insurance Department shows a decrease of 11.6% to the Kansas
WC base rate for voluntary market carriers. This
decrease is expected to reduce the 2016 written premium base by a commensurate 11.6%, to
$4,280,131,817. Therefore, an assessment rate of
1.00% using written premium as the rating base
would have generated a total revenue amount of
$42,801,318 compared to the $11,900,930 revenue generated by a 2.79% rate based on paid
losses. This represents an additional total annual
revenue to Kansas of $30,900,388.
• Kansas’ current prior-year-loss based rating
methodology was initially compared against 15
“peer” states as well as the shared border state of
Missouri using NCCI statistical data. Of the states
evaluated, five levy a specific Administrative
Fund assessment to state WC carriers (in addition
to taxes and other surcharges) by utilizing a standardized assessment methodology with written
premium as the rating basis. The other evaluated
states either have no Administrative Fund, or use
varying assessment methodologies (e.g., a flat
amount, paid losses for each carrier, paid losses
for all carriers on a pro-rated basis, or state-specific calculations).
• The benchmarking evaluation was then expanded to all 50 states in order to obtain a broader
comparison. This comparison found that 23 states
have no specific Administrative Fund assessment.
Of the remainder, 14 states use a standardized
written premium-based assessment methodology, with all other states using varying assessment methodologies. The assessment rates for
these 14 states range from 0.50% to 6.50%, with
10 having a rate of 2.00% or lower, and five having a rate of 1.01% or lower. The average rate for
the 14 states is 1.90%, which reflects the inclusion
of Rhode Island’s outlying rate of 6.50%. The detailed findings for the above mentioned 14 states
are presented in the benchmarking chart at the
end of this section.
• Although Missouri is not considered a fiscal or
operational comparative state to Kansas, Missouri is presented as one of the benchmarked
states because of its shared border with Kansas.
• Missouri’s Administrative Fund assessment rate is
1.00%, levied against insurance carriers’ written
premium.
• Using 1.00% as Kansas’ recommended Administrative Fund assessment rate, levied against insurance carriers’ written premiums, will be less
than the 1.90% average of the 14 benchmarked
states, in line with the most conservative onethird of the 14 states evaluated that use this standardized methodology, and commensurate with
Missouri’s 1.00% rate. This analysis considered
the potential risk of employers relocating to Missouri from Kansas due to implementation of this
recommendation.
• The revised assessment approach is favorable to
the state for the following reasons:
»» Enhanced revenue stream to the state
»» Revenue may be recognized sooner using a
written premium basis than on a paid loss
basis
»» Simpler rating methodology for the state to
calculate and administer
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 37
»» Consistent comparison to other states that
use a standard assessment methodology
»» The 1.00% rate is consistent with neighboring state Missouri and comfortably falls
within the conservative rate ranges of the 14
premium-based peer states
»» A written premium rating basis reduces the
incentive for insurance carriers to avoid paying claims in order to avoid paying assessments, as might be the case using a paidloss rating base
• Use the increased assessment revenue to support
the recommended new ORM and the Division of
Industrial Safety and Health, and to subsidize risk
control and safety improvements across agencies
for overall reduction of state claims and total cost
of risk.
Recommendation # 2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
Key Assumptions
• Increased revenue will be achieved by changing the KDOL Assessment Rate base to written
premium from prior year paid losses, at the same
time reducing the rate percentage charged to
state WC carriers to 1.00% from 2.79% against
paid losses. With this change, Kansas can remain
competitive with contiguous state Missouri’s
1.00% written premium-based rate and with
benchmarked states using the same standardized methodology.
• It is assumed Kansas’ Administrative Fund assessment rating base will remain constant over
the projected period of FY17 to FY21.
• No savings are projected for FY16 to allow time
to effectuate regulatory changes that may be
required and to notify state WC insurers of the
change.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of recommendation #2 include:
• Effectuate any necessary statutory and/or regulatory changes to revise the rating base and percentage amount
• Notify state WC carriers of the changes
State Workers’ Compensation Carrier Assessment Rate Benchmarks
Benchmarking was performed to evaluate the assessment rate levied by the Kansas Department of Labor
(KDOL) to state Workers’ Compensation (WC) carriers,
to support its Administration Fund.
The states of Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington
and Wisconsin were initially identified as benchmark
“peer” states to Kansas on a fiscal, operational, educational and/or contiguous-state basis for the purpose
of comparing Administrative Fund assessment rates.
An evaluation of those states found that five (Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri and Oklahoma) levy a
specific Administrative Fund assessment to state WC
carriers in addition to taxes and other surcharges.
They do so by using a standardized assessment methodology with written premium as the rating basis.
The other remaining evaluated states either do not
have Administrative Funds, or have Administrative
Funds but use varying assessment methodologies
(for example, a flat amount, paid losses for each carrier, paid losses for all carriers on a pro-rated basis, or
state-specific calculations).
The benchmarking comparison was then expanded
to all 50 states for a broader data analysis, which
found that 14 states support their Administrative
Funds using the standardized methodology of
levying an assessment rate against carriers’ written
premiums, 23 maintain no specific Administrative
Fund, and the remaining states use varying assessment methodologies. The 14 comparative states are
detailed in the chart below.1
Recommendation #3 – Re-bid Statewide Insurance Procurement through a
Competitive Request for Proposal (RFP)
Process
The state’s recommended new Office of Risk Manage-
1
Source: National Council on Compensation
Insurance (NCCI)Tax & Assessment History, Section
3-Detailed Tax and Assessment Information - https://
www.ncci.com/onlinemanuals
38 | Risk Management and Insurance
ment (ORM) should work with the Department of Procurement to pursue more competitive insurance procurement practices:
• Assign oversight of all insurance procurement
to the new ORM, to work with the Department
of Procurement and all state departments, agencies, boards, and commissions to provide a coordinated and cost-effective insurance and risk
management program for the state.
• Enhance statewide insurance procurement by
utilizing a competitive RFP insurance procurement process and strategic sourcing of policies.
• Explore a mid-term competitive bidding process
State
sions and policy premiums.
Background and Findings
• Statewide insurance policies are sourced through
the Department of Procurement with the exception that state agencies are permitted to self-procure insurance up to $25,000 in premium.
• The majority of the state’s insurance policies are
sourced through the Department of Procurement. Exceptions to this include:
»» Each Kansas Department of Education
(KSDE) K-12 Unified School District (USD)
procures and manages its own insurance
»» Each Board of Regents higher education in-
Current Administrative Assessment Rate/Tax (Written Premium
Basis)
Fund Type / Comments
Arizona
2%
Administrative Fund including Occupational Disease
Arkansas
3%
Combined Fund - Administrative, Second Injury, Death & Permanent
Total Disability
California
1%
Administrative Revolving Fund
Colorado
1%
Administrative Fund (Cash Fund Surcharge)
Connecticut
1%
Administrative Fund (Cash Fund Surcharge)
Florida
1%
Administrative Trust Fund
Idaho
2%
Industrial Administrative Fund
Illinois
1%
Industrial Commission Operations Fund (Admin)
Maine
2%
Administrative Fund
Missouri
1%
Administrative Tax
for the statewide property policy, including options for a multi-year coverage term, and cancel/
rewrite the current policy mid-term FY16 if a better program is quoted.
• Competitively bid and leverage insurance policies across all agencies upon their renewals. Administer the RFP process to ensure that no single
insurance broker can “block” insurance markets,
such that it prevents other brokers from effectively competing on the state’s insurance program. If
more than one broker wishes to access the same
carrier(s), the ORM should fairly assign markets
to each interested broker. This truly competitive
process will result in more insurers competing for
the state’s business, enhanced insurance coverage and reduced costs on brokerage commis-
stitution (i.e., colleges and universities) procures and manages its own insurance
• The state’s FY16 annual P&C insurance premium
expenditure, excluding the Department of Education and Board of Regents separate programs,
is $2,840,000, based on insurance contract data
received.
• Kansas’ liability to third parties is capped at
$500,000 under the Kansas Tort Claims Act (K.S.A.
Chapter 75, State Departments; Public Officers
and Employees, Article 61. Kansas Tort Claims
Act2). The state finances this liability risk by selfinsuring its General Liability exposures and insuring its Automobile Liability exposures (i.e., 4,998
state-owned vehicles plus hired [rented] vehicles
and Department of Transportation [DOT] ve-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 39
hicles) under a statewide Automobile Liability
insurance policy and a separate DOT Automobile
liability insurance policy, both with $500,000 liability limits.
»» Kansas’ statutes permit the purchase of
property insurance in limited situations. The
state maintains a statewide property policy
with a $200 million Loss Limit except $100
million limit for buildings at the State Capital
Complex, subject to retentions of $2 million
for state capital buildings, and $5 million
for all other locations, for perils other than
windstorm. The policy has a $5 million windstorm retention for all locations.
• Kansas maintains a self-insured program to provide Workers’ Compensation (WC) benefits to its
35,000 state employees (the State Self Insurance
Fund, or “WC SSIF”). The WC SSIF is administered
by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Approximately 2,000 new claims
are incurred annually, with 1,492 prior open
claims on record as of December 2015.
• The current WC SSIF claims group is comprised
of 16 staff members including managers, supervisors, and 10 claims adjusters of varying specialties.
• Major WC SSIF service contracts currently in force
are with Systema (for claims management software) and CompAlliance for limited Third Party
Administration (TPA) services including nurse
case management, medical bill re-pricing & payment, and durable medical equipment management. The FY16 contract costs are $136,000 and
$1.7 million respectively.
»» Miscellaneous other surety bonds and insurance policies are in force for crime, van pool
liability, separate other building and business personal property, equipment breakdown, medical professional liability, watercraft and aviation coverage.
Recommendation # 3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$71
$284
$284
$284
$284
$284
Key Assumptions
• Significant premium cost savings can be achieved
by consolidation and leverage of insurance
sourcing with implementation of a competitive
insurance marketing process and centralized insurance procurement, overseen by the ORM.
• $284,000 annual cost savings can be achieved
through a competitive marketing process among
qualified brokers and carriers, projected at 10%
of current annual policy premiums totaling
$2,840,000.
• Implementation is expected to take at least three
months beginning in January 2016, so the FY16
projected savings have been discounted by 75%.
• Premium savings will be derived primarily on
the statewide property policy ($762,000 annual
premium for the current term 07/01/2015 –
07/01/2016) by competitively re-bidding the existing policy in the current soft insurance market.
The objective is to obtain lower premium rates
and a multi-year coverage term.
»» Current soft market conditions may provide
an opportunity to purchase a two or three
year coverage term on the statewide property policy, which is typically a more cost effective solution than an annual policy. Furthermore, a multi-year term would enable
the state to lock in the current premium
rates for that period.
»» This approach would likely be subject to
maximum loss experience criteria stipulated
by the insurance carrier.
»» Policy terms should permit the state to remove, by endorsement, any property that is
divested during the policy term and receive
return premium.
»» No statewide property losses were reported
on the loss run received by A&M; however,
it was unclear whether claims might exist
below the $5 million Self-Insured Retention
(SIR) for state capital buildings and catastrophe losses, and $2 million SIR for all other
locations. If the state’s account is truly lossfree, a greater opportunity for savings exists.
»» If the statewide property policy is cancelled
prior to its scheduled expiration date, the insurance carrier might assess a 10% short-rate
penalty against the unearned portion of the
premium that would otherwise be returned
to the state as a premium refund. A shortrate penalty results in a reduction in the
insurance premium refund and is intended
by carriers to discourage early cancellation
of insurance policies by insured’s. The applicability of a short-rate penalty is one of the
40 | Risk Management and Insurance
factors to consider when determining the
advisability of a mid-term cancel/re-write
of the statewide property policy. However,
there still could be significant savings available to cancel and re-write the policy prior
to its 07/01/2016 scheduled renewal, even if
a 10% short-rate penalty does apply.
• In addition to premium cost savings, the improved sourcing and leveraged procurement
process is expected to result in enhanced coverage terms, expanded market access and strategic
insights.
• Communication and cooperation between state
agencies, Department of Procurement, and the
ORM (upon its establishment), to achieve coordination and leverage of insurance sourcing.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of recommendation #3 include:
• If required, amend the State’s Financial Services
Negotiated Procurement statute (75-3799) to allow for the execution of these operational recommendations.
• Prompt commencement of a statewide property
insurance re-bid RFP and carrier-marketing process, targeting implementation by fourth quarter
FY16.
Recommendation #4 – Replace WC SSIF
Claims Function with an Experienced
Third Party Administrator (TPA) Overseen by the Office of Risk Management
(ORM)
Specifically, the state should:
• Reduce WC SSIF claims costs by outsourcing the
WC SSIF claims functions for new claims, at the
beginning of FY17, to an experienced and knowledgeable TPA, that has expertise and best practices in place to efficiently and effectively manage claims, to drive down overall claims costs for
the state.
• Eliminate the existing 16 FTE WC SSIF claims staff
(adjusters, supervisors and managers) at FY16
end.
• Transfer open runoff claims to the new TPA at
the beginning of FY17. Close out as many of the
currently open claims as possible by FY16 yearend to minimize the TPA investment expense to
transfer the open runoff claims.
• Assign oversight of the new TPA to the new ORM
detailed in recommendation #1.
Background and Findings
• Staff interviews and WC SSIF department review
found that the majority of the existing WC SSIF
claims staff have limited professional claims handling background or experience.
• Training of current WC SSIF staff is on the job and
insufficient for optimal claims outcomes.
• Training the current adjusters and supervisors
to an adequate level to effectively manage WC
claims and reduce costs would be challenging,
expensive and time-consuming.
• Outsourcing WC claims management to a TPA is
a substantive step toward maximizing efficiencies and reducing claims costs for the state.
• Best practices identified in WC SSIF’s own policies
and procedures are not followed on a consistent
basis, such as the use of Physical Therapy and
Return-to-Work (RTW) Programs.
• Significant WC claims reporting lag time and
claim close-out deficiencies were identified. A review of the WC SSIF claims files found that—lag
time from the Date of Accident, to date of First
Report of Injury, to date of claim setup, can be
measured in weeks or months rather than days.
This lag is primarily attributed to agencies not being educated on the costs caused by delayed WC
reporting, and a lack of WC SSIF claims team aggressiveness in managing these claims.
• The number of WC fraud reports currently identified (two in the last 12 months) is believed to under-represent the actual fraud cases. The 1-800
Fraud Hotline (1-800-332-0353) is currently available only during state business hours and should
be made available 24/7. • Injured employees eligible for Temporary Total
Disability (TTD) and WC Lost Time (Indemnity)
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 41
benefits are subject to a seven consecutive day
waiting period. The effect of this waiting period,
meant to encourage a quick return to work and
discourage malingering, is diluted by:
»» After 21 days out of work, the first week
(waiting period) becomes retroactively payable, providing a financial disincentive for
an employee’s quick return to work.
»» Employees continue to earn/accrue vacation/PTO time while receiving Workers’
Compensation benefits.
Recommendation # 4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$3,116
$4,956
$4,956
$4,956
$4,956
Key Assumptions
• ORM Director is hired and operational by fourth
quarter FY16.
• Capital outlay investment for outsourcing the WC
claims function to a TPA, estimated at $2.24 million annual cost on a go-forward basis:
»» 2,000 total annual new claims, estimated
breakdown of 70% (1,400) Medical Only and
30% (600) Indemnity claims.
»» TPA new-claim cost of 70% (1,400 claims)
Medical Only at $400 fee per claim file, and
30% (600) Indemnity at $1,300 fee per claim
file plus $900,000 additional cost for medical
bill repricing, nurse case management, and
other costs not included in the TPA’s perclaim charge.
• Capital outlay investment for transfer of open
runoff claims to the new TPA at the beginning of
FY17, estimated at $1,460,500:
»» Open runoff claims to be transferred to the
new TPA at the beginning of FY17 estimated
at 2,000 based on the 1,492 open claims as of
December 2015 advised by KDHE (845 Medical Only and 647 Indemnity claims), new
claims which will occur between December
2015 and July 2016, and an initiative to close
out as many currently open and new claims
as possible by FY16 year-end.
»» TPA transfer cost at the start of FY17 for 2,000
open runoff claims at 70% (1,400), Medical
Only claims at $400 fee per claim file, and
30% (600) Indemnity claims at $1,500 fee per
claim file, plus $500,000 additional TPA fees
not included in the per-claim file charge.
• Projected cost savings achieved by elimination
of the current claims-related vendor contracts
at FY16 year-end: $136,000/year Systema claims
software contract and $1,700,000/year CompAlliance TPA contract, to coincide with the transfer
of claims management to the new TPA. In this
scenario, CompAlliance’s services of medical bill
repricing and payment, nurse case management
and durable medical equipment (DME) management will be handled by the new full-service TPA
going forward at an estimated annual expense of
$900,000, and is included in the new TPA investment expense estimate above.
• Projected salary and benefit cost savings
achieved by elimination of the existing 16 FTE
WC SSIF claims personnel (i.e., adjusters, supervisors and managers) at FY16 year-end is approximately $814,009. This includes total base salaries
of $589,746 plus 21% ($123,847) staffing overhead plus an estimated $6,276 ($523* 12 months
each employee or $100,416 total) health benefits
cost per the State’s Budget Cost Indices for FY16
and FY17.
• Projected additional WC SSIF operational overhead cost savings (e.g., IT, subscriptions, equipment expense, etc.) of $586,000 (as per SMART
FY15 budget period) can be achieved after elimination of WC SSIF claims staff and designating remaining WC SSIF functions to the new ORM.
• Annual cost savings of $3.96 million (18% on $22
million new annual claim costs for 2,000 claims)
will be generated by reduced WC claims costs
brought by the outsourced TPA’s claims-handling
expertise and technology to effectively manage
new claims, in conjunction with new safety, loss
control, and RTW strategies led by the ORM.
• The $3.96 million total estimated savings is expected to be derived primarily by implementation of WC best practices (via the TPA) and reduction in lag time, RTW, and fraud management (via
ORM).
• Priority for the ORM Director (see recommendation #1) for the remainder of FY16 will be to:
»» Work with the Department of Procurement
42 | Risk Management and Insurance
to develop and execute a detailed RFP for
a TPA to handle SSIF WC claims on a goforward basis. The TPA RFP should provide
specific detail as to the TPA’s process and
responsibilities, as well as the expected performance criteria.
»» Oversee and assist two assigned adjusters
from the existing WC SSIF claims staff with
the strongest Medical Only and Indemnity
claims experience, to aggressively close out
as many open claims as possible by FY16
year-end, as further detailed below.
• The ORM Director and KDHE aggressively work
to close as many open claim files as possible to
minimize the number of open runoff claims that
will be transferred to the new TPA in order to mitigate the claims transfer cost.
»» Re-assign the WC SSIF’s two most experienced claims adjusters (one Medical Only
claims specialist and one Indemnity claims
specialist) to work with the new ORM Director to close out as many current open claims
as possible by FY16 year-end.
»» Concurrently, retain and utilize under KDHE
direction the remainder of the existing WC
SSIF claims staff until FY16 year-end to aggressively manage and close as many new
claims as possible by FY16 year-end.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of recommendation #4 include:
• ORM Director is in place and operational as of
fourth quarter FY16.
• ORM Director focuses the remainder of FY16 on
(1) developing and executing an RFP process for
a new TPA (2) working with two assigned SSIF adjusters to close out as many open runoff claims as
possible, as detailed in the Key Assumptions section above.
• WC SSIF claims staff aggressively manages and
closes new claims for the remainder of FY16.
• Eliminate WC SSIF claims staff at the end of FY16,
assuming the new TPA is operational.
• Change state statute/policy to eliminate the
ability for injured employees receiving Workers’
Compensation benefits to concurrently accrue
vacation/PTO time.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 43
Procurement
Statewide and Cross-Agency
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the
Kansas Department of Administration and others throughout the state. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank
everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Sarah L. Shipman, Secretary - Department of Administration
•
Tracy Diel, Director of Procurement and Contracts
PROCUREMENT OVERVIEW
The Office of Procurement and Contracts is the central procurement authority for the State of Kansas. Its
primary responsibilities include facilitating the procurement and contracting processes, maintaining and
enforcing the statewide procurement policies, and
fostering a fair but competitive procurement environment for all suppliers involved in the procurement
process.
The Office of Procurement and Contracts oversees the
procurement of all products and services where the
estimated cost for any given procurement action exceeds $5,000. However, state statutes provide exemptions for the Department of Transportation (KDOT),
universities and school districts. KDOT oversees procurement activities for products and services that cost
up to $25,000; anything over $25,000 falls under the
responsibility of the Office of Procurement and Con-
tracts. All universities and departments—governed by
the Board of Regents and unified school districts—follow their own defined process and guidelines for procurement and selection of vendors, independent of
the Office of Procurement and Contracts.
The state currently employs various procurement
practices and defined procedures to attain the best
contract value. The most notable practices are:
• Statewide mandatory contracts for use by all
agencies for certain categories of spend
• Statewide optional contracts
• Cooperative agreements
• Agency specific contracts that include clauses
permitting purchases by other agencies and political subdivisions
44| Procurement
• Monthly conference calls to facilitate collaboration
Background of Recommendations
Alvarez & Marsal (A&M) conducted a thorough analysis
of the state’s procurement practices, utilizing information acquired by interviews with key personnel, independent review of supplier contracts and analysis of
expenditure data from the State of Kansas. A key com-
ponent of the analysis was the review of FY15 expenditure data to identify addressable spend—the total
money allocated to each agency, university or school
district that is linked to the procurement process.
The review of FY15 expenditure data for agencies and
universities, identified approximately $2 billion in addressable spend (excluding $700 million in highway
construction related addressable spend that is managed by KDOT). Since the school districts manage
their budgets separately across different systems, the
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Strategically Source Top
Categories Statewide
(across Agencies and Universities)**
$-
$10,875
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$70,875
2
Implement a Category
Management Capability
and Strategically Source
Remaining Categories
$-
$-
$4,125
$8,250
$8,250
$8,250
$28,875
3
Free Up Working Capital
by Paying Invoices on Day
30***
$750
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$15,750
4
Negotiate Early Pay Discount Terms with Suppliers
$-
$750
$750
$750
$1,500
$1,500
$5,250
5
Ensure Sustainability of
Savings by Automating the
Procure-to-Pay Process
$-
($1,200)
$-
$-
$-
$-
($1,200)
6
Central Contract Repository
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
7
Centralize the Management of Wireless Services
$-
$160
$160
$160
$160
$160
$799
8
Implement a Managed
Print Services Model at
Universities and Evaluate
Agencies
$-
$673
$673
$673
$673
$673
$3,367
9
Optimize Facility Operations to Reduce Energy
Usage
$-
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$18,000
$750
$17,858
$27,308
$31,433
$32,183
$32,183
$141,716
Procurement Total
Notes:
* The savings presented are against State funding sources only. The report excludes savings associated with Federal funding sources.
** An additional $9 million - $23 million (state funding sources only) in cost savings can be gained by including specific school district spend categories
in this strategic sourcing exercise, as outlined in Education Recommendation #5.
*** The implementation of Recommendation #3 will reduce the state’s working capital requirements by approximately $170 million immediately.
analysis focused on FY15 expenditure data obtained
from a sample comprising of the top seven school
districts. Data from the sample suggests that an estimated $1.6 billion of the school district spend is addressable (excluding $1.5 billion employee benefits
and interest payments).
The information gleaned from interviews, contracts
and data, show that the state:
• Is not leveraging the spend to its fullest potential
• Has a vendor base that is extensive and fragmented
• Does not conduct spend analyses to understand
its annual volumes
• Has inefficiencies in processes and technologies
that limit the state’s ability to achieve the greatest cost savings
These considerable factors constitute a need for significant change to Kansas’ procurement policies and
procedures. Below is a summary of A&M’s findings of
potential cost savings and process efficiency recommendations identified in the procurement assessment.
RECOMMENDATION #1 - Strategically Source Top Categories Statewide
(across Agencies and Universities)
The State of Kansas should conduct a statewide strategic sourcing exercise on a select group of high-value
categories. This sourcing event would involve taking
each category through a complete strategic sourcing
exercise, which would include the followings steps:
spend analysis, category assessment, category strategy, sourcing event, negotiation and selection, contracting and supplier transition.
Findings and Rationale
In order to drive significant savings, organizations employ a strategic sourcing approach to maximize the
greatest value from procurement activities. The state’s
Procurement and Contracts group, which is responsible for the majority of procurement activities over
$5K, does not follow a strategic sourcing methodology. Below are the key observations identified during
this assessment:
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 45
• When conducting large, statewide sourcing
events, the Procurement and Contracts groups
does not use available state spend data to give
prospective suppliers an estimate of total potential business volume.
• The state does not leverage its combined spend
with suppliers. In most cases, the state obtains a
provider primarily to service one agency and includes contract clauses to allow other agencies to
use the contract as needed. With this approach,
the state loses the benefit of negotiating the full
annual volumes with the suppliers to get the lowest unit price(s).
• An internal price benchmark analysis of a sample
of contracts across similar categories revealed
unit price differences ranging from 7% to as
much as 27% for certain categories.
• The state does not utilize optimal sourcing and
contracting approaches.
»» There are instances where using a marketbasket approach would offer better pricing
but instead the state uses broader product
category discounts.
»» There are a few contracts with index-based
pricing. The state would benefit if this practice extended to other contracts where pricing changes are not well defined.
»» There are some categories (such as IT hardware) in which a total cost of ownership
analysis should be conducted to accurately
gauge overall costs and ensure that suppliers are not decreasing costs in one area,
while increasing costs in another.
• The state’s supplier base is large and fragmented.
There are over 12,000 unique suppliers providing services across the state’s top 20 categories.
Based on our experience, a measured approach
towards reducing the supplier base will generate
supplier management efficiencies and drive lower prices through greater consolidation of spend.
• The state does not utilize spend analyses to understand its overall spend.
• Cooperative purchasing agreements play a significant role in the state’s procurement process.
These types of agreements can be helpful for categories where the state does not have the annual
volume to drive the lowest prices. However, since
46| Procurement
the state does not use detailed spend analyses
to enable a better understanding of historical
spend, it is likely that some contracts may not be
delivering the greatest cost savings.
• There is little to no use of early pay discounting
in contracts.
• The state primarily utilizes administrative fees
(0.5% – 1% of total supplier spend) as a form of
rebate on most contracts. Tiered pricing strategies are seldom used since historical spend data
has not been used to guide the sourcing process.
Without employing strategic sourcing principles,
it is likely that the vendors have priced-in the administrative fee into the unit prices.
Analysis of the state’s agency and university expenditure data highlighted 20 categories that represent
$864 million in addressable spend. Executing the strategic sourcing event in three waves for these categories can yield between $15 million – $38 million in estimated annual savings.
Reccomendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
$10,875
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
Key Assumptions
• The procurement categories A&M recommends
for sourcing in the first three waves are as follows:
»» Wave 1
−− Maintenance, Repair & Operations
−− Pro Scientific Supply
−− IT Equipment
−− IT Services
−− Telecommunication Services
−− Food
−− Electricity (see recommendation #9)
»» Wave 2
−− Professional Services
−− Building Repair and Services
−− Office Supply
−− Natural Gas
−− Building Materials
−− Travel and Entertainment
−− IT Software
−− Lawyers & Attorneys
»» Wave 3
−− IT Consulting Services
−− Pro Scientific Equipment
−− Fuel
−− IT Software Fees
−− IT Repair Services
• The Procurement and Contracts group will require assistance to complete the strategic sourcing event.
• Key stakeholders from agencies and universities
will be available to provide information and input
as required.
• The state can terminate existing contracts for the
target categories without penalty to the state.
• The strategic sourcing events will include university spend.
• The savings associated with some categories are
dependent on the state implementing procurement efficiency recommendations.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Finalize the target categories for the strategic
sourcing event.
• Identify and assign key stakeholders (agency and
university) to assist with the sourcing event.
• Execute strategic sourcing process steps with
category management teams.
RECOMMENDATION #2 - Implement a
Category Management Capability and
Strategically
Source Remaining Categories
Concurrent with recommendation #1—establish a
standardized, unified, center-led strategic sourcing
and category management capability within the Department of Administration (DOA). The purpose of this
function should be to:
• Develop deep expertise in the highest spend categories that state agencies consume
• Track and report spend across the state
• Maintain a list of key local/agency requirements
for each category
• Cultivate deep marketplace knowledge
• Be responsible for offering creative, viable solutions for satisfying the state’s needs for goods
and services
Findings/Rationale
Due to the way state statutes and practices are structured, the state’s procurement process is required to
primarily focus on the front-end contracting process.
This is a common practice in public sector procurement and followed by numerous states. Therefore, it
has a strong focus on ensuring a level playing field for
suppliers in securing state contracts. However, this
limited model of procurement does not take advantage of the state’s full buying power. Below are the key
insights of the procurement and contracting process
that resulted from our interviews.
Process Observations
• The Department of Administration Procurement
and Contracts group does a good job of facilitating the Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for
Quotation (RFQ) and Invitation for Bid (IFB) processes for state agencies. Their activities are primarily limited to: reviewing the requisition, drafting the RFP/RFQ/IFB, issuing the RFP/RFQ/IFB,
consolidating bid responses for the requesting
agency to review, and facilitating the negotiation
and contracting phase.
• The Procurement and Contracts group does not
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 47
have an analytic function to conduct spend analyses and therefore is not able to effectively leverage statewide spend.
• This is no evidence of a formal supplier relationship or quality management capability. Each
agency is responsible for monitoring the performance of their suppliers. The Procurement and
Contracts group engages with suppliers postaward only if there are substantial performance
or contract issues.
• Agencies have no insight into the requisitions
pipeline to identify collaboration opportunities.
• There is no upfront involvement by the Procurement and Contracts group in major agency projects to help facilitate a faster RFP/RFQ/IFB process
as well as to provide valuable procurement-related insight to the agencies.
• All procurement actions over $5,000 (except for
universities and KDOT) go through the Procurement and Contracts group. Other states (Missouri, Nevada, Nebraska, etc.) allow agencies to
conduct specific sourcing activities for spend up
to $25K or even $50K to reduce the workload on
the central procurement team.
• The use of mandatory contracts is well defined
and known across the state. This process can be
further expanded to other spend categories that
can benefit from being managed centrally for
greater leverage.
People Observations
• The tenure of the current Procurement and Contracts staff is very short due to significant turnover in the department.
• The Procurement and Contracts commodity
managers lack the reporting and analytical tools
to execute strategic sourcing.
• Most commodity managers do not have deep
knowledge in the categories they manage. This
is primarily due to the high turnover rate and
because the central Procurement and Contracts
group focuses mainly on facilitating the contracting process.
Technology Observations
48| Procurement
• The data warehouse in the SMART system is rich
with spend information that is currently not being utilized by the Procurement and Contracts
group for reports and analysis.
for Procurement and Contracts.
»» Train or hire category managers who are capable of executing strategic sourcing activities.
• Line item invoice data is not available for review
and analysis because purchase order and invoicing processes are paper-based and not electronic.
»» Develop a spend analysis framework and
establish standard reports that offer insight
into the statewide spend, to aid the strategic sourcing process.
• Most universities have different systems to manage their individual procurement operations. The
use of different systems hinders collaboration
and makes it more challenging to conduct spend
analyses that drive towards better procurement.
»» Rationalize procurement categories to determine centrally sourced goods and services.
• P-card spend management is fragmented—data
is drawn from different systems causing difficulty
to best manage and leverage aggregate P-card
spend.
In order to generate more value from the procurement
and contracting process, the state should embrace a
strategic sourcing mindset. The National Association
of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) recently conducted a national study indicating that 53% of states
interviewed, incorporated a strategic sourcing approach in their procurement process, and that number
is said to be growing. A strategic sourcing mindset will
allow the state to:
• Utilize spend analyses to obtain greater insight
into what is being purchased statewide and how
goods and services are consumed.
• Leverage statewide volumes to obtain lower unit
pricing and greater discounts.
• Obtain an accurate view of the total cost of ownership of goods/services purchased.
• Utilize market intelligence to negotiate deals that
are more favorable.
• Proactively address contract compliance and
supplier performance.
A&M recommends that the State of Kansas take a
staged approach to implementing a strategic sourcing
and category management capability. This will require
significant changes to people, process, and technology.
• Stage 1:
»» Expand and upgrade the skills requirements
• Stage 2:
»» Implement technology improvements to
automate the procure-to-pay process.
»» Enhance sourcing tools and training.
»» Review and align procurement related statutes to Procurement and Contracts’ mission.
• Stage 3:
»» Enhance contract compliance procedures
and tools.
»» Build/Implement supplier relationship and
performance management capability.
»» Create visibility to school district spend so
that they can be better served.
A&M’s experience and research indicates that category management and strategic sourcing methods can
significantly reduce costs, when properly implemented. Beyond the top 20 categories identified in recommendation #1, there is an additional $440 million of
addressable agency and university spend across several categories, that can be targeted by the Procurement and Contracts group. Savings could range from
$8 million – $16 million annually, by sustainably enabling category management and strategic sourcing
practices.
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
$4,125
$8,250
$8,250
$8,250
Key Assumptions
• The categories represented in the above savings
projections include: Building, Building Improvement, Vehicles, Contract Labor, Dues & Subscrip-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 49
tions, Advertising and Marketing, Vehicle Parts
and Services, etc. These addressable spend categories are supplemental to the savings estimate
included in recommendation #1 and do not include school district spend.
• The Procurement and Contracts group will acquire the skills and resources to implement a
sustainable category management and strategic
sourcing operation.
• The necessary tools and methodology will be
available to the sourcing team.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Define the category manager roles and responsibilities.
• Align category manager workload with updated
roles and responsibilities.
• Develop/Provide the necessary training to the
category managers.
• Identify and implement the tools required for the
category managers to execute their work effectively.
• Identify key stakeholders in the affected agencies
and implement a transition plan to guide them
through the change process.
RECOMMENDATION #3 - Free Up Working Capital by Paying Invoices on Day
30
The State of Kansas should configure the invoice payment process to automatically trigger payments closer
to the invoice due date, in order to reduce working
capital needs and forego the interest expense that
would have been required to borrow the excess working capital.
Findings and Rationale
The State of Kansas’ Prompt Payment Act (K.S.A. 756403) states that:
Each government agency shall make payment of the full
amount due for such goods or services on or before the
30th calendar day after the date of receipt by the government agency of the goods and services or the date
of receipt by the government agency of the bill therefor,
whichever is later, unless other provisions for payment
are agreed to in writing by the vendor and the government agency...
The state currently pays invoices, on average, 10 days
after receipt of the invoice. The majority of supplier
contracts have payment terms of Net 30 days (which
require payment in 30 days of receiving the invoice)
and these contracts do not have any established early
pay discount terms. In comparison, the government/
military sectors pay supplier invoices in 20 days from
the receipt of the invoice, according to the 2015 APQC
(non-profit business benchmarking organization) Accounts Payable (AP) and Expense Reimbursement
Study.
The state should move to a 30-day payment cycle for
supplier invoices, eliminating the need to fund up to
20 additional days of working capital. Increasing the
payment cycle closer to 30 days will free up approximately $170 million in working capital that will have
an immediate impact on the state’s cash requirements.
Additionally, the state will realize interest expense savings of $3 million annually.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY 16
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
$750
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
Key Assumptions
• The payment cycle for expenses such as payroll,
employee travel and entertainment expenses,
welfare-related payments, bond payments, agency-to-agency transfers, payments to localities,
utility payments, etc. will remain unchanged and
is not subject to this recommendation.
• The reduction in interest expense will start in Q4
FY16.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Update the settings in the SMART system to hold
and automatically release approved payments
closer to day 30.
• Standardize the state’s invoicing procedures to
ensure that all agencies consistently enter the
‘invoice receipt date’ into SMART (provided the
50| Procurement
contract calls for the ‘invoice receipt date’ and
not the ‘invoice date’).
• Verify that SMART contains the correct payment
terms for all suppliers.
RECOMMENDATION #4 - Negotiate
Early Pay Discount Terms with Suppliers
The state should pursue early pay discount terms with
suppliers.
Findings and Rationale
Of the numerous contracts reviewed, only one had
early pay discount terms. All other contracts were set
up with the default net 30 day terms. Based on our
analysis of how quickly the state is able to approve and
pay invoices (less than 10 days on average), the state
can benefit from offering the industry standard 2% 10,
net 30 day terms and/or the 1% 20 net 30 day terms
to all suppliers that are willing to accept these terms.
After the initial launch of this program, it is likely
that early adoption by suppliers may be low since
the state’s current practice of paying invoices within
10 days already benefits the suppliers significantly.
Therefore, any savings associated with the launch of
this early pay discount program is dependent on the
state adopting the recommendation to start paying
supplier invoices closer to the 30 day period, allowed
by the statute. A conservative adoption rate of 2% in
the early years of the program will yield $1 million in
annual savings.
• The state launches the program effectively and
efficiently.
• Suppliers are willing to renegotiate terms.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Identify the group of suppliers to target in the initial launch of the program.
• Develop an efficient approach to contact suppliers.
• Update contract terms in SMART.
RECOMMENDATION #5 - Ensure Sustainability of Savings by Automating
the Procure-to-Pay Process
Define, enable and implement an automated and
standardized procure-to-pay process across all agencies. This will bring consistency, transparency and improved efficiency to the procure-to-pay activities that
include:
• Requisitioning
• Purchase order generation and issuance
• Goods receipt and matching
• Invoice receipt, approval and payment
Findings and Rationale
Effective strategic sourcing runs in conjunction with
an effective procure-to-pay process that accomplishes
the following:
• Captures line item invoice detail of the spend
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
$750
$750
$750
$1,500
$1,500
Key Assumptions
• The state makes the necessary adjustments to
pay supplier invoices closer to day 30.
• The state is able to achieve an adoption rate of
2% of the expenditure available for discounting.
• Utilizes a robust spend classification structure
that properly codes spend information
• Employs electronic workflows throughout the
process that reduces administrative costs and
enables the capture of early pay or dynamic discounts
• Improves reporting capabilities
The State of Kansas’ procure-to-pay processes are
mostly manual and utilize a diverse set of tools across
agencies, universities and school districts. Below are a
few observations:
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 51
• The University of Kansas has implemented an automated procure-to-pay application via Sciquest.
With this application, they are able to capture
most of the benefits outlined above.
• The other universities have manual processes
from the creation of the requisition to the approval process of the invoices.
• The state agencies all use Oracle’s SMART application for the requisitioning and payment processes but lack the automation of the purchase
orders, 3-way matching and invoice approval
workflow. The lack of these key components
drives up administrative costs and the time to approve invoices.
• The school districts have a manual procure-topay process.
The Gartner Magic Quadrant rated both Oracle PeopleSoft and Sciquest above average in terms of product
functionality and customer satisfaction. Therefore, on
the state agency side, there is no need to engage in
application selection. The state can move forward immediately to implement a fully automated procure-topay process across the state agencies. On the university side, a requirements study should be conducted to
decide whether to expand Sciquest or SMART to other
universities.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Conduct an agency wide assessment to document the business and technical requirements.
• Conduct a university assessment to document
business and technical requirements.
• Contact current application providers to document implementation plan, resources and fees.
Recommendation #5 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
($1,200)
$-
$-
$-
$-
RECOMMENDATION #6 - Central Contract Repository
Create a central repository for all state contracts (agencies and universities). The repository should enable
any state employee to search and locate all existing
contracts easily. The repository should also provide insight and notice to the expiration of contracts.
Findings and Rationale
Across the State of Kansas, agencies store contracts
in a decentralized manner. The Office of Procurement and Contracts has an online web portal that lists
around 3,400 contracts. The web portal provides the
option for end-users to search for contracts; however,
searches can be difficult and time consuming due to
non-standardized taxonomy. In addition, full contracts
are not always stored online, causing lack of visibility
for state employees in numerous instances.
Some agency specific contracts are not stored in the
DOA contract portal, although the Procurement and
Contracts group assisted with the contracting of the
product or service. In these cases, the agency maintains those contracts separately. The universities are
not required to use the Office of Procurement and
Contracts to conduct sourcing events, therefore, all of
their contracts are stored individually by each university.
By not making contracts visible to others, the state is:
• Increasing the workload of end-users doing research for contracts
• Losing leverage in situations where another department may benefit from the use of an existing
contract
• Limiting collaboration across agencies
• Increasing the workload of the Procurement and
Contracts group by conducting multiple sourcing events for the same product or service
• Limiting its ability to effectively monitor and enforce contract compliance
The State of Kansas already has two contract life-cycle management products: one from Oracle (used by
state agencies) and the other by Sciquest (used by the
University of Kansas and University of Kansas Medical
Center). Both products are strong performers in their
52| Procurement
categories. The state should promptly initiate a project
to do the following:
• Update the procurement process to scan and
store all contracts electronically
• Determine which contract life-cycle management product(s) to use
• Develop consistent taxonomy to use for the contract storage repository
• Upload full contracts to the data repository
• Train end-users on the new process
There are many benefits to having a contract life cycle
management application. The State of Kansas will be
able to take advantage of these as its Procurement
organization matures. At this time, the key immediate
benefits to the state are as follows:
sync with the current market
• Utilizing excess resources to manage accounts
that can be consolidated
The State of Kansas has approximately 5,000 lines
with its primary wireless service provider. Each agency with a wireless account is responsible for reviewing and processing invoices for payment, overseeing
equipment and plan changes, and helping to resolve
end-users issues. To manage these services more efficiently, the state should combine all accounts into one
central account structure that will do the following:
• Eliminate the need for agency personnel to oversee the reviewing and processing of the invoice
• Enable better overall management of the data
plans and equipment
• Enable the state to better leverage the volume to
get lower pricing from wireless providers
• Ease of use for end-users to search for and locate
existing contracts
A review of detailed usage data on 30% of the wireless
• Visibility into contract expirations for all contracts
Recommendation #7 - (dollars in 000’s)
• Better tracking of amendments and extensions to
contracts
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
$160
$160
$160
$160
$160
• Ability to better monitor contract compliance
• Ability to generate meaningful reports and insight to assist with strategic sourcing events
The state can reduce telecommunication costs by
moving to a centrally managed wireless account management model.
lines provided by the state’s primary telecom provider,
which accounts for 67% of the wireless spend, revealed
opportunities to realize approximately $160,000 in net
annual savings across all lines, for that particular provider. The state can realize these savings by reducing
the number of full time equivalent resources currently
managing the accounts, optimizing the voice and
data plans and outsourcing the management of the
wireless accounts to a Telecom Expense Management
company.
Findings and Rationale
Key Assumptions
RECOMMENDATION #7 - Centralize the
Management of Wireless Services
Currently, each state agency manages their wireless
accounts separately. This decentralized approach has
significant disadvantages for the state, which include:
• The inability to optimize rate plans consistently
across the state
• Loss of leverage of wireless spend across the organization
• Continuing contract terms that may be out of
• All wireless accounts can be centralized and combined into one account for each provider.
• The agency resources currently overseeing the
wireless accounts spend an average of 20% of
their time managing these accounts.
• The state can hire a Telecom Expense Management company to perform the services at a competitive price. Alternatively, the state could opt to
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 53
assign a state employee(s) to manage the central
accounts.
Critical Steps to Implement:Consolidate all agency
accounts into a single account for each provider.
• Issue an RFQ/P for a Telecom Expense Management service provider.
• Develop and effectively communicate the standard operating procedures to the user group.
RECOMMENDATION #8 - Implement a
Managed Print Services Model at Universities and Evaluate Agencies
Conduct a statewide assessment to identify which
universities/colleges should move to network-based
multi-function devices and away from distributed individual printers to reduce procurement and maintenance costs.
Findings/Rationale
There is no university-wide Managed Print Services
(MPS) contract setup at Kansas State University and
Wichita State University. In both locations, the departments primarily utilize local desk printers and copiers
for their needs. Typically, large organizations that take
a decentralized approach to managing print services,
experience increased costs to the organization to procure printing supplies and equipment, to maintain the
equipment, and to run the equipment due to higher
energy usage.
Some state agencies have already moved to a networked multi-function device model. Additionally, the
University of Kansas has moved to networked-based
multi-function devices. They were able to achieve millions in costs savings over four years by prohibiting the
use of unauthorized local printers, centralizing IT technicians and setting up an MPS contract. These savings
are in line with the 10%-30% savings potential noted
by Gartner and various MPS case studies.
A&M recommends that the State of Kansas conduct a
statewide printing and copying assessment to idenReccomendation #8 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
$673
$673
$673
$673
$673
tify where to deploy or redeploy an MPS model. The
universities spend approximately $7.8 million for print
services, supplies and equipment, combined. A&M estimates that they could save approximately $673,000
annually by switching to network-based multi-function devices. This savings estimate does not include
the reduction in energy usage or refining existing MPS
programs at other agencies or universities to drive
higher savings or leveraging the consolidated spend
statewide to get more favorable contract pricing from
MPS providers.
Key Assumptions
• University departments and colleges will participate in the assessment.
• The University of Kansas and the University of
Kansas Medical Center have already implemented an MPS program.
• Some state agencies have implemented networked print services but have not entered into
statewide MPS programs.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Initiate a statewide printing and copying assessment to outline all agencies/universities that
should be part of the program and gather functional requirements.
• Work with the Office of Information and Technology Services and affected agencies/universities
to outline technical requirements, approach, and
address challenges.
RECOMMENDATION #9 – Optimize
Facility Operations to Reduce Energy
Usage
Conduct a comprehensive review of facility operations and control systems at state agency, university
and school district buildings, in order to identify and
implement control systems and operational changes
that will significantly reduce energy usage and cost.
Findings and Rationale
A&M analyzed detailed natural gas and electricity data
from a select group of high usage agency and university facilities. The data from these facilities came from
54| Procurement
meters that accounted for approximately 75% of total
energy usage at the agency/university. The following
observations are the result of the analysis:
• The comparison of demand versus degree-days
shows large swings in the peak demand during
the workweek and weekends at some facilities.
Reducing peak demands would result in significant savings in demand charges and in usage
costs.
• Optimizing control system performance can reduce the variation in demand on warm days.
• Poor synchronization among building energy
management systems (EMS) may be causing volatile swings in energy usage observed at some
facilities.
where detailed bill histories were not available.
• Zero capital expenditure expected to drive cost
savings—optimize existing systems only.
• The savings assume building controls systems
are functioning properly.
• The savings projections are dependent on the
state providing smart meter data and adhering
to system changes recommended. A&M assumed
an adoption rate of 50%.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Discuss detailed facility operations with the facility operators and control system vendors
• Develop and implement energy optimization
plans for facilities
• Optimize build equipment
Recommendation #9 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
By optimizing facility operations, the state can generate between 10%–20% in reduced energy costs across
the agency and university buildings, if the state makes
the necessary control system changes and implements
an ongoing plan to monitor energy usage.
A&M also reviewed energy data from select school
districts. Unfortunately, most school districts reviewed
did not have smart meters capable of providing detailed energy usage data in 15-minute intervals. Without smart meter data, the school districts lack a key
tool to analyze energy usage to the degree performed
for state agencies and universities. The school districts
should work with energy providers to install smart meters promptly.
Key Assumptions
• The high demand electric and gas meter data
(from the high usage agencies and universities)
analyzed are representative of the state’s energy
spend.
• The analysis benchmarked facility’s performance
against itself—not against an industry standard.
• The detailed analysis utilized assumptions about
actual and avoided cost of energy and demand
• Establish best practice maintenance methods
• Conduct subsequent reviews to identify and
address performance issues in equipment controlled by the EMS
• Perform similar assessment at remaining high
consumption state facilities and develop roadmap
• Install temporary smart meters to obtain detailed
energy consumption data at non smart-metered
facilities (e.g. school districts)
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 55
Technology
Information
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the Kansas Office of Information Technology Services and representatives from the state universities. Alvarez & Marsal
would like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Phil Wittmer, Executive Branch Chief Information Technology Officer
•
Donna Shelite, Administrative Chief of Staff - Executive Branch IT
•
Colleen Becker, Director - Office of Financial Management
•
Lane Wiley, Director - Kansas State Department of Education
•
Loren Westerdale, Director - OITS
•
Bob Lim, Chief Information Officer - University of Kansas
•
Ken Stafford, Chief Information Officer - Kansas State University
•
Angela Neira, Chief Information Officer - Pittsburgh State University
•
Doug Keller, Excipio Consulting LLC
Agency Overview
In today’s technology centric business environment,
a robust IT organization is critical for maintaining information and for delivering services—not only to the
state government employees but also to the citizens
of the state of Kansas. This requires ongoing investment, since effective IT organizations must constantly
improve existing systems (such as information security), deploy new technology, and upgrade underlying
infrastructure and systems approaching end of useful
life. These investments need to be balanced against
the need to operate the IT organization cost effectively through a combination of efficient use of people,
processes, and tools.
IT services for various state agencies in Kansas are
currently delivered by a combination of IT resources
within each agency as well as the centralized Office of
Information Technology Services (OITS). The Executive
Branch Chief Information Technology Officer (CITO)
for Kansas initiated a comprehensive effort using a
third party consulting firm—Excipio Consulting—to
baseline the IT expenditure and identify potential cost
reduction opportunities for IT across all cabinet agencies and OITS.
Since the Excipio study was already underway and preceded A&M’s engagement with the Legislature, it was
determined that the most efficient approach was to
coordinate across the two efforts—Excipio focused on
the current use of technology resources, and A&M focused on longer term opportunities for improvement.
Thus A&M did not conduct interviews with individual
agencies nor conduct a separate data analysis. Hence,
the data analysis conducted by Excipio has been used
to quantify and support A&M’s recommendations,
where appropriate. As part of the efficiency review,
A&M did interview key personnel in the Kansas Office
of Information Technology Services (OITS).
Following is a brief summary of historical background
on the IT organization, as well as, recent developments
and changes in the IT organization.
IT Organization
• Historically, individual state agencies have provided most IT services to their respective employees with few services performed centrally.
56 | Information Technology
• The Division of Information Systems and Communications (DISC), which was originally created
in 1972, served as the central IT agency for Kansas
until OITS was formed.
lative and Judicial branches of Kansas state government. They meet quarterly to review status for
all information technology projects with an estimated cost of $250,000 or more.
• OITS was officially formed on March 26, 2014 in
response to Kansas Executive Order 11-46 under
the Office of the Governor. This Executive Order
brought all non-Regents Executive Branch agency information technology directors and all staff
performing information technology functions in
all Executive Branch state agencies together reporting to the Executive Chief Information Technology Officer. OITS was historically part of the
Department of Administration (DOA).
• The Board of Regents entities (colleges, universities and medical centers) each have their own
autonomous IT departments. There is no meaningful collaboration on IT spending or projects
across these entities or between the entities and
the Executive Branch IT (including OTIS).
• The current Executive Branch Chief Information
Technology Officer (CITO) was hired on July 23,
2015 and established a new Operating Model for
Executive Branch IT and OITS. This new operating
model includes a seven member Core Leadership Team (CLT) that is an advisory group to the
CITO and acts as a board of directors for Executive
Branch IT (EBIT).
• In addition to the CLT, the new CITO has established four working groups: Finance/ Measures;
People; Performance/Process/ITIL; and Architecture/Standards.
»» The Finance/Measures working group is focused on fully understanding the EBIT budget, and defining how the budget can be
managed across agencies.
»» The People working group is focused on
the recruitment and retention of qualified
IT staff and rightsizing the staff to meet the
needs of the agencies.
»» The Performance/Process/ITIL working
group is focused on defining and implementing processes that will allow EBIT to
deliver consistent, repeatable and sustainable IT services.
»» The Architecture/Standards working group
is focused on leveraging the recent Excipio
study to determine where EBIT has sufficient, sustainable, scalable, and cost effective architecture and develop a path for architecture and standards.
• The CITO Council is a management group consisting of three Chief Information Technology
Officers (CITO) representing the Executive, Legis-
Previous Efficiency Initiatives
OITS conducted a broad study in 2012 with an objective to lower IT costs and improve state IT efficiency.
This study identified 25 specific initiatives to achieve
cost savings and service improvements. The initiatives
are summarized below:
• Strengthen IT shared services model
»» Re-evaluation of scope of KanWIN and AVPN
(AT&T Virtual Private Network) rollout
»» Re-evaluation of the appropriateness, scope
and ROI of state unified communications offerings
»» Development of a private cloud offering and
cloud first strategy
»» Metering of internet bandwidth utilization
»» Consolidate email systems and implement
uniform approach to mobile device management
»» Consolidate IT licensing across agencies
»» Optimize the IT acquisition and procurement process
• Rationalize and consolidate state application
portfolios
»» Develop roadmap for reduction in application variability leading to cost savings
»» Encourage adoption of more open-source
software where appropriate
• Create a transparent and efficient organization
»» Rationalize and isolate OITS central office
rates
»» Annualized rate assessments for centralized
services
»» Development of key performance and customer satisfaction indicators
• Improve access to state systems
»» Simplify and expand wireless access in state
facilities
»» Centralize filtering and monitoring of internet traffic
»» Shift to a centralized licensing and registration system
»» Contract for a centralized no cost or low cost
payment portal
• Improve portfolio management and governance
»» Formalize enterprise architecture review
process
»» Formalize and enforce data sharing standards
• Strengthen the cybersecurity of state systems
»» Develop team of centralized and consistently trained cybersecurity professionals
»» Centralize and standardize IT security and
safety awareness training
• Develop an efficient and skilled IT workforce
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 57
program and change management skills within the IT
team to execute the projects, need to establish consensus across agencies, and turnover in IT leadership.
The Office of the Chief Information Technology Architect (CITA) prepared an IT Consolidation Feasibility Study in 2010. This study sought input from state
agency IT leaders, researched IT consolidation initiatives in other states, and engaged outside IT experts
from Forrester and Gartner to recommend consolidating the following IT services and functions to reduce
IT spending by approximately $350 million over a 10
year period. Recommendations included:
• Data centers (invest in two new data centers—
primary and secondary)
• Physical servers (relocate existing servers to the
proposed new data centers)
• Server virtualization
• Storage (invest in two Storage Area Networks for
centralized storage service)
• Email (common statewide email solution)
• Unified Communication and Collaboration
• Identity management (centralized Active Directory system for all agencies)
»» Implement a statewide IT workforce management and service desk ticketing system
• Middleware applications (e.g. document management, CRM, data warehouse)
»» Accelerate forum creation and develop a forum leadership program
• Desktop support (all resources and support staff
for computing services)
»» Develop a workforce and skills inventory
»» Incentivize staff for cost saving innovations
• Network support (voice and data services and all
network support technicians)
»» Optimize use of IT staff located outside the
Topeka metropolitan area
• Application development staff (centralized pool
of application development resources)
While the initiatives identified represent a comprehensive set of cost reduction and efficiency improvement
ideas, A&M interviews with current OITS leadership
indicates very little progress has been made on implementing these initiatives since their publication three
years ago. Many of these ideas are still relevant today
in improving IT efficiency, such as, consolidation of IT
licensing and procurement process across agencies,
and hence are also included in current A&M recommendations. The lack of progress on these initiatives
is attributable to multiple factors—limited project/
Once again, these were all good recommendations to
reduce cost of IT services, many of which are included
in A&M’s recommendations as part of the current efficiency study. However, with the exception of a few
items, such as server virtualization, not much progress
has been made to date in consolidating these IT services. The study cited risks and concerns that had to
be mitigated for successful consolidation, including
proper executive leadership with expanded responsibilities for the state CITO, state’s central IT organization’s ability to execute, unique security requirements
58 | Information Technology
for various agencies, and buy-in from impacted agencies.
verages the data and content gathered by Excipio and
information furnished by OITS.
More recently, the current Executive Branch CITO hired
Excipio in September 2015 to:
Baseline Budget
The State of Kansas does not currently have a consolidated IT budget since the IT spending is distributed across OITS and various IT teams within the state
agencies. The baseline budget data below is based
on the information furnished by OITS and 13 cabinet
agencies, in response to the IT spending data gathering survey conducted by Excipio. Due to the lack of a
statewide centralized IT budgeting process, IT spending data for previous years is not readily available for
conducting a trend analysis across various spend categories. Hence, one of A&M recommendations includes
revising the IT budgeting process.
• Conduct an IT efficiency study across OITS and
the 13 cabinet agencies.
• Identify current fiscal year savings opportunities.
• Document IT budgets across the agencies for the
first time as a baseline for future planning activities.
• Gather the initial data required to implement a
Configuration Management Database (CMDB).
This initiative is currently in progress. A&M’s report le-
Information Technology Spending*
(All values in 000s)
Department of Commerce
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2016
Actual
Approved Budget
Revised Budget
$1,549
$1,039
$1,474
$25,241
$32,426
$34,160
$9,929
$7,560
$7,560
Department of Labor
Department of Revenue
$6,940
$15,641
$6,940
$12,076
$6,902
$14,631
Department of Transportation
$18,647
$25,476
$24,832
Department for Aging and Disability
Services
$5,120
$5,682
$4,737
Depart of Health and Environment
$18,836
$11,767
$11,819
Department of Corrections
$8,388
$5,880
$5,847
Department of Wildlife Parks and Tourism
$2,116
$1,561
$1,445
Highway Patrol
$3,517
$3,758
$4,382
Department of Agriculture
$2,136
$1,409
$1,490
Office of Information Technology Services
$40,596
$32,827
$44,705
Total
$158,655
$148,401
$163,984
Department for Children and Families
Department of Administration
* Excludes KDHE Maximus; KEES/MMIS System and professional services (from Excipio)
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 59
Below are some key observations on the IT budget:
• IT budgets are not well defined within the agencies.
»» Some agencies have IT departments, while
others have IT programs. Some agencies
have neither an IT department nor an IT program.
»» The agencies do not use IT account codes
consistently.
• OITS operates on a fee for service basis and does
not have its own dedicated budget. All of OITS
budget is derived from the agencies through a
chargeback mechanism. The agencies have not
historically had any input into the chargeback
mechanism and generally believe that the rates
that they are charged by OITS are above market
rates.
• The IT spending data survey indicates OITS and 13
cabinet agencies combined spent $159 million in
2015 and budgeted $164 million in 2016. This excludes KDHE related expenses for Maximus ($13
million) and KEES/MMIS System ($34 million) as
well as professional services. This spend amount
is in contrast to the study published by State of
Kansas Office of the Chief Information Technology Architect in 2010, which estimated IT spend
across agencies in the three branches of government for Kansas was $192 million in 2002 and
$248 million in 2010.
• Of the $164 million FY 2016 Revised Budget, it
is estimated that $46 million (28%) is funded by
federal sources while the remaining $118 million
is funded by the state.
• Of the $164 million FY 2016 Revised Budget,
$103.2 million (63%) represents costs associated
with 48 IT/OTIS specific account codes; $55.3 million (33%) represents labor costs; and $7.5 million
(5%) is categorized as other (i.e., rent, travel).
• Kansas Information Technology Office (KITO)
has the responsibility of providing quarterly status reporting for all IT projects with a budget of
$250,000 or greater (the latest report published
in November 2015 lists 21 separate projects totaling $88,054,892).
Benchmark Comparisons
The following benchmark data is based on the IT Staffing and Spending Benchmarks for state, federal, and
regional government agencies published by Computer Economics for 2014/20151. These benchmarks are
based on the survey data from respondents in this sector including transportation planning agencies, public
health agencies, social service agencies, environmental regulatory agencies, civil service commissions, and
other federal, state, and regional government units.
According to Computer Economics, IT spending in
public sector is generally similar to spending on IT in
private sector organizations. Public sector IT organizations place a high emphasis on cost efficiency but
typically lag behind private sector organizations in
adopting new technologies and investing in new initiatives. Public sector organizations are often focused
on e-government applications, asset management,
geographic information systems, and specialized accounting systems. Information security, privacy, and
disaster recovery are considered important as well.
State of Kansas and EBIT do not currently have a consolidated IT budget, which limits their ability to perform comparisons against other states. The following
comparisons utilize the best available estimates from
the state’s 2016 budget data and compare them to the
Computer Economics 2014/2015 report1.
Kansas currently spends 2.3% of its total state budget
1
“IT Spending and Staffing Benchmarks – Government Agency
Subsector Metrics 2014/2015,” Computer Economics.
60 | Information Technology
on IT, placing it below the median for public sector entities.
Additional metrics that are helpful in assessing the
comparative adequacy of IT spending include IT
spending per user and IT spending per PC. These metrics tend to be more stable measures of IT spending.
services. This is further reflected in the chart below
comparing the number of users supported per IT staff.
EBIT is just above the bottom quartile in this metric.
Furthermore, evaluating an organization’s IT spending
by using several metrics, provides a more complete
view of IT budget performance.
Summary
IT is delivered to the agencies and citizens of Kansas
primarily through a series of duplicated functions (e.g.,
data center; network, end use computing; service desk
and applications development & support) across the
various cabinet agencies. There are limited leveraged
services (i.e., mainframe support; and some network
services) provided by OTIS. However, these services
are not well received by the agencies because of perceived high cost and limited flexibility. Several findings are identified which inhibit effectiveness of IT
within the state:
• The state has not maintained IT budget data consistently across the agencies and is unable evaluate the total cost of ownership for the basic building blocks of IT (PCs, servers, storage, labor) or to
track trends.
EBIT spending per user is above the median and IT
spending per PC is slightly below the median, in the
public sector comparison group.
EBIT spends a relatively higher amount per user compared to the public sector comparison group. This is
indicative of inefficiencies in the cost of delivering IT
• IT leadership does not have qualitative metrics
(i.e., systems availability; incident response and
restore times, first call problem resolution; defect
rates) to track and manage the effectiveness of IT
and communicate with their customers.
• Every IT organization in the state struggles to
attract and retain the talent required to deliver
high-quality reliable IT services.
• There is limited tracking of quantitative or qualitative metrics associated with IT service delivery.
A prerequisite to implementing sustainable improve-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 61
ments in IT effectiveness and efficiency is to put in
place the necessary budgetary controls and qualitative metrics discipline.
A&M has identified opportunities to improve IT efficiencies across Executive Branch IT (cabinet agencies
and OITS). These recommendations consist of consolidating common IT functions across various agencies
that are expected to result in direct cost reductions. In
addition, recommendations have been made for:
• Improving IT project approval process
• Improving IT project management function
• Proactive management of third party IT spend
• Revising the IT budgeting process
Although these types of recommendations do not
generate direct cost reductions, over time, they will
lead to more effective and efficient IT operations.
In combination, these recommendations will help the
state of Kansas achieve:
• Better economies of scale
• Improved levels of service to agencies and citizens
• Greater transparency (costs and quality of service)
A&M has recommended the state review the opportunity to appropriate funding to OITS directly in support
of a centralized technology management function
in support of the government operations and citizen
services. This action will empower OTIS to increase its
ability to apply governance over technology investments and long term planning efforts.
Additionally, in other agency recommendations, A&M
has identified opportunities to reduce costs through
reallocating their technology resources and establishing service level agreements with OITS to provide
support for requirements. Such a shifting of resources
will require a broader analysis of cross-agency requirements, development of service level agreements, and
a state level workforce analysis of technology personnel from these agencies. Centralization is a significant
effort supporting the most efficient use of resources
driving service and value across the state enterprise.
Recommendations
A&M recommends consolidating common IT Services
currently performed across different state agencies
(including Board of Regents entities, where possible).
• Consolidate common IT functions across agencies, including:
»» Data Center (mainframe, servers, and related backup and storage systems)
• Shift a large amount of fixed costs to variable
costs (usage based)
»» Network Services (Network Operations Center, WAN, LAN, voice and data services)
• Support strategic and long range planning
»» Service Desk & End User Computing services
(EUC) (desktop, laptop, tablets)
• Capital avoidance
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Consolidate Data Center
$1,820
$1,820
$1,820
$1,820
$1,820
$9,100
2
Consolidate Network Services
$1,625
$1,625
$1,625
$1,625
$1,625
$8,125
3
Consolidate Service Desk and EUC
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
$12,000
4
Consolidate ADM
$1,900
$1,900
$1,900
$1,900
$1,900
$9,500
5
Consolidate Project Management,
Security, Management and Other
$968
$968
$968
$968
$968
$4,840
$8,713
$8,713
$8,713
$8,713
$8,713
$43,565
Technology Total
62 | Information Technology
»» Application Development and Maintenance
(ADM)
»» Project Management, Security, Management and Other
• Conduct a “make/build” vs. “buy” decision analysis for each consolidation opportunity listed
above, to determine whether to deliver an IT service using internal resources or use outside service providers
Develop a consolidation/outsourcing roadmap for
each consolidation opportunity to maximize savings
while minimizing risk. Some IT functions can be outsourced prior to consolidation while others are better
suited for consolidation prior to outsourcing.
Recommendation #1 – Data Center
Consolidation
Background
There have been numerous prior proposals to consolidate data centers in Kansas. In 2013, IBM conducted a
comprehensive study of the data center environment
for the state of Kansas with the following key findings:
• Kansas data center infrastructure is highly dispersed across agencies leading to added complexity and limited economies of scale.
• Server virtualization is done within agencies silos
limiting overall potential for efficiencies (average
server utilization at 14%).
• Server and storage hardware is aging and requires update (over 70% are more than four years
old).
• Need to drive to higher levels of standardization
and automation (over 120 variations of servers in
use).
• Lack of service level definitions aligned to business requirements.
• Lack of comprehensive and integrated toolset to
support management and monitoring of storage
infrastructure.
Following the IBM study, the EBTM project was
launched to provide private cloud services to state
agencies, in order to resolve the aging server environment and other IBM findings.
Excipio completed a review of the EBTM project and
concluded that “the current data center/cloud strategy is not appropriate for the state.” Several factors led
to that conclusion:
• Project was not properly scoped (e.g., under-provisioned memory and storage configurations but
excess server capacity).
• Flawed assumptions led to an overpriced solution (e.g. synchronous replication, limited virtualization, solution complexity).
• Lack of internal skills to design, implement, and
manage a private cloud environment.
Existing Data Centers
OITS utilizes two primary data centers. The lager of the
two is located in the Landon building and consists of
14,000 ft2 of floor space with approximately 150 racks.
The State Historical Society houses another data center consisting of 1,200 ft2 and approximately 55 racks.
In addition to these data centers, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and other agencies maintain a
mix of data centers and server closets. The CITA data
center consolidation study conducted in 2010, estimated approximately 50,000 ft2 of total space was being used by agencies across the state to host computing equipment.
The states computing infrastructure is currently
housed in buildings that were not originally designed
as data centers and therefore do not conform to industry standards for resiliency and redundancy (e.g.,
single point of failure).
Mainframe Environment
The state operates a single IBM mainframe with 718
MIPS and 32 GB of memory. The mainframe currently
supports applications for DCF, DOT, DOL and DOR. All
agencies are currently pursuing strategies to migrate
away from the mainframe. The state spends $6.383
million per year to support the mainframe environment. As agencies migrate their application away from
the mainframe, most of the state’s mainframe costs
will not decrease. Given the chargeback structure, the
last agency utilizing the mainframe will bear all of the
costs associated with the mainframe.
Server Environment
Excipio found that there are 2,183 servers in the Topeka area. While 71% of the Topeka area servers were
virtualized the current VM to Host ration of 8.2:1 is
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 63
significantly below the industry target of 20:1 to 30:1.
The Topeka area servers utilize approximately 1.4 PBs
of storage.
The agencies have deferred refresh of the server and
storage environment. Currently 71% of the servers are
older than five years, while 74% of server storage devices are older than four years and in critical need of
refresh.
Recommendation
As stated earlier, A&M recommends a “make vs. buy”
analysis be conducted for each IT function being consolidated. Given the current condition of the state’s
data center infrastructure (age, condition and capacity of the existing data centers as well as the significant capital requirement needed to refresh the
server and storage environment) A&M believes that
Kansas should strongly consider outsourcing all existing state-owned data centers (mainframe, server
and storage) to an external IT service provider utilizing consumption based pricing and industry standard
service levels.
Data Center consolidation and outsourcing would replace the existing EBTM project and provide all state
agencies (including colleges and universities) with access to secure compute utility on commercial terms.
This has the potential to lower operating costs, lower
the CapEx budget—associated with replacing an aging server environment, increase availability, and provide a means to recoup some of the EBTM hardware
investment. Below is a listing of some of the current
data centers (in addition, there are several locations
with server closets scattered across the state):
Consolidating and outsourcing the data centers represents a relatively low risk solution that can successfully
address several of the state’s current issues, including:
• Aging servers, storage and need for greater server virtualization
• Allow the state’s mainframe costs to ramp down
as agencies migrate away from the mainframe
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,820
$1,820
$1,820
$1,820
$1,820
• Lack of resilient data center strategy and DR capability
• CapEx requirements over the next 18 months for
equipment refresh
Savings Potential
The key components of savings associated with this
recommendation include:
• Mainframe Costs – There are currently 39.44
FTEs supporting the mainframe environment
representing $2.4 million of annual labor costs.
Additionally, there are $4 million of annual nonlabor costs (HW maintenance and SW) for a total
of $6.4 million of mainframe related costs. If bundled with a comprehensive data center outsourcing initiative, the state could generate between
15% and 25% in total savings or $960,000 to $1.6
million in annual savings.
• Server & Storage Costs – There are 59.68 FTEs
supporting the server, storage and data center
environment representing $4.3 million of annual labor costs. The annual non-labor costs (HW
maintenance and SW) for the server and storage
component of the data centers is not known due
to the lack of accurate budget data. Organizations with decentralized data center support
generally achieve between 20% and 30% in savings through consolidation and outsourcing data
center support. This equates to annual labor savings of $860,000 to $1.3 million.
• Space Related Costs – Outsourcing the data
centers would free up 50,000 ft2 of floor space
according to the CITA data center consolidation
study and result in utility savings as well as support equipment costs for Power Supplies (UPS),
Power Distribution Units (PDUs) and chillers.
• Capital Avoidance – OITS and the agencies have
delayed refresh of the server environment in anticipation of the EBTM project. Currently more
than 70% of the server and storage environment
is operating beyond the useful asset life (more
than five years old). This places the systems running in that environment at increased risk of
failure. The Power Distribution Units (PDUs) and
Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPSs) are also
significantly past their useful life (15 years old at
the Landon data center) and place the data cen-
64 | Information Technology
ters at increased risk for outages.
The state has already spent $18.6 million of the budgeted $33 million on the EBTM project. Excipio estimates that the actual cost to complete the EBTM project will exceed $55 million. The Executive Branch CIO
has halted this project.
A conservative estimate of the capital required to refresh the server and storage hardware and the power
equipment for the two primary data centers is $10 million. This investment has not been budgeted.
Thus the recommendation is to outsource all existing
state-owned data centers (mainframe, server and storage) to a Tier 1 external IT service provider. Utilizing
consumption-based pricing and industry standard
service levels will eliminate the need to fund the capital necessary to refresh the server and storage environment. This would provide all state agencies (including
universities) with access to secure compute utility on
commercial terms (consumption-based pricing and
committed service levels) and provide a means to recoup some of the EBTM hardware investment.
Recommendation # 2 - Network Services Consolidation
Background
OITS provides the core Wide Area Network (WAN) to
most state agencies. OTIS provides centralized voice
services to some state agencies and local government
entities. Most agencies provide their own Local Area
Network (LAN) capability and voice systems. Additionally, the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT)
Quantity
Useful Life
(years)
% At or Past
Useful Life
WAN Devices
675
5
74%
LAN Devices
1,835
6
75%
Component
telecommunications environment do so only as part
of their job as evidenced by the fact that 72.46 FTEs
support the network and telecommunications environment representing $5.2 million of annual labor
costs.
Excipio identified $11.6 million in telecommunications
contract spending across the cabinet agencies and
OTIS. Of that amount, the state spends $7.2 million on
long distance services.
There are 411 small (less than 7 Mbps) data circuits
provided through AT&T’s Virtual Private Network
(AVPN) at a cost of $2.8 million annually ($6,813 per
circuit per year).
Many agencies still maintain local private branch exchange (PBX) equipment and phone systems. Of the
PBX equipment used by these agencies, 92% of them
are past their end of life, and in need of refresh.
Recommendation
A&M recommends consolidating all network services,
including Network Operations Center (NOC), Wide
Area Network (WAN), Local Area Network (LAN), voice
and data services across the state agencies.
Additionally, the state should evaluate alternatives for
the expensive AVPN data circuits and the aging PBX
phone solutions.
As part of the consolidation planning, the state should
consider outsourcing the network and telecommunications support as a way to:
• Further reduce costs
• Accelerate consolidation
• Gain access to skills that are in short supply
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,625
$1,625
$1,625
$1,625
$1,625
manages its own fiber and radio network.
Most of the state’s network and telecommunications
hardware is past its useful life and in need of refresh.
The cost for the necessary refresh has not been estimated or budgeted for.
Source: Excipio Consulting, LLC
There are currently 144 people supporting network
and telecommunications across OTIS and the agencies. Many of the people supporting the network and
• Convert much of the fixed cost to variable (consumption-based) costs
A&M recommends bundling the Network Services and
Data Center outsourcing evaluations together to gain
greater leverage and better pricing.
Savings Potential
The key components of savings associated with this
recommendation include:
• Labor Costs – There are currently 72.46 FTEs providing network and telecommunications support
representing $5.2 million of annual labor costs.
Consolidation (considering the part-time commitment of these resources) could generate between 10% and 15% in total savings or $525,000
to $786,000 in annual savings.
• AVPN Costs – There are 411 AVPN circuits costing the state $2.8 million annually. A mix of AVPN
renegotiating and resolutioning (e.g., cable modems; Ethernet alternatives) should achieve between 40% and 60% in savings. This equates to
annual savings of $1.1 million to $1.6 million.
• AT&T Contract Renegotiation – The AT&T contract is due for renegotiation in June of 2016. The
potential savings associated with this event is included in the Procurement chapter as a Strategic
Sourcing event.
Recommendation # 3 - Service Desk
and End User Computing Services Consolidation
Background
State agencies staff their Service Desk individually
with internal resources that are not leveraged across
other agencies. Some agencies do not have dedicated
service desk staff and use cross-functional IT resources
from their internal IT departments.
There is no standardization on the service desk ticketing system (service management tool) used across the
agencies.
There are currently 134 FTEs providing Service Desk
and End User Computing (EUC) support across OTIS
and the cabinet agencies.
More than half of the EUC users are outside of Topeka.
They are supported through a mix of Topeka based
support staff and a regional dispatch model.
Recommendation
A&M recommends consolidating Service Desk operations (Level 1 support) and EUC support across all of
EBIT. EBIT should also develop standardization on a
single service desk ticketing system and evaluate op-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 65
portunities to improve remote user support through a
regional depot system with adequate spares. This will
lower costs, reduce duplication of effort and can lead
to improved service (e.g. coverage hours, answer rate,
First Call Resolution).
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
As part of the consolidation planning, the state should
consider outsourcing the Service Desk and EUC support as a way to further reduce costs; accelerate consolidation; gain access to skills that are in short supply
and enhance support for the large number of remote
EUC users.
Savings Potential
The key components of savings associated with this
recommendation include:
• Labor Costs – There are currently 134.24 FTEs
providing Service Desk and EUC support representing $8 million of annual labor costs. Consolidation could generate between 30% and 50% in
total savings or $2.4 million to $4 million in annual savings.
• PC Purchasing – PC purchasing is not leveraged
across agencies and there are no standard configurations defined. EBIT should implement a
strategic PC purchasing capability and enforce
standard configurations to not only lower the
purchase price but lower the lifetime support
costs as well. The potential savings associated
with this recommendation is included in the Procurement chapter as a Strategic Sourcing event.
Recommendation #4 - Application Development and Maintenance Consolidation
Background
There are 248 FTEs currently performing Application
Development and Maintenance (ADM) and database
administration activities across EBIT. Approximately
20% of these resources are performing database management while the remaining resources are engaged
in application development and maintenance tasks.
Historically, each agency managed its own develop-
66 | Information Technology
ment resources with little sharing across agencies.
There is no formal process in place to track skills/capabilities and no attempt to optimize ADM resources
across EBIT.
consider implementing a complete organization redesign for EBIT that addresses organizational structure,
span of control and centralized vs. decentralized activities.
Recommendation
The decisions regarding what activities to retain inhouse vs. which activities should be performed by
external organizations, will be a key driver in the organizational design. ITIL process implementation and
contract management requirements will also be significant contributors to the design effort.
A&M recommends consolidating ADM and database
administration across all of EBIT.
A first step in this consolidation effort should include
a review of the personnel roles, responsibilities and
Savings Potential
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,900
$1,900
$1,900
$1,900
$1,900
competencies of the staff associated with this function.
As part of the consolidation planning, the state should
consider outsourcing ADM and database support as a
way to further reduce costs, accelerate consolidation,
and gain access to skills that are in short supply.
Savings Potential
The key components of savings associated with this
recommendation include:
• Labor Costs – There are currently 248.83 FTEs
providing ADM and database support services
representing $18.9 million of annual labor costs.
Consolidation could generate between 10% and
15% in total savings or $1.9 million to $2.8 million
in annual savings.
Recommendation #5 – Consolidate
Project Management, Security, Management and “Other” activities
Background
In addition to the FTEs addressed in the four previous
recommendations, Excipio identified the following
FTEs performing IT activities across EBIT:
Total : 230.55
$19.373 million
Recommendation
A&M recommends consolidating these activities
across all of EBIT to the extent possible.
As part of the consolidation planning, the state should
The key components of savings associated with this
recommendation include:
• Labor Costs – There are currently 230.55 FTEs
providing Project Management, Security, Management and “Other” representing $19.4 million
of annual labor costs. Consolidation could generate between 5% and 10% in total savings or
$968,000 to $1.9 million in annual savings.
Summary
Executive Branch IT (EBIT) has made good progress
laying the foundation for consolidating common
IT functions under the leadership of the newly appointed Executive Branch CITO. The establishment of
the Core Leadership Team (CLT) and the four Working
Groups represent a good start down the path of consolidation.
• Finance/Measures
• People
• Performance/Process/ITIL
• Architecture/Standards
However, there have been repeated attempts to tackle
consolidation in the past with very few results gained.
Consistent focused leadership and good planning are
prerequisites for a successful consolidation effort.
EBIT should look to augment the existing staff with external subject matter experts when and where necessary to move the recommendations forward.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the consolidation recommendations include:
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 67
• Begin with the end in mind—develop a “future
state” operating model and organizational design for EBIT and ensure that EBIT customers understand the model.
• Using the Excipio report as a starting point, gather additional FTE and IT costs data to support a
comprehensive and detailed IT budget for each
IT function. Understanding the true total cost of
IT by functional area will allow for comparative
analysis (benchmarking) and is a prerequisite
for the “make vs. buy” analysis that A&M recommends for each consolidation recommendation.
• Prioritize and implement key ITIL processes
across EBIT with an initial focus on Service Operation processes (i.e., Incident Management; Problem Management; Event Management; Request
Fulfillment and Access Management) as the first
wave of ITIL process implementation across EBIT.
• Provide ITIL training to all EBIT staff. A&M recommends that ITIL Foundations certification be a requirement for all EBIT staff, with the initial focus
on training the infrastructure and network staff.
A&M further recommends that EBIT have two or
three ITIL Experts within the organization to act
as champions for the implementation of common processes across EBIT.
• Implement qualitative metrics and use them to
proactively manage the business of IT across the
Executive Branch. The metrics should be published regularly (as least monthly) and should be
reviewed with stakeholders. Suggested metrics
include:
»» Data Center - server availability; incident
resolution; batch schedule completion; utilization (servers and storage)
»» Network - availability (end-to-end; VPN; ISP;
Access Link); response times; throughput;
security (intrusion detection)
»» End User Computing - MAC (moves, add,
changes); release deployment; procurement
and installation; workstation break fix (time
to respond / time to resolve)
»» Service Desk - % of call answered in 30 seconds; abandon rate; first call problem resolution; user satisfaction
»» Applications Development & Maintenance - milestones on time; estimation ac-
curacy; Severity 1 and 2 Problems in Production; application outages; defect rates
• Develop detailed project plans for each consolidation work stream (ensure a “make vs. buy”
analysis for each consolidation work stream is included).
• Develop a detailed business case for each work
stream.
• Develop a detailed consolidation roadmap, prioritizing all of the consolidation efforts required
to achieve the future state operating model, balancing organizational readiness, risk and reward.
• Ensure that the overall consolidation plan include
a change management program and leader.
• Rigorously track progress of each work stream
against the business case at regular intervals.
• Celebrate and communicate interim successes.
Recommendation #5 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$968
$968
$968
$968
$968
68 | Governor’s Grants Office
Governor’s Grants Office
Governor’s Grants Office
Introduction
The federal budget provides about 30% of all state
revenue, making it the largest single source of funds
for many states1. Federal agencies distribute funding
through federal contracts, grants, loans, and other financial assistance. Federal grants are funds provided
to state and local governments, and other entities to
implement federal programs.
USA Spending data shows that after years of declining federal grant dollars from 2009 to 2013, when total
federal grant award fell from $676 million to $523 million, the trend reversed starting in 2013 and increases
to states began to occur again. In 2014, federal agencies awarded $603 billion in grants. In 2015, federal
agencies awarded $609 billion in grants. Conversely,
there has been a decline in Other Financial Assistance,
which includes direct payments to individuals (i.e.
Medicare and food stamps), insurance benefits (i.e. unemployment benefits), and other types of assistance
payments.
1 http://www.ffis.org/about Federal Funds Information for States/About Us
Billions
Federal Awards 2008 - 2015
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$676
$623
$572
$544
$523
$603
$609
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
$421
$0
2008
Contracts
Loans
Other Financial Assistance
Grants
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 69
Summary Scope of Work
US Census Bureau
2014 Population Estimate
A&M utilized the Federal Audit Clearinghouse’s Single
Audit2 Database to conduct a comprehensive analysis
of the State’s federal fund, in order to identify funding trends and new opportunities. A&M additionally
reviewed other states with consolidated federal funds
offices to identify their functions, organization and
performance. Specifically reviewed were Maryland’s
Governor’s Grants Office and Nevada’s Office of Grant
Procurement, Coordination and Management Budget.
Maryland’s Governor’s Grants Office was created in
2004 to help state and local agencies, and nonprofit
organizations identify and manage federal funding3.
Nevada’s Office of Grant Procurement, Coordination
and Management Budget was created in 2011 through
a passage of a senate bill to address the state’s grant
performance4 and the office produced their first biennial report in 2015.
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
AR
IA
KS
NE
NV
UT
US Census Bureau
2014 Median Household Income
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
Benchmark Comparisons
$30,000
$20,000
A&M used the US Census Bureau’s 2014 population estimate and median household income data in selecting benchmark states for Kansas. A&M identified five
states closest in population, income and geography to
Kansas—Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, and Utah.
Kansas estimated 2014 population of 2.9 million people and median household income of $53,444 fell in
the middle of the range of potential states. Since most
federal grant award dollars (driven primarily by Medicaid spending) are driven by per capita and median
household income, these are the five most relevant
states when comparing total grant award dollars.
$10,000
$AR
IA
KS
NE
NV
UT
Source: census.gov
A comparison of the five benchmark states shows
that Kansas’ statewide federal funding levels fall in the
middle of the five benchmark states. The total funding
levels below reflect all state and local awards throughout the state.
Federal Grants - Kansas & Benchmark States
(dollars in 000s)
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
2
The Single Audit is an annual audit conducted on governmental and non-governmental entities
that receive a minimum of $750,000 in federal award
money. Audits are performed on both financial and
compliance components by independent accountants. Noncompliance could have a direct and material effect on the federal programs. The Single Audits
are submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse.
3
http://grants.maryland.gov/Pages/AboutUs.
aspx
4
Nevada 2015 Biennial Report.pdf
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
AR
IA
KS
NE
UT
NV
Source: Single Audit Database from harvester.census.gov
70 | Governor’s Grants Office
Since 2011, the amount of federal funds received by
the State of Kansas and its local entities has declined
or stayed at the same funding levels. The level of funding both including and excluding American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding has declined
for Kansas since 2010 on both the state and the local
levels. This places an increasing burden on the state
and local taxes to fund the same level of services.
KS Local Entities Federal Grants for 2005 - 2014
Excludes ARRA
(dollars in 000s)
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
Kansas Federal Grants for 2005 - 2014
(dollars in 000s)
500,000
-
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
-
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Single Audit Database from harvester.census.gov
2005200620072008200920102011201220132014
Kansas Federal Grants for 2005 - 2014
Excludes ARRA
(dollars in 000s)
7,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
-
To further assess the federal fund benchmarks, A&M
identified 169 common grants that were awarded to
Kansas and the five benchmark states. A comparison
of the 2014 funding levels for these grants shows that
Kansas falls in the middle of the five benchmark states,
and has been declining in total funding levels since
2010, with the largest decline occurring at the local
level, where the state as a whole received $500 million
fewer dollars.
Funding for 169 Common Grants in 2014
(dollars in 000's)
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
AR
5,000,000
IA
4,000,000
KS
3,000,000
NE
2,000,000
NV
1,000,000
UT
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
KS Local Entities Federal Grants for 2005 - 2014
(dollars in 000s)
3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
500,000.00
-
Source: Single Audit Database from harvester.census.gov
In addition to reviewing the number of awards, we
reviewed the number of compliance related findings
reported in the Single Audit. Through this review, we
found that the number of compliance and internal
control findings increased significantly between 2013
and 2014 for Kansas, whereas other benchmark states
decreased in the same time period. Negative findings
may impact project related grant awards as some federal agencies utilize the audit findings to apply risked
based discounts to the funding awards to reduce
funding to states. This is done based on the justifica-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 71
tion that states with a high number of compliance and
internal control findings are deemed to have shown
poor financial management with regard to the execution of federally funded programs. As a result of these
risked based discounts, the amount of funds Kansas
receives in a competitive grant award process may be
negatively impacted.
Single Audit Findings 2013 - 2014
350
300
250
200
150
100
0
IA
KS
2013 Findings
NE
NV
UT
2014 Findings
Kansas Single Audit Findings by Type 2013 - 2014
350
MODIFIED OPINION
300
A&M recommends that the state create a newly
formed Governor’s Grants Office (GGO) to enable a
coordinated, prioritized, and compliance-driven approach to maximizing the amount and effective use of
federal funds in the state’s agency budgets and expenditures. Federal government assistance payments to
Kansas state and local agencies decreased from $7.2
billion in 2013 to $6.6 billion in 20145. The state would
benefit from more coordinated approach in the prioritization, application, compliance, and reallocation of
federal funds for use by state agencies, local entities,
universities and foundations.
The GGO would provide support to the identification
of grant opportunities, prioritizing the state’s strategic
goals, sharing best practices, and developing a compliance function to ensure proper execution of grant
dollars received.
50
AR
Recommendation #1 – Create a New
Governor’s Grants Office
The GGO would coordinate with state agencies’ point
of contacts to track grant related activities. The GGO
would also review reimbursements and cost allocation
processes, assess compliance procedures and resolution plans, and monitor and track grant execution.
OTHER
NONCOMPLIANCE
250
200
MATERIAL WEAKNESS
150
100
• Currently, the State of Kansas does not have a
centralized office to manage and coordinate the
receipt of federal funds.
SIGNIFICANT
DEFICIENCY
50
OTHER FINDINGS
0
2013
Background and Findings
2014
Source: Single Audit Database from harvester.census.gov
Recommendations
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Create a new Governor’s Grant Office focused on Statewide Federal Funding
$4,086
$5,032
$5,082
$5,131
$5,181
$24,513
2
Retitle the Governor’s Grants Office into a
Governor’s Crime Prevention Office
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$4,086
$5,032
$5,082
$5,131
$5,181
5
gov
$24,513
Single Audit Database from harvester.census.
72 | Governor’s Grants Office
• The state has a Governor’s Grants Program office, which administers state and federal grant
programs focused on the criminal justice system,
public safety, crime victim services, and drug
and violence prevention programs6. This office
should be refocused around its actual mission as
the Governor’s Crime Prevention Office.
• Otherwise, stage agencies and local governments
are responsible for grant management, including
identifying new grant opportunities, fiscal and
program management, and audit compliance.
• Audits and compliance efforts are conducted by
the agencies, the Legislative Auditor, or outside
private firms.
• A&M reviewed Maryland’s Governor’s Grants Office and Nevada’s Office of Grant Procurement,
Coordination and Management Budget. Both offices provide three key services for the state:
»» Information Resource – both agencies maintain a website that provides consolidated information relating federal grants—including
new grant opportunities listing, grant statistics, training and workshop schedules, and
state agencies points of contacts for federal
funds. In 2014, Maryland’s Governor’s Grant
Office trained approximately 6,500 people7.
»» Special Point of Contact (SPOC) for state and
local governments, as well as non-profit and
non-governmental agencies and foundations. Each state agency appoints a point
of contact (POC) that coordinates with the
SPOC.
»» Provide grants training and technical assistance.
»» Publications – both agencies create reports
on federal grant expenditures and produce
grant manuals to promote fiscal and program requirement compliance. Maryland’s
grants office emailed their electronic newsletters to more than 6,000 subscribers8.
• Over the decade since the formation of the Governor’s Grant Office in the State of Maryland, the
number of compliance related issues have been
materially reduced both in number and in magni6
http://www.grants.ks.gov/about-us/missionvalues
7
http://grants.maryland.gov/Pages/AboutUs.
aspx
8
Maryland GGO Annual Report 2015
tude of compliance related findings. Correspondingly, Maryland’s receipts of federal funds have
increased overall as well as in relation to benchmark states.
• In 2013, the State of Maryland received $9.1 billion. In 2014, the state expended $9.8 billion9.
This is a 7% increase in a year.
• Nevada’s federal grant awards increased by 10%
between 2013 and 2014 from $3.3 million to $3.6
million10.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$4,086
$5,032
$5,082
$5,131
$5,181
Key Assumptions
Savings were identified using the following methodology:
• Five benchmark states were chosen based on region, size of the population and income. The five
states are: Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, and
Utah.
• Potential new grants were identified by comparing the grants received by Kansas in 2014 versus
grants received by the benchmark states.
• The top 50 grants that Kansas did not receive
funding for in 2014, where the benchmark states
were awarded funds were identified.
• A&M reviewed eligibility requirements and
matching formulas for the 25 potentially eligible
non-education and non-Medicaid grants.
• A conservative win rate of 10% was applied to
the average amount received by the benchmark
states, with a 1 percent increase in win rate per
year until 2021.
• Seven of the potentially eligible grants had a
matching requirement. Matching was calculated
initially at $120,000 for 2017 and increasing as
win rate increases by 1 percent each year. A total additional investment by the state is $659,000
9
Maryland GGO Annual Report 2015; Maryland
GGO Annual Report 2014 Summary
10
Nevada Office of Grant Procurement, Coordination and Management 2015 BIENNIAL REPORT
over five years.
• Additionally, the analysis identified an average of
$1.4 million in grant funding that was returned in
2012-2014. In 2015, $35 million in grant funding
was returned.
• Savings associated with grant administration has
not been factored into the savings model.
• Grant Management System implementation and
website creation costs estimated at $300,000 to
$500,000 and a 20% maintenance cost was factored into the savings. An investment in a Grant
Management System will provide access to a
comprehensive list of federal grants, allow tracking and pursuing new grant opportunities, increase efficiency through workflows, and assist in
performance reporting.
• The new Governor’s Grants Office will create five
new positions for an additional annual investment of $376,000 for 5 FTEs.
Key responsibilities
The Federal Funds Office responsibilities include, but
are not limited to:
• Be the single point of contact and subject matter expert on all things related to federal funds,
including grant requirements and compliance
questions.
• Provide technical assistance advice for all entities, including local, state, private and nonprofit.
• Provide agencies assistance in remediation of audit findings.
• Conduct training on topics such as researching
grant opportunities, grant writing, grants management and budgeting.
• Maintain website to share information on federal
funds coming into the state.
• Create annual report in tracking federal funds in
the state.
• Monitor agency and grant performance through
data-driven metrics.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of this recommendation include:
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 73
• Issuance of an executive order creating the Governor’s Grants Office. An executive order may
provide the best combination of structure and
flexibility, whereas locking in the duties of a
grants office via statute may make it harder to
shift responsibilities and activities should the
need arise11.
• Create cost allocation plan to determine the
overall cost of the program. A&M recommends
the staffing of the GGO is five FTEs. Staffing requirements may increase if compliance issues are
identified and compliance needs to become a
priority for the GGO.
• Issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
creation of the GGO’s website. A&M’s recommendation is based on published rates in the
OITS 2015 Service Catalog.
• All state and local agencies appoint a Point of
Contact (POC) who will liaise with the GGO Director.
Recommendation #2 – Retitle the Governor’s Grants Program Office into the
Governor’s Crime Prevention Office
and assign additional pass-through
responsibilities
A&M recommends that the state retitle the Office of
the Governor Grants Program (KGGP) into a Governor’s Crime Prevention Office. The existing Governor’s
Grants Program office currently administers state and
federal grant programs focused on the criminal justice
system, public safety, crime victim services, and drug
and violence prevention programs12. KGGP also provides technical assistance and compliance oversight
to sub grantees. As part of the retitling, the governor
should look for opportunities to drive additional passthrough related crime prevention grants through the
new Governor’s Crime Prevention Office. The office is
efficient at the process for accepting, distributing and
monitoring grants to entities throughout the state
and additional funds could be directed to that office
for this type of higher administration funding.
11
FFIS Special Analysis 14-04, June 11, 2014 Establishing a Grants Office
12
http://www.grants.ks.gov/about-us
74 | Governor’s Grants Office
A&M reviewed Maryland’s Governor's Office of Crime
Control & Prevention, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, and the Texas Criminal Justice Division. Similar to the Governor Grant Program, these
peer offices administers federal and state grants to
improve public safety, crime reduction and support
victims of crime.
Background and Findings
• A&M compared KGGP against the peer states in
total funding and number of resources administering and managing grant programs. KGGP is
efficient in administering grant programs compared to other large states with similar programs
that should have greater economies of scale.
• A&M also compared the federal grants administered by KGGP against the peer states. A&M identified additional grants that could potentially be
administered and monitored by KGGP.
Many grants that are currently managed separately
should be consolidated under the KGCP, as is seen in
peer states. Several are managed by the Department
of Corrections in Kansas. The Juvenile Accountability
Block Grants (CFDA 16.523), Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Allocation to States (CFDA 16.540),
Title V Delinquency Prevention Program (CFDA 16.548),
and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (16.606)
programs should be managed by the new Governor’s
Crime Prevention Office.
Key Assumptions
While there were no savings identified with this recommendation, the existing staff should be able to
manage the additional funding and processes. The
grants manager in other agencies dedicate less than
full time to the grant management and could redirect
efforts to other financial management assignments for
the Department of Corrections.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the recommendation include:
• Retitling the agency
• Redirecting the grant programs and transitioning
grant program management to the office
• Reassign corrections grant manager
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 75
State Employee Health Plan
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed
to this endeavor, especially:
•
Mike Michael, Director - State Employee Health Benefits Program
•
Aon Hewitt, State Employee Health Plan Actuary
State employee health plan Overview
Previous Efficiency Initiatives
• Kansas State Employee Health Plan (SEHP): Evaluating the State’s Pharmacy Benefit Management
System – The Legislative Division of Post Audit
(LPA) provided a report in February 2015 detailing SEHP’s use and management of the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM), CVS Caremark. The
report made the following findings:
»» The Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) does not “adequately monitor
Caremark’s compliance with negotiated
contractual provisions.”
»» The State does not accurately monitor for
“spread pricing,” though the LPA’s audit of
the sample claims did not result in finding
any spread pricing.
»» KDHE does not appropriately monitor the
PBM’s compliance with pharmacy rebating
requirements.
»» There are minimal controls over the mail-order pharmacy program, although the findings indicate that SEHP participants do not
heavily use the mail-order program.
−− SEHP responded to the report by stating
that additional controls would be imple-
mented immediately to address the findings.
• SEHP is an extremely lean, efficient organization—the staff appears to effectively manage
partnerships with vendors. In addition, the staff is
cross-trained, in order to provide additional support throughout the organization, when needed.
• In addition to taking into consideration the recommendations provided by LPA, SEHP executed
a three-year contract with Aon Hewitt for pharmacy benefit audit services beginning in January
2015. Aon Hewitt will audit the PBM plan for plan
years 2012-2014 and provide insight into any errors in pharmacy rebating and management. Although Aon does not expect this process to provide savings for the SEHP, the audit will review
the overall administration and efficiency of the
PBM, which could lead to identifying and potentially creating future efficiency opportunities.
• The State has begun to take action to limit the
State’s liability as it relates to retirees. Beginning
in 2016, Medicare-Eligible Retirees who want to
participate in the SEHP program must elect and
pay the entire cost of fully-insured Medicare
Supplement plan, rather than continuing enrollment on the SEHP plan. This initiative will remove
SEHP’s liability for any unfunded costs realized by
Medicare-Eligible Retirees under the self-funded
76 | State Employee Health Plan
Baseline Budget
SEHP plan.
• The SEHP, in conjunction with the Health Care
Commission (HCC) and plan actuary, evaluated
efficiency and cost saving measures on an annual basis, making annual plan design changes
that will further drive participant behavior. In addition, they implemented a wellness program to
support member wellbeing and engagement.
The State Employee Health Plan is a self-sustaining
organization within the Kansas Department of Health
& Environment. Fees and self-generated revenues are
received from state agencies and non-state employer
groups that participate in the group insurance program. Premiums are collected from plan members,
employees, and retirees as well as earnings of program
funds. Agency and non-state employer group spend is
based on the number of individuals enrolled, the plan
type and tier enrollment.
State Employee Health Plan
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
(All values in 000s)
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Regular Pay
Other Salary
State Contribution -- Life and
Health
State Contribution -- Pensions and
Retirement
State (Employer) Contribution
Overtime Pay
Total Salaries and Wages
$1,674,826
$329,596
$1,719,032
$324,243
$1,712,791
$341,229
$1,671,063
$370,755
$289,562
$311,880
$302,447
$296,003
$178,590
$179,007
$189,319
$188,019
$179,590
$15,831
$2,667,994
$5,335,989
$184,696
$16,433
$2,735,292
$5,470,585
$178,762
$17,577
$2,742,123
$5,484,247
$173,131
$17,762
$2,716,733
$5,433,467
Total
Benchmark Comparisons
A&M researched a number of other state benefits departments and related health plans to generate ideas
and best practices around organization structure and
benefit design. A&M benchmarked SEHP program
against five similar state departments:
• Arkansas Employee Benefits Division
Organizational Benchmarks
In evaluating the appropriateness of the current position of the SEHP under the Kansas Department of
Health & Environment, A&M collected information on
the current organizational structure of the benchmark
states.
State
Location
Arkansas
Department of Finance & Administration
Colorado
Department of Personnel & Administration
• Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Missouri
Standalone State Entity
• Nebraska Office of Administrative Services: Benefits
Nebraska
Department of Administrative Services
South Dakota Bureau of Human Resources
• Colorado Division of Human Resources
• South Dakota State Employee Benefits Program
Plan Design Benchmarks
The following chart indicates the current medical
plans offered by the benchmark states. All states currently offer a Health Savings Account (HSA) plan option, though only two of the states provide employer/
state funding to that HSA account on behalf of employees.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 77
State
Carrier
Type
Deductible
ER/State HSA
Contribution
Arkansas
Arkansas
BCBS
Qualchoice
HSA
HSA
PPO
$4,350/$8,500
$2,000/$3,000
$1,000/$2,000
None
None
N/A
HSA
HSA
PPO
$1,500/$3,00
$1,500/$3,00
$1,500/$3,00
$750/$1,500
None
N/A
None
N/a
UHC
Colorado
Kaiser
Recommendations
Missouri
UMR
HSA
PPO
PPO
$1,650/$3,300 $300/$600
$600/$1,200
N/A
$300/$600
N/A
Nebraska
UHC
HSA
PPO
PPO
$2,600/$5,300
$1,000/$2,000
$600/$1,200
Dakota
Care
HSA
PPO
PPO
$1,800/$3,600 $300/$600
$1,250/$3,125
N/A
$750/$1,875
N/A
South
Dakota
es; however, we have also included a number of recommendations that may require Governor approval or
regulatory changes.
Recommendation #1 – Execute Opportunities for Cost Savings through Plan
Design Changes
Over the past several years, the State Employee Health
Plan has taken steps to lessen the rising cost of healthcare through plan design changes. However, there are
opportunities to further reduce the cost of benefits
through strategic plan design changes, and the implementation of a population health management program. Specifically, the SEHP should consider:
None
N/A
N/A
Summary
A&M’s approach to the SEHP recommendations focused on furthering the Health Care Commission’s
health plan initiatives, cost reduction, and the alignment of an administrative structure that would allow
the SEHP to function more effectively.
All opportunities included within this section are medium to long-term opportunities. The assessment team
worked collaboratively with SEHP staff and health plan
actuary, Aon Hewitt, to develop these recommendations, which address plan design, administrative efficiency, and leveraged solutions to generate savings in
the next five years. It is expected that most of these recommendations
can be executed without statute or regulatory chang-
• Total Replacement Consumer Driven Health
Plan – The State can improve overall consumer
engagement in healthcare choices and reduce
costs by offering “Plan C,” the Consumer Driven
Health Plan, with Health Savings Account (HSA)
or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). Additionally, the State should reduce employer contributions to $500 for single and $1,250 for family,
in order to reduce employer cost and move toward similar state benchmark HSA contribution
amounts. This change in the employer contribution will bring the actuarial value (or overall value
of benefits paid by the plan) to approximately the
equivalent of the actuarial value of the current
Plan A. The total replacement Consumer Driven
Health Plan would result in savings to the SEHP
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation
Name
1
Execute on opportunities for cost savings
through plan design
changes
2
Implement Retiree
Exchange Platform
3
Increase organizational
efficiency of SEHP
SEHP Total
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
$13,750
$27,500
$27,500
$27,500
$27,500
$123,750
$5,750
$12,000
$12,936
$13,945
$15,033
$59,664
$165
$165
$165
$165
$165
$825
$19,665
$39,665
$40,601
$41,610
$42,698 $184,239
78 | State Employee Health Plan
of approximately $12.5 million to $15 million in
FY2017.
to an actuarial value similar to that of the current
Plan A.
• Population Health Management – The SEHP
member population is relatively stable and
credible, and as such, long-term savings can be
realized through claims management and risk
reduction—achieved by the monitoring and
management of individual healthcare outcomes,
otherwise known as Population Health Management. SEHP has leveraged the Truven Health
Analytics technology through partnership with
Medicaid. Truven is a powerful population health
management analytics tool. Some analytics are
being performed; however, it would be beneficial to incorporate a clinical perspective to the
data. This can be achieved without additional
cost through the current Third Party Administrator (TPA) or for objectivity, through the hiring
of a consultant. Although we believe additional
savings are achievable, a full review of the SEHP
claims is needed to provide an estimate. No savings estimate for this sub-recommendation is included in figures shown.
• The State is currently providing a premium discount of $480/year for participation in the wellness program. This will decrease to $240/year in
2016. Participation in the program is satisfied by
a participant obtaining 30 credits through activities including:
Background and Findings
• The current deductible for Plan C is $2,750 for
single coverage and $5,500 for family coverage.
• The State and participating Non-State Employers
provide $1,500 or $2,250 contribution to individuals enrolled in the HSA/HRA plan in employee
only or employee family, respectively. This contribution is embedded in the monthly rate charged
to each agency.
• State benchmarks indicate that most states sponsor high deductible health plans with HSAs (5 out
of 5 benchmark states sponsor these plans). Two
states sponsoring these plans provide a small
employer contribution to the HSA, while the other three benchmark states provide no contribution at all.
• The current actuarial value of Plan A is approximately 77% while the current actuarial value of
Plan C is approximately 89%, when considering
all employer contributions. This means that on
average, Plan A covers 77% of the cost of covered
benefits, while Plan C currently covers 89% of
the cost of covered benefits. The recommended
change would bring the total replacement plan
»» Biometric Screening
»» Preventive Exams
»» Tobacco Cessation Program
»» Wellness Challenges
»» Virtual Health Coaching, etc.
• SEHP currently uses the data analytics software
from Truven Health Analytics to collect all claims
data. However, according to SEHP staff, no population health management program is in place
and health data is not being actively monitored.
• Variations to this recommended plan design
could also produce similar results. i.e. more than
one high deductible plan offering. Additional
plan design variations would require additional
in-depth actuarial analysis.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$13,750
$27,500
$27,500
$27,500
$27,500
Key Assumptions
• Estimates assume the current contribution
structure (employer vs. employee contribution
amounts) remains the same as 2016 levels.
• All estimates are derived using 2016 benefit plan
design and contribution levels, and do not take
into consideration any planned changes for 2017.
• Savings assume that SEHP’s membership count
and tier enrollment remains relatively consistent
with current levels.
• Estimates are based on the average of the high
and low range of savings values.
• Since the State currently contracts with Truven,
we have assumed there would be no initial capi-
tal required to implement the population health
management program. Additionally, the State
can leverage on-staff physicians at the carriers to
analyze the data and drive the population health
programs.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the plan design recommendations include:
• Projections will need to be maintained by SEHP
actuary to update strategy for 2017 Plan Year for
any deviation in plan claims experience.
• Recommendations will need to follow the Kansas
Health Care Commission process for ultimate approval.
• The SEHP should develop a communication
campaign regarding plan changes and provide
education to all SEHP participants regarding Consumer Driven Health Plans.
• Population Health Management program and internal program managers must be designated by
SEHP staff. Clinical expertise should be engaged
either through TPA or consultant.
To realize savings as soon as possible, this recommendation should be implemented for the next SEHP plan
year, beginning January 1, 2017.
Recommendation #2 – Implement Retiree Exchange Platform
Per Statute, Kansas provides pre-65 and post-65 retirees access to the SEHP. The state has tried to limit
the liability for these retirees by requiring all Medicare-Eligible Retirees to join a fully-insured Medicare
supplement plan effective January 1, 2016; however,
a Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
liability remains. In order to remove the liability for future payments and reduce the current retiree subsidy,
Kansas should:
• Implement Retiree Exchange Platform – Retiree specific platforms provide pre-65 and post65 retirees with a choice of healthcare plans and
provider networks. These platforms also provide
the retiree with additional resources targeted to
the specific needs of retirees. Moving the Kansas
retirees to an exchange platform would increase
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 79
retiree choice of plans and networks while removing SEHP’s current subsidy and GASB liability
for future payments for pre-65 retirees. Savings
to the SEHP fund from removing the current retiree liability are estimated at $5.75 million for the
last six months of FY2017. The full year of savings
will be realized in FY2018, with an estimated savings of $12.0 million.
Background and Findings
• Per 2012 Kansas Statue 12-50401, all local governments providing employer sponsored health care
must extend the offer of coverage to pre-65 retirees. Employers may require retirees to pay up to
125% of the cost for similarly situated employees.
• The State Employee Health Plan allows retirees,
their spouses, and survivors access to the medical
and dental plans sponsored by the SEHP.
• Beginning in 2016, SEHP will require all MedicareEligible Retirees (post-65) to participate in the
fully-insured Medicare plans.
• All pre-65 retirees will continue to have the option to continue participation in the SEHP selffunded plans in FY 2016. Although retirees are
required to pay their “full cost of coverage,” the
SEHP fund is paying for any claims in excess of
the premium collected.
• Pre-65 retirees will experience a 22.5% increase
in their required contributions beginning in 2016
as an attempt by the SEHP to more accurately
charge retirees for their full cost of coverage.
• In 2016, pre-65 retiree contributions for the BCBS
KS plans are as follows:
»» Plan A: $638.08 for single, $1,895.02 for family
»» Plan C: $471.02 for single, $1,484.80 for family
• Premium amounts for 2016 Aetna pre-65 retirees are slightly higher than BCBS contribution
amounts.
• The average employer contribution on retir1
http://kslegislature.org/li_2012/m/statute/012_000_0000_chapter/012_050_0000_article/012_050_0040_section/012_050_0040_k.pdf
80 | State Employee Health Plan
ee specific exchanges are $100 per retiree per
month.
• In 2016, an average participant contribution for
single coverage under a “Gold” plan, or a plan
with 80% actuarial value, ranged from $500 to
$700 per month for a 55 year old in Topeka Kansas. Actual contributions are determined based
on the plan elected and participant age, gender
and dependents covered.
• GASB requires all governmental entities sponsoring Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) to accrue for the obligations under the plan2.
• Despite moving the Medicare-Eligible Retirees to
a fully-insured platform, SEHP continues to have
a GASB liability for those current and future pre65 retirees.
• Approximately 50% of all active employees and
22% of their spouses who retire and meet the eligibility criteria will participate in the plan, according to the 2015 Actuarial Report for GASB OPEB
Valuation provided by the SEHP actuary, Aon.
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$5,750
$12,000
$12,936
$13,945
$15,033
Key Assumptions
• Estimate of savings do not consider any changes
to retiree contributions from the CY2016 levels
• Estimates are based on the average of the high
and low range of savings values
• Savings assume current retiree claims experience
remains stable and increases with 7.8% trend,
as estimated by the 2016 Segal Health Plan Cost
Trend Survey3
• Savings assume retirees will to an exchange plat2 Other Postemployment Benefits: A Plain-Language
Summary of GASB Statements No. 43 and No. 45. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2015, from http://www.gasb.org/cs/Cont
entServer?c=Document_C&pagename=GASB/Document_C/
GASBDocumentPage&cid=1176156714369
3
2016 Segal Health Plan Cost Trend Survey. (2015).
Retrieved November 27, 2015, from https://www.segalco.com/
media/2139/me-trend-survey-2016.pdf
form for January 1, 2017 and the SEHP will realize
savings for the last six months of FY17
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the plan design recommendations include:
• Issuance of a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the
retiree exchange platform
• Oversight and monitoring by SEHP staff of the
awarded vendor
• Ample communication plan and timeline for all
retirees to successfully understand new options
through the exchange
• Transfer all current retiree members to the exchange platform
• Change KS Statue 12-5040 to indicate that employers can make a group health plan available,
or a plan of similar design, network, and cost
The expected time to implement this recommendation is 12 months and changes can become effective
the beginning of the 2017 plan year (January 1, 2017).
In the event that an RFP is needed for the retiree exchange, it can be completed in advance, before the
2017 plan year for a January 1, 2017 effective date.
Recommendation #3 – Increase Organizational Efficiency of the SEHP
The State Employee Health Plan is currently running
an efficient organization with the lean staff it employs.
However, SEHP can increase administrative efficiencies and reduce duplicative effort through a realignment of the organization and member requirements
for State Employers and Non-State Employers.
• Reposition the SEHP under the Kansas Department of Administration – The SEHP is currently
housed in the Division of Health Care Finance,
within the Kansas Department of Health & Environment. The current employment structure of
the SEHP staff creates a misalignment of priorities due to the differing role of the Department
of Administration (DOA) and the KDHE, within
the Kansas Government. It is recommended that
the plan transition into an ancillary agency of the
DOA responsible for managing the administra-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 81
tion of the benefit program available to state employees, retirees, and their dependents, as well as
employees of certain other government entities.
This structure would allow for better coordination and communication between the DOA and
SEHP.
• Streamline Payroll Deduction File Requirements – To better utilize SEHP staff, decrease enrollment and deduction errors, and increase administrative efficiency, the State should require
all State universities, or “regents,” to employ the
payroll system used by the DOA. This could provide the SEHP approximately $165,000 in savings
annually, for time lost, cash outlays for system
updates to accommodate regent changes, and
cost for potential payroll errors.
»» Produce the files earlier than necessary or
appropriate.
»» Work with each regent to reconcile any payroll file issues.
»» Accommodate limited reporting from the
regents—not all reports that are provided
by DOA are available with the regents payroll systems.
»» Reconcile the regent payroll files after the
payroll calculation cycle and subsequent
payroll file creation cycle are both closed,
causing a lag in reporting and increase in
potential for error.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$165
$165
$165
$165
$165
Background and Findings
• Based on state benchmarks, State health plans
are typically structured within the Department
of Administration (DOA), or another state agency
that handles Human Resource functions.
• Effective July 1, 2011, the staff that administers
the SEHP became part of the Division of Health
Care Finance (DHCF) within the KDHE. The Director of the State Employee Health Benefits Program reports to the Director of the DHCF.
• The Health Care Commission (HCC) was developed by Kansas statute in 1984. The HCC is
comprised of five members—the Secretary of
Administration, Commissioner of Insurance, and
three members appointed by the Governor. The
statute requires one member to be a representative of the general public, one a current State
employee in classified service, and one a retired
State employee from the classified service.
Key Assumptions
• The Governor and DOA would grant SEHP the authority to reorganize its structure.
• SEHP staff developed saving estimates from
streamlining the payroll deduction files.
• Savings estimates do not account for any investment cost that would be incurred through the
purchase of new payroll systems.
• Savings will be realized when the payroll systems
are consolidated and the number of payroll deduction files provided reduces to one.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the administrative recommendations include:
• Request approval from the Governor to realign
SEHP under the DOA
• Per statute, the HCC, headed by the Secretary of
the Department of Administration (DOA), has the
authority to make any changes to the administration and implementation of the State Employee
Health Plan.
• Make appropriate administrative changes to reflect SEHP staff employment by DOA
• The SEHP produces one payroll deduction file for
the DOA and seven other payroll deduction files
for the various regents across the State. This results in multiple additional checks and balances
working with each of the various regents. Additionally this poses inefficiencies as the SEHP must:
• Train regent employees on payroll deduction file
requirements
• Implement standardized payroll system for all regents
The expected time to implement this recommendation is six to twelve months for the regents to adopt
the State payroll system. The recommendation is not
expected to require statutory or regulatory changes;
82 | State Employee Health Plan
however, it may require newly established statutory
requirements to impose the requirement upon the regents.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 83
Public Employee
Retirement System
Acknowledgements
The KPERS staff was extremely helpful in providing their knowledge, time, and advice. Alvarez & Marsal would
like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Alan Conroy, KPERS Executive Director
•
Faith Loretto, KPERS Planning and Research Director
•
Mary Beth Green, KPERS Chief Benefits Officer
•
Jarod Waltner, KPERS Assistant Planning and Research Officer
KPERS OVERVIEW
Background and Previous Cost Saving Initiatives
The Kansas Public Employees Retirement System
(KPERS) provides disability, death, and retirement benefits for most public employees at all levels of government, including the state, school districts, and local
units.1
Concerns about the long-term funding of retirement
benefits have been prevalent since major changes
were enacted by the 1993 Legislature and the participating employers’ annual funding since 1995 was
less than the annual Actuarial Required Contribution
(ARC).2 Consequently, in 2011, a commission formed
to examine the issue and develop recommendations
for alternative solutions to this long-term problem.
ity and future employer contributions.
Since 2011, that plan was slightly adjusted to specifically define the risk sharing arrangement. In addition,
$1 billion in Pension Obligation Bonds have been issued. These shore up the plan funding status and provided the opportunity for KPERS investments to earn a
higher return than the cost of debt service.
Most recently, the Governor reduced the KPERS employer contribution by $58 million for Fiscal Year 2015
(FY 15). While this was an effective mechanism to meet
budgetary obligations, the result was an increase in
the unfunded liability and in future costs.
Its important to note that KPERS itself does not have
the authority to make changes in the retirement plan
benefits, that is the legislature’s responsibility. For the
most part, KPERS contribution requirements are dependent on the benefit levels provided. A fundamental equation of cost and plan equilibrium is:
As a result of this commission, a third tier of benefits
was established for employees hired after December
31, 2014. This new tier was a “Cash Balance” plan, which
in addition to providing somewhat reduced cost to
Kansas employers, minimized the risk of reduced future investment return, adding to the unfunded liabil-
C+I=B+E
1
KANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (KPERS) STUDY ...
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.lkm.org/
legislative/alerts/final-kpers-committee-report.pdf
2Ibid.
−− B = Benefits provided through KPERS
Where:
−− C = Contributions made to the KPERS
−− I = Investment return earned by KPERS
−− E = Expenses of running KPERS
With a goal of reducing employer costs (C), one of the
three other variables (I, B, and E) must be modified.
84 | Kansas Public Employees Retirement System
Baseline Budget
KPERS actuaries make calculations of the recommended contributions from all employers. These are performed annually based on the benefit provisions, demographic information on plan participants, current
asset levels, and anticipated future investment return.
Below is a summary of the contribution requirements
and the current statutory contribution levels for various divisions of KPERS as of December 31, 2014. These
are expressed as a percent of payroll.
System
State and
School
Local
Police & Fire
Benchmark Comparisons
Fiscal Benchmarks
Of the components of cost, an important consideration is to determine if the Normal Cost, which can
also be considered a proxy for B or benefits paid above
is inappropriately high compared to peers. The following chart shows that this is not the case.
Key findings from the chart below:
• The share of Normal Cost paid by the employer
for KPERS was 2.4%
Actuarial Rate
Statutory
Rate
Shortfall
15%
12%
3%
»» This is 3.2% of pay less than the average
school system (5.6%)
8%
8%
0%
19%
19%
0%
»» This is 4.4% of pay less than the average
state employee system (6.8%)
»» This is less than any other employer in the
peer group
By statute, the rates are allowed to increase by a maximum of 1.0% in FY15, 1.1% in FY 16, and 1.2% in FY 17
and beyond. The cost of any benefit enhancements is
additional. The December 31, 2014 actuarial valuation
(shown above) sets the employer contribution rate for
FY 18 for the State and School group and FY 17 for the
Local group.
• When adding in Social Security contributions,
KPERS is only marginally stronger
The employer contribution is comprised of the Normal
Cost plus amortization of unfunded liabilities minus
contributions made by employees. For the State and
School, the 14.89% cost above is:
»» The KPERS total employer cost of 8.3% is 4%
less than the average state system (12.35%)
• 8.40% Normal Cost Rate (Value of benefit earned
in year), plus
• 12.49% to Amortize Unfunded Liability, minus
• 6.00% Contributions made by employees
»» The KPERS total employer cost of 8.6% is
nearly 2% less than the average school system (10.54%)
»» Only Missouri Teachers have lower employer costs (4.39%) than KPERS
• When adding in the member contributions, an
idea of the full value of pension benefits can be
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Employer Normal Cost
Employer Social Security
Member Contributions
ascertained. The KPERS total Normal Cost of 8.4%
is much lower than the peers
»» The average for all School employee systems is 13.5%
»» The average for all State employee systems
is 12.5%
»» Only Missouri State employees with a total
Normal Cost of 8.2% is lower than KPERS
• When considering Social Security contributions
by both the employer and employee, Kansas public employees have about 3% of pay lower going
toward retirement benefits earned in a year:
»» Kansas total contribution is 20.8% of pay
»» The average school employee contribution
is 23.5%
»» The average state employee contribution is
23.6%
Operational Benchmarks
KPERS participated in a benchmarking study conducted by Cost Effective Management (CEM) Benchmarking—a noted advisor to pension systems. This 2014
study gave KPERS very favorable grades in terms of
providing high quality service to KPERS members at a
low cost.
KPERS total administration cost per member was $39.
This is less than half of the $79 of KPERS peers and
about one-third of the $119 average of all CEM overall
average.
CEM allocated KPERS $41 cost advantage as comprised of:
• $3 for economies of scale
• $5 for fewer transactions per member (workload)
• $5 for more transactions per FTE (productivity)
• $13 for lower costs per FTE for salary, benefits,
building, utilities, HR and IT
• $2 for lower third party costs in front-office activities
• $13 for lower back-office costs
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 85
C+I = B+E: Analysis of Components
Contributions
KPERS contributions in the short run are based on
KPERS costs as determined by the actuary. In the long
run they must be governed by the equation above,
which can be re-written as C = B+E-I. So to reduce
costs in the long run, either benefits or expenses must
be reduced or investment income must be increased.
In the short run, costs can be reduced either by simply ignoring the actuary’s recommendation, or by a
reduction in the actuary’s cost determination.
The A&M team evaluated the actuarial reports and
do not find any material items for which a reduction
in the actuarial recommended costs is anticipated. In
particular:
• The actuarial assumed rate of investment return
is 8.0%. This is somewhat higher than the average utilized by other pension systems. With a
continuing low interest rate environment, the 8%
rate becomes more of an outlier in terms of peers
and conventional wisdom. The A&M team believes that there is some possibility that the actuary will be recommending a decrease in this rate.
All other things being equal, this would increase
the actuarially recommended contributions. The
impact of the assumed rate of return on Tier 3
benefit levels will reduce the impact somewhat
in the long term.
• Mortality has been continuing to improve. There
is some likelihood that the actuary will be recommending an update to the mortality table. All
other things being equal, this would increase the
actuarially recommended contributions.
• The actuary will be reviewing other experience
and may make other recommendations which
could increase or decrease the recommended
contributions.
• Some additional contribution will be required
to reflect the $58 million reduction in employer
contributions for FY15.
• One modification in funding policy, which might
mitigate the above or even reduce costs, is the
amortization period. The current amortization
period is to get KPERS to 100% funded by 2033.
Because this is approaching a fifteen year horizon, there is a possibility that the KPERS Board
86 | Kansas Public Employees Retirement System
may modify its funding policy and lengthen that
period. While this is not a long term cost savings,
it can be somewhat of a short term cost savings.
Although the State could minimize costs in the short
run by legislative or gubernatorial fiat, such action
would undermine the long-term financial status of
KPERS and be negatively viewed by rating agencies.
The long-run permanent way to reduce costs is either
to increase investment performance or decrease benefits and expenses.
Investment Return
Investment return is an extremely important driver of
long-term costs. The A&M team did not review KPERS
investment performance. Investment performance
flows through to the C+I=B+E equation fairly slowly,
but it is of critical long-term importance. KPERS is an
independent fiduciary charged with investing plan
assets. Best practice is to authorize an independent
retirement system as has been done in Kansas. KPERS
has developed a strategic plan which includes strategic initiatives in investing including3:
• Continue to proactively monitor and manage investment managers and portfolios.
• Seek to diversify equity risk by evaluating new investment strategies for potential investment.
• Proactively forecast and manage liquidity to
meet cash flow needs.
• Ensure that staffing levels are adequate to effectively monitor and manage an increasingly complex investment portfolio.
The A&M team supports this initiative and encourages
KPERS to continue its focus on strong investment return.
Expenses
An important albeit small consideration in costs is the
expenses borne by KPERS. As shown in the benchmarking, KPERS has extremely low expenses relative
to peers. The A&M team encourages continuation of
this strong practice.
3
KPERS Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years
2011-2015. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.
kpers.org/strategicplan.pdf
Benefits
The most powerful factor in reducing costs in the long
run is to reduce benefits. However, as shown in the
peer comparison, KPERS already provides benefits below the peer average. Additionally, KPERS Tier 3 provides benefits even below those shown above, for the
average current workforce.
Nevertheless, there may be benefit features, which
can be revisited and considered for modification. One
option is to consider the compensation, which may be
taken into account in calculation of pension benefits.
The types of compensation are (1) sick and annual
leave, and (2) certain types of deferred compensation.
KPERS analyzed these in the last year and the A&M
team reviewed their analysis. The A&M team’s comments follow:
Sick and Annual Leave
The Executive Director of KPERS submitted a memorandum4 to the House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development regarding House Bill
2426, which considered changes to the treatment of
sick and annual leave is used in the calculations of final salary and implementing a cap on the amount of
leave that can be accrued by employees of KPERS employers. The memorandum provided background related to the history of the treatment of sick and Annual
Leave. “The 1993 legislature changed the definition of
final average salary for all members joining KPERS after July 1, 1993.” This new definition improved benefits
by reducing the averaging period from four years to
three years, but did not include “add-on” pay, which is
primarily sick leave and annual leave. The memo noted that due to potential legal concerns, they did not
eliminate this provision for those hired prior to July 1,
1993, but made calculations on the higher of the pre1993 rules (4 years with add-on) or the post-1993 rules
(3 years, no add-on).
KPERS and their actuary have quantified the potential
change. The memo noted that completely “eliminating
use of sick and annual leave was projected to reduce
the unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) for KPERS by $49
million. In addition, effectively eliminating one of the
4
Active KPERS Members by Membership Date. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
www.kslawenforcementinfo.com/uploads/3/0/3/2/3032106/kpers_-_hb_2426_overview.pdf
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 87
final average salary calculations reduces the plan’s normal cost, albeit very marginally (0.01%-0.03%). Totally
eliminating vacation and sick leave from final average
salaries results in a reduction in contribution rates of
0.18% for the State Group, 0.04% for the School Group,
and 0.07% for the Local Group.” This would result in
an estimated annual reduction of $3.2 million for the
State and School Group and $1.2 million for the Local
Group.
The memo went on to note that “a reduction in actuarial required contribution rates would ultimately result
in fewer contributions entering the KPERS Trust Fund.
However, because the State/School Group statutory
employer contribution rate is below the actuarial required contribution rate, only the Local Group reduction would result in reduced contributions, totaling
approximately $1.2 million.
In both cases, the reduced revenue reflects lower
employer contributions required to fund benefits for
pre-1993 members. However, HB 2426 would not be
expected to result in savings of the amount projected
by the cost study, and therefore, the contribution rates
would not decline to the extent above.”
It is important to note that KPERS also cautioned that
administrative costs to implement this could be considerable. This is partially due to the difficulty in collecting the data of permissible leave and non-permissible leave.
Deferred Compensation
Certain employees, typically key employees, enter into
a contract with their employer to defer compensation
under Section 457(f ) of the tax code. This provides tax
deferral. Currently, such amounts may enter into the
pension calculation. KPERS identified several reasons
that this is not a substantial cost.
• Only three times in the past twenty years have
such amounts entered into the calculation
• The IRS imposes a limit on compensation which
can be considered for pension purposes:
»» $265,000 for those hired after July 1, 1996
»» $395,000 for those hired prior to July 1, 1996
• There may be contract rights or legal issues which
could preclude a change in the program
Based on this, the A&M team estimates that a total
elimination of this benefit would save the system less
than $200,000 per year. A prospective elimination
might save $100,000 per year in the long run.
Summary
The A&M team performed a review of KPERS while
keeping in mind their mission “...to deliver [in its fiduciary capacity] retirement, disability and survivor benefits to its members and their beneficiaries.”
Many of the recommendations developed align with
these goals, including program delivery, organization
improvement, workforce and external partnerships.
Recommendations Recommendation #1 – Make Required
Contributions to KPERS as Specified
under Current Law
Specifically, all KPERS employers, including the State,
should make the required contributions contemplated under current law. Deferral of contributions would
result in higher long term costs and put the burden of
past public service costs on future Kansans.
Recommendation #2 – Encourage
KPERS to Carry out its Strategic Plan
with Emphasis on Maximizing Investment Income Consistent with Fiduciary
Responsibility
Investment return is the most important driver of
long-term costs for the KPERS system. The A&M team
reviewed the KPERS strategic plan—which covers investment return—and believe that the plan is reasonable and that KPERS has a strong focus on investment
return. The State should support that emphasis and
encourage KPERS initiatives, which improve investment performance.
88 | Kansas Public Employees Retirement System
Recommendation #3 – Consider Modest Changes In Compensation Which
Can Be Considered In Pension Calculations
Generally, KPERS benefits are below average compared to peers. However, certain individuals are able
to increase their benefits based on sick leave, annual
leave or deferred compensation.
The A&M team encourages a more thorough analysis
of the sick and annual leave provisions, including an
estimate of administrative costs. This might include a
phase-out of the inclusion of leave after a certain date.
Although the anticipated cost savings are modest,
such an effort may be worthwhile.
KPERS estimated maximum annual cost savings of
$3.2 million for the State/School group once statutory
contributions catch up to the actuarially required contribution.
A reasonable estimate for the net cost savings after
consideration of administrative costs, phase-ins of the
change, and delay until the statutory contribution exceeds the actuarial contribution, is $2 million per year.
The A&M team also encourages at least a closing of
the door on future 457(f ) deferrals being included in
pensionable compensation. Although the cost savings would be small—$100,000 per year, the “headline
risk” of high paid individuals being able to “spike” their
salary as well as the inequity compared between rank
and file public employees, may be enough reason to
close this loophole.
If executives understand this before making the compensation deferral decision, they will be properly informed and can make the best, most tax-efficient,
compensation decision for their individual circumstances.
The state is not currently funding the full ARC and
is not scheduled to do so until FY21. Consequently,
these changes would not result in any short-term cost
savings until FY21.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,300
Actuarial Statement
This analysis was performed for Alvarez and Marsal (A&M) by William
Fornia, FSA of Pension Trustee Advisors, Inc. as part of the A&M team.
The analysis was based on publicly available data, including that provided by KPERS. Mr. Fornia is a Member of the American Academy of
Actuaries and meets their qualification standards to render this actuarial opinion.
Department
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 89
of Administration
90 | Real Estate and Lease Mangagement
Real Estate
and Lease Management
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the
Kansas Department of Administration. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this
endeavor, especially:
•
Sarah Shipman, Acting Secretary of Administration
•
Mark McGivern, Director, Office of Facilities and Property Management
•
Colleen Becker, Director, Office of Financial Management
•
Linda Thomas, Deputy Director of Real Estate
•
George Steele, Deputy Director of Engineering
•
Bobby Kosmala, State Lease Administrator
•
Jarod Waltner, KPERS Assistant Planning and Research Officer
Agency Overview
Previous Efficiency Initiatives
Established in 1953, the Kansas Department of Administration (DOA) is a multifunctional agency that serves
other Kansas agencies as well as Kansas citizens. Its
functions include:
half of state agencies
Part of DOA’s mission is to identify and promote efficiencies that will save the taxpayers’ money and promote effective governance. In the past 24 months,
DOA has implemented several initiatives that are intended to achieve its mission goals:
• The procurement of goods and services on behalf
of state agencies
• The management of government-owned buildings and real estate
• Leasing on behalf of state agencies
• Maintaining the clearinghouse for state government jobs
• Disposing of real and personal property on be-
• Decommissioning of the Docking State Office
Building – The 564,138 sq. ft. Docking State Office Building (“Docking” or the “Docking Building”) was built in 1955 and sits across SW Harrison
Street from the State Capitol Building. The majority of the building’s systems have exceeded their
useful life and DOA has conducted comprehensive cost estimates of a complete modernization
that peg the price at somewhere between $80
to $100 million. In tandem with the modernization budget, DOA performed comparative studies that contrasted the absolute and Net Present Value (NPV) costs of keeping Docking online
versus demolishing it and moving its remaining
tenants—primarily the Department of Revenue
(DOR)—into leased space in privately-owned office buildings in Topeka. The analysis supports
DOA’s decision to decommission Docking and
save the state approximately $7.2 million per
year in additional debt service charged through
Docking rent assuming 100% occupancy. In addition to avoiding additional debt, the solution
DOA procured for DOR in leasing approximately
176,000 sq. ft. in three private office buildings,
will save the state $600,000 annually in leasing
costs. A&M staff toured the Docking building and
visually confirmed the general state of disrepair.
• Aggressive Lease Management – DOA has signing authority for all leases executed by state
agencies. Including the DOR relocation from the
Docking Building, DOA has begun to actively
monitor leases that come due and is achieving
a 3%-5% savings over the previous contract rent
(net of expenses) during negotiations with building owners by simply being at the table with the
client agency during the process. Out of 171 leases coming due or entering option periods in the
next five fiscal years, this translates to $1.18 million in savings.
• Building Efficiency Projects – DOA’s facilities and
engineering staff are currently identifying opportunities to achieve savings on utility costs through
selective renovations such as window and system
replacements. A window replacement project
currently being performed in the Landon Office
Building (stated to be completed in 2016, costing
$2.5 million) yields approximately $150,000 in annual savings due to reduced electricity consumption for heating and air conditioning. The simple
payback period of 17 years is offset by the 50-year
useful life of the windows, producing a 7% internal rate of return and making the project costeffective over the long term.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 91
• Construction of a new Central Heating and Cooling Plant for the Capitol Complex – As a consequence of demolishing the Docking Building, the
Capitol Complex (a series of state-owned buildings surrounding and including the State Capitol
Building, comprised of approximately 1.6 million
SF in six buildings) will be losing its central heating and cooling plant. DOA has seized this opportunity to construct a new, more efficient plant
on state-owned property at the corner of SW Van
Buren Street and SW 7th Street, directly across the
street from the Eisenhower State Office Building.
The total cost of the project is $16 million and
it will provide the Capitol Complex with a new,
closed system of generation and transmission for
heating and cooling services.
• Property Dispositions– DOA has worked to dispose of surplus properties in a timely manner,
working within the construct of current regulations regarding the disposition of the net proceeds of these transactions, which dictate that
80% of the revenue goes to the Kansas Public
Employees Retirement System (KPERS). In the
past 24 months DOA has closed on over $2.6
million in transactions, reducing government
overhead and returning properties to the private
sector, which helps stimulate the economy and
support the local tax base. Before the start of the
legislative session in January 2016, DOA will have
closed on an additional $1,325,000 in other transactions.
While the broad mission of DOA is to provide all manner of services to other state agencies and to taxpayers, the focus of this report is based on their mission
requirement regarding the management of the state’s
leased and owned real estate portfolio. On their website, DOA has a five-year plan in which the Office of Facilities and Property Management lays out three broad
goals:
92 | Real Estate and Lease Mangagement
1. The deconstruction of the Docking Building
tion Program.
2. The construction of the new Capitol Complex
power plant
After further discussions with DOA staff, opportunities to meaningfully lower debt service appear limited. While the State is reviewing opportunities for
savings, it may be worthwhile for DOA to consult with
several municipal bond financial advisors to thoroughly evaluate the outstanding indebtedness portfolio to
consider the cost/benefit of additional refinancing. Assessment of the market should be furthered explored
with DOA’s financial advisors. Please note, A&M is not
a registered “Municipal Advisor” as defined by the Mu-
3. Print and mail consolidation
Baseline Budget
In the budget presented graphically below the bulk of
DOA’s annual budget is comprised of debt service and
capital improvements related to the state’s ownership
of buildings within the Capitol Complex and in Wich-
Department of Administration
FY2013 Actual
Fy2014 Actual
FY2015 Budget
$93,554,934
$82,859,460
$89,506,194
ita. $22.9 million of the $46 million of debt service in
the baseline FY 2016 budget, or approximately 50%, is
allocated for improvements to the State Capitol alone.
The 17.3% increase in Debt Service and Capital Improvements from the FY 2016 baseline budget to the
FY 2016 Governor’s recommended budget is primarily
due to the inclusion of funding for new debt service
to support the construction of the National Bio-Agra
Defense Facility. These figures differ from the agency’s
and are solely the Governor’s recommendations. They
were provided to A&M by the DOA.
Areas of Initial Focus
Debt Service
One major area of investigation for efficiency opportunities was the possibility of refinancing portions of the
bond portfolio to achieve more cost-effective terms
on debt service and reduce the amount required to
carry DOA’s portion of the state debt. The graphic below summarizes the total debt service for DOA according to the agency. Components of this debt service
include repayment of a $500 million bond issuance
for KPERS, renovations to the State Capitol and other
Capitol Complex buildings, and bonds for the Department of Transportation’s Comprehensive TransportaDebt Service
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
$89,234,944 $89,760,507 $89,573,837
FY2016 Budget
FY2017 Budget
$136,738,865 $170,067,732
nicipal Securities Rulemaking Board and cannot offer
specific advice on the issuance of state and municipal
bonds. Capital Improvements
A&M conducted several site tours of state-owned office buildings in the Capitol Complex, as well as the
subterranean, connective infrastructure that supplies
heating and cooling from the Docking Building to
most of the other buildings in the Complex. In addition to a general conditions assessment, A&M viewed
several projects that DOA is undertaking to improve
energy efficiency and increase savings. The most ambitious capital program DOA is currently undertaking
is the construction of the new central plant to meet
the heating and cooling needs of the Capitol Complex
buildings. This project and the opportunistic system
replacements in other state-owned office buildings
represent all existing DOA initiatives. The savings generated by these projects will offset rising fuel costs and
inflation and create predictability in future budgeting
cycles.
Leasing
In addition to viewing portions of all the buildings in
the Capitol Complex, A&M also toured several large
executed and potential lease sites for state agency
use. 555 SW Kansas Avenue, an 86,700 sf private office
building located just two blocks from the State Capitol,
is the new home for the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF). Utilizing market knowledge
and capitalizing on the turn of the entire building af-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 93
ter the previous tenant had vacated, DOA negotiated
a highly competitive, full-service lease rate of $15.25/
sf. DCF took possession of the space in April 2015. In
addition to approximately $1.5 million in system furnishings, DOA secured DCF’s use for free—the new
lease saves the state approximately $540,000 per year.
internal disruptions and maintaining operational efficiency. The average weighted cost of space for these
leases is $15.40/sf compared to $19.40/sf, which the
DOR is currently paying at the Docking building. Based
on 150,000 sf, this saves the state $600,000 per year.
Dispositions
As described previously, DOA has been able to monetize surplus properties through sales. Continued vigilance in identifying surplus properties and assisting
agencies through the disposition process will reduce
carrying costs and create more revenue for the state.
Internal Operations
A&M also toured 240 SE Madison Street, a 700,000 sf
former Hallmark production plant that was considered
as a potential relocation space for DOR’s move out of
the Docking Building. While the space was cheap,
it was essentially delivered in warm shell condition,
meaning that the entire space (approximately 150,000
sf ) for DOR would have to have been constructed from
scratch. DOA estimated the time and cost of these improvements would have been prohibitive in order to
meet DOR’s needs and instead identified three separate leases in the private Topeka market that accommodated separate DOR functional groups, minimizing
A&M held multiple discussions with senior DOA staff
members to ascertain how the real estate functions
were executed by the agency. DOA’s focus on relying
less on contractors and more on in-house staff, to provide labor for maintenance and capital projects, is producing budget savings. DOA’s aforementioned, active
management of the leasing portfolio will continue to
yield savings as well. Building on DOA’s already robust
disposition program will produce additional revenue.
All these initiatives are already underway at DOA. Continuous leadership and direction (as with any organization) is essential to sustaining these types of organizational changes.
Real Estate
Recommendations Overview
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Leasing Operations Consolidation – Leasing
Savings
$116
$226
$218
$278
$313
$1,151
2
Leasing Operations Consolidation – Personnel Savings
$448
$456
$466
$475
$484
$2,329
3
Disposition of State Owned, Surplus Properties
$3,817
$3,817
$122
$122
$1,834
$9,712
4
Ground Lease of Lot #4
$2,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,500
5
Managed Print Service for the Capitol
Complex
$250
$250
$250
$250
$250
$1,250
6
Telecommunications Partnership
$0
$296
$296
$296
$296
$1,184
$7,131
$5,045
$1,352
$1,421
$3,177
$18,126
Real Estate and Leasing Total
94 | Real Estate and Lease Mangagement
A&M’s analysis for the state of Kansas focused primarily on methods of enhancing DOAs current initiatives
and assessing several additional opportunities for savings and revenue generation. A&M concluded that,
in addition to maintaining focus on its primary three
objectives, stated in the previous section, DOA could
further enhance its real estate capabilities through the
following actions:
• Create a robust disposition program for surplus
property – Unused or underutilized property that
agencies have no reasonable use for, should be
reverted back into private ownership for revenue
generation, maintenance reduction and economic development purposes. DOA has already
begun formulating a regimented approach to
implementing this program. With some better interagency cooperation and some changes to the
existing laws—regarding the proceeds from such
dispositions—the property disposition program
can be optimized to return maximum value to
the state and the taxpayers.
• Leasing Operations Consolidation – Separate
state agencies currently have 58 positions dedicated either in part or whole to leasing and real
estate functions. One of DOA’s mission goals is
to act as a dispassionate agent for agencies’ real
estate actions, in order to optimize efficiency and
cost effectiveness. Much like the General Services
Administration manages the Federal leased and
owned real estate portfolio through its Public
Buildings Service, DOA’s Office of Facilities and
Property Management can perform the same
function for the state. Savings can be achieved
both through a portfolio-centric style of management and through reduced personnel costs.
aged-print services system for the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE) at
the Landon and Curtis Office Buildings. In the 12
complete reporting months since the rollout of
the program, the new system saved an estimated
$96,670 in printing costs—a 22% average reduction in previous printing costs. (Xerox performed
the original pilot program over a 13-month reporting period; however, A&M only utilized the
first 12 months to report findings on an annual
basis). This program should be expanded to other Capitol Complex buildings in order to generate more savings and eliminate waste.
• Cell Tower Leasing Program for excess land – A
significant portion of state-owned land is unmarketable due to its remote location, lack of access
to transportation, additional infrastructure and
market factors, which hinder its value in the private market. The continued penetration of the
telecommunications companies into previously
underserved, rural markets presents an opportunity to place state-owned parcels into a clearinghouse for bidding that may bring the state some
additional revenue from previously un-utilized
land.
Recommendation #1 – Leasing decisions for all state agencies should be
centralized within DOA under the existing state Leasing Coordinator in order
to achieve savings on rolling leases
Background and Findings
• Ground Lease of Lot #4 – The state had previously
solicited purchasers for a 64,625 sf parcel of stateowned land immediately south of the Docking
Building, called Lot #2. It received a winning bid
of $2.5 million. The solicitation was subsequently
rescinded; however, the same opportunity exists
to lease Lot #4, which is south of Lot #2. The state
can lease the lot, maintaining long-term control
of the site, for a period of time between 50 to 99
years and realize the same value.
• The state currently maintains 298 leased office
spaces for state agencies.
• Capitol Complex managed printing services solution – In 2014, DOA initiated a pilot program with
Xerox to test the cost-savings benefits of a man-
• DOA is well suited to act as the state’s agent in
these transactions and to identify the most cost-
• There are approximately 170 state leases expiring
or entering option periods from the date of this
report through the end of FY 2021.
• While DOA has execution authority over all leases
in the state’s portfolio, it has historically not actively involved itself in agency leasing decisions
until last year.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 95
effective solutions on behalf of the taxpayers. It
can also identify alternative space solutions such
as consolidations that may contribute to cost savings throughout the portfolio. While individual
agencies will always seek to enhance ability to
serve their particular missions, they may not necessarily make real estate decisions with the longterm cost or value in mind.
• The bulk of the large money leases (primarily the
three leases DOA executed on behalf of the Department of Revenue to facilitate its relocation
from the Docking building and a new 90,000 sq.
ft. lease just executed for DCF in Topeka) have
already been executed and the savings have already been realized.
• DOAs past performance suggests that it is reasonable to expect that it can discount expiring
contract rents between 3% to 5% to better align
with the market, simply based on the position of
the state in the market. This discount can also be
applied to pre-negotiated option rents.
Key Assumptions
• Based on prior performance of DOA lease evaluation and consolidation, a 4% discount was applied to all of the expiring contract rents (not applied to expenses if broken out separately).
• The savings are contingent upon the implementation of Recommendation #2.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Implement Recommendation #2.
Agency
SRS
SRS
City
Atchison
Colby
Address
Total Cost
410 Commercial St. $157,600
1135 S Country
$131,928
Club Dr.
SRS
SRS
SRS
SRS
DOCorrections
Columbus
Emporia
Great Bend
Junction City
Kansas City
215 E Maple
1701 Wheeler
1305 Patton
1010 W 6th St.
155 S 18th St.
$134,551
$231,291
$184,135
$190,572
$105,631
6/30/2019
8/31/2018
10/14/2019
8/31/2018
12/31/2015
KU Medical
Center
Kansas City
2100 W 36th St.
$884,928
12/31/2016
$150,476
$187,114
10/31/2015
5/31/2017
$166,355
2/28/2017
SRS
SRS
Leavenworth
515 Limit St.
Newton
411 SW Washinton
Rd.
DOCorrecOlathe
804 N Meadowtions
brook Dr.
IDS
SRS
Wichita
St. U.
Olathe
Ottowa
Park City
115 E Park St. #1
221 S Elm St.
1229 E 79th St.
$125,731
$171,023
$715,500
2/28/2019
7/31/2018
TBD
Parsons
Phillipsburg
Pittsburg
Salina
South
Hutchinson
300 N 17th St.
111 E Hgwy 36
320 S Broadway
2501 Marketplace
600 Andrew Ave.
$144,844
$112,430
$279,499
$100,280
$293,683
12/31/2015
11/30/2019
11/30/2016
6/30/2020
7/31/2019
Agriculture
DOCorrections
Topeka
Topeka
Forbes Field
1430 SW Topeka
Blvd.
$489,142
$117,915
12/31/2019
10/31/2015
Board of
Healing
Arts
Topeka
800 SW Jackson
$187,745
1/31/2016
IDS
Securities
Commissioner
SRS
SRS
DOA
Aging
Topeka
Topeka
700 SW Jackson
109 SW 9th St.
$158,280
$119,968
2/28/2019
6/30/2020
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
2820 SW Fairlawn
503 S Kansas Ave.
800 SW Jackson
503 S Kansas Ave.
SRS
SRS
SRS
DOHE
SRS
$1,035,802 9/30/2017
$556,077
1/31/2018
$241,802 12/31/2016
$456,450
1/31/2018
$289,768
• Maintain vigilance over the following 31 leases,
which represent the largest cost leases and 68%
of the 5-year expiring portfolio. Pay special attention to fluctuation in market rent rates and vacancies as these leases progress toward expiration
(following chart).
DOCorrections
IDS
Wichita
Wichita
212 S Market
604 N Main
Wichita
St. U.
Wichita
358 N Main
• The Department of Social Rehabilitation Services
represents approximately 47% of the expiring
lease value, and will require special attention by
the DOA.
FY 2016
$25,700
FY 2017
$116,285
FY 2018
$225,540
FY 2019
$217,903
FY 2020
$277,845
FY 2021
$313,450
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$116
$226
$218
$278
$313
Expiration
6/30/2017
6/30/2020
$123,628
$225,000
FY Savings Summary
Total
$1,176,722
3/31/2017
4/30/2016
5/31/2017
96 | Real Estate and Lease Mangagement
Recommendation #2 – Leasing decisions for all state agencies should be
centralized within DOA under the existing state Leasing Coordinator in order
to achieve savings on personnel costs
Background and Findings
• Fifty-eight individuals currently handle leasing
operations across all state agencies as part of
their responsibilities.
• Titles for these FTEs range widely, from Office
Specialist to Executive Director.
• None of the personnel assigned to manage their
agency’s leasing operations have a real estate
title or job description.
• The average FY 2014 salary of all personnel was
$62,476.
Key Assumptions
Recommendation #3 – Hire an external real estate PMO to identify, value,
market, and sell suruplus state owned
building and land
Background
• According to the property list provided by the
state (“Land-Bldg. List.doc”), the state owns nearly 12,300,000 sq. ft. of building space and nearly
179,000 acres of land.
• Utilizing input from the DOA and the Office of the
Budget, A&M identified potential surplus properties across different state agencies and provided
estimates of their respective potential, to generate value to the state.
• A&M worked closely with each state agency
owning surplus property to first confirm that the
properties were indeed surplus and to ascertain
the most appropriate path to market.
Findings
• On average, each FTE spends 5%-10% of his/her
time on leasing operations.
• Fully burdened cost per FTE at $84,343 ($62,476
plus 35% mark-up) on average.
• That state can identify positions for reduction
across the agencies.
• Assume that the state can identify positions for
reduction across the agencies.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Dedicate two of the 58 current FTEs into DOA to
create a new leasing operations team, reporting
to the state leasing director. This personnel shift
will be revenue neutral.
• All personnel will handle multiple agencies; however, the two individuals will come from (and continue to have responsibility for) the Department
for Children and Familes (2), the Department of
Revenue, or the Department of Transportation.
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$448
$456
$466
$475
$484
• A&M estimates that between surplus building
and land inventory within the state’s portfolio,
there is an estimated $9 million in potential value.
• A&M found that state agencies might be reluctant to sell any excess property given that the
agency only keeps 20% of the proceeds. The remaining 80% would be paid to the state pension
fund.
• Additionally, the process for obtaining the appropriate state approval to move surplus properties
to market can be too long, leading to an increased
potential for sales to not to be completed.
Key Assumptions & Methods
• Estimated values of surplus buildings were calculated using a comparable sales approach combined with market inferences from local brokers
and key members of the DOA.
• In the analysis of comparable properties, it was
assumed that land value is incorporated into the
sale of the building; therefore, building values
were estimated on a value per sq. ft. of building area basis. For certain properties containing
large tracts of land, or properties located in or
near high population areas, land value instead of
building value was estimated.
• For properties in which market data differed from
value estimations of local brokers or real estate
experts, a range of estimated value was created.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 97
2308 1st Ave, Dodge City, KS
Estimated Value
$180,508
• A&M also analyzed the state property portfolio to
identify properties with abnormally large tracts
of land in high value areas. Using the assumption that 10% of these large plots could be sold
or leased at market value, A&M calculated the potential value.
• The average Kansas state property tax rate is
1.4% of the appraised property value. Due to the
fact the appraised property value will typically be
lower than a third party value estimate, property
tax income estimates were made based on the
lower property value estimates.
1430 SW Topeka Blvd, Topeka, KS
Estimated Value
$1,712,297
Surplus Property Overview
107 Spruce Street, Garden City, KS
Estimated Value
$77,332
1830 Merchant St, Emporia, KS
Estimated Value
$140,000 - $144,780
332 E 8th St., Hays, KS
Estimated Value
$300,000 - $498,375
55 NE US 96 Highway, Crestline, KS
Estimated Value
$32,340
203 N10th St., Salina, KS
Estimated Value
$80,640 - $125,000
98 | Real Estate and Lease Mangagement
»» The Dept. of Corrections has already made
attempts to sell surplus land.
»» In the past, state legislature required an inventory of all state land and the sale of any
land determined to be surplus. Land was
sold at WCF (Winfield) and the Dept. of Corrections attempted to sell land at LCF (Lansing) and KJCC (Topeka) but had no bidders.
414 & 420 SW Jackson St, Topeka, KS
Estimated Value
$72,912
»» The Department of Corrections currently
leases land to farmers at NCF (Norton) and
LCMHF (Larned). KCI farms land at LCF and
HCF (wild horse program).
»» Similar inquires have been made with regard to the status of excess land owned by
the Adjutant General; however, due to the
complexity of funding allocations and mission goals, the Adjutant General demonstrated limited interest in selling any of the
identified properties.
State Owned Surplus Land
620 N Edgemore, Wichita, KS
Estimated Total Value
Estimated State Tax Revenue
Estimated Value
$3,427,151 - $3,674,666
$47,980
$831,122
Surplus Property Overview
• In addition to the surplus properties identified by
the state, A&M analyzed additional state owned
properties with high potential to yield excess or
unused land.
• While the land parcels recommended to be part
of the land disposition program have been reviewed with the DOA, they have not received the
approval of the individual state agencies, which
currently control them. Additional due diligence
would be necessary to determine how each state
agency would play a role in the disposition program.
• This particular land surplussing opportunity also
represents a chance to align agencies and land,
to provide a bulk land sale/lease program.
• During its due diligence of this potential land
surplus program, A&M discovered several critical
pieces of data:
Agency
Address
Size
Value
El Dorado
1737 SE Highway
Correctional
54, El Dorado, KS
Facility
615 Acres
$300,000
Dept. of
Labor
82 Acres
$1,235,096
Kansas
3107 W 21st St,
Neurological
Topeka, KS
Institute
221 Acres
$3,730,566
5181Wildcat Creek
Dept. of VetRoad, Manhattan,
erans Affairs
KS
90 Acres
$163,212
6425 SW 6th Ave,
Topeka, KS
Estimated Sales Total:
Estimated State Tax Revenue:
$5,428,874
$74,004
• The chart below estimates potential revenue
from the sale or lease of 10% of the land listed (>
80 Acres).
Findings
• El Dorado Correctional Facility – 1737 SE Highway 54, El Dorado, KS: The Department of Corrections has indicated that it has taken portions
of its owned portfolio to market in the past with
mixed levels of success. Given that the sale process would be streamlined through creation of a
single PMO dedicated solely to property dispositions, and considering the large amount of land,
there would be a higher potential for a successful
sale if this property were to be taken to market.
Additionally, given the fact that there have been
previous attempts to sell portions of Lansing Correctional Facility, and Topeka Correctional Facility, which were unsuccessful, A&M anticipates a
high probability of a successful solicitation.
• Dept. of Labor - 6425 SW 6th Ave, Topeka, KS:
While redevelopment attempts have been made
for this land, indicating a state interest in the disposition of the property, there has been limited
success. Under a joint solicitation through a single PMO structure, there is a much greater probability of a successful sale.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 99
surplus properties. A&M recommends that the
state form an external Project Management Office (PMO) to auction or lease identified excess
land beginning in February 2016, ending November 2016.
• With regard to excess land parcel in high value
areas, the state should finalize which parcels are
indeed surplus and move to group and sell/lease
these properties.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$3,817
$3,817
$122
$122
$1,834
• Kansas Neurological Institute - 3107 W 21st St,
Topeka, KS: Development attempts have been
made on this parcel, indicating a state interest in
its potential sale. Several market factors such as
the properties proximity to a VA hospital and the
KNI would need to be considered for the solicitation of this land.
Recommendation #4 – Enter into a
long-term ground lease agreement for
Lot #4, a state-owned piece of property
adjacent to the State Judicial Complex
in Topeka
• Dept. of Veterans Affairs – 5181 Wildcat Creek
Road, Manhattan, KS: The real estate market in
Manhattan has grown considerably over the
past decade with increased population of Kansas State, indicating a high potential for sale. A
portion of the property is being utilized as a VA
graveyard, so additional due diligence will be
necessary to verify the viability of the sale.
Background & Strategy
Critical Steps to Implement
• Attaining the buy-in and cooperation of respective state agencies will be crucial to the disposition process. A&M recommends that the state
institute a one-year moratorium on the law requiring 80% of net proceeds from state land dispositions to go to KPERS. This moratorium is also
critical for implementing Recommendation #4.
• Additionally, the state would need to grant a temporary credence such that once properties have
been identified as surplus, property value can be
confirmed in-house (within the DOA) eliminating
the necessity of a third party appraiser. This will
greatly increase the speed of transaction execution.
• Speed to market will also be a critical component
of to the successful disposition of state owned
• In 2013, the state issued an RFP for the sale of Lot
#2, a 60,000 sq. ft. parcel currently being used as
a parking lot, immediately South of the Docking
Building.
• The state received a winning bid of $2,500,000;
however, concerns about the sale of the property
given its adjacency to the State Capitol Building
were raised and the solicitation was terminated.
• Lot #4, slightly smaller at around 50,000 sq. ft. is
South of Lot #2. While it is adjacent to a parking
area servicing the Kansas Judicial Center, it has
less of a visual impact on the green space surrounding the state Capitol Building. In all other
terms of size, location and access, it is identical
to Lot #2.
• The strategy around the disposition of Lot #4
would be to ground lease the property longterm and accelerate the lease payments to one
payment at closing—essentially providing all the
value up-front to the state.
• Instead of a fee simple sale of a strategic property
close to the Capitol core, the state could maintain
long-term control over the site and would also
100 | Real Estate and Lease Mangagement
have controls and covenants built into the lease
to provide approvals over change in use and other pertinent matters.
• The prospective winner for Lot #2 was working
with a national drug store chain and was most
likely going to use the site for that purpose. Lot
#4 should prove to be suitable for that use as
well, but the site is also adjacent to Blue Cross/
Blue Shield, which might take an interest in controlling the site, potentially positively impacting
the sale.
Key Assumptions
• The market still exists to provide another competitive offer similar to that of Lot #2.
• Multiple potential owners/users become interested in controlling the site.
Critical Steps to Implement
Recommendation #5 – Hire a third
party office printing management company to assume management for all
office printing and copying within the
State Capitol Complex
Background
• In 2014, DOA and Xerox initiated a pilot program
with KDHE in the Landon and Curtis state office
buildings to streamline office printing. The goal
of this pilot was to make all office printing more
efficient.
• The pilot helped to quantify the benefits of entering into a contract with a print management
company (Xerox).
• The chart below illustrates the reduction in printing seen over 13 months. The cost avoidance
through reduction in printing was calculated as
well.
• Repurpose the RFP for Lot #2 and implement the
same execution strategy with the ground lease
structure instead of the sale structure.
•
• Obtain verification that the ground lease structure voids the necessity to transfer 80% of the net
proceeds to KPERS.
• Special attention needs to be paid to the method
in which the printing management companies
perform the baseline printing analysis to ensure
accuracy in accounting for savings.
• Key Assumptions
• The state would run an open procurement in accordance with state policy to select a print management company.
• Based on the total FTEs from the Xerox pilot, A&M
calculated the potential savings per FTE generated from switching to a print management service
to be $116.
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$2,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
• For the purpose of calculating savings to the
state from printing reduction, A&M assumed that
buildings leased within a 4-block radius from the
State Capitol Complex would be eligible to receive printing management services. The number of FTE’s used in A&M’s analysis is the sum of
FTE’s from the Xerox pilot program and FTE’s in
leased buildings (based on state provided leasing
data).
• While the initial Xerox study was performed and
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 101
recorded over a 13-month period, for the purpose of demonstrating savings on an annual basis, A&M only utilized the first 12 months of the
collected data. (Data on opposite side)
Cumulative Cost Avoidance & Printed Image Summary
Baseline Printing Spend
(Monthly)
$36,782
Sep
Oct
$7,522
$7,246
20%
20%
B&W Print Total
456,319
522,494
Color Print Total
111,107
105,777
Nov
Dec
• Savings monitoring and programmatic feedback.
Cost Avoidance
$6,716
$11,228
18%
31%
• Through printer consolidation and the implementation of more effective printing management systems, the cost associated with printing
and level of printing activity would be reduced.
B&W Print Total
442,256
206,692
• The printing management company would then
bill the state for all printing jobs at the end of every month.
% Cost Avoidance
Key Benefits to the State
Cost Avoidance
• Decreased energy consumption.
% Cost Avoidance
• Decreased solid waste.
• Savings on printing costs.
• Increased efficiencies would generate significant
savings for the state.
% Cost Avoidance
Color Print Total
91,183
41,030
Jan (2015)
Feb
$6,052
$8,382
16%
23%
B&W Print Total
665,871
428,874
Color Print Total
155,867
110,246
Mar
Apr
$8,257
$8,129
Cost Avoidance
Cost Avoidance
% Cost Avoidance
Process
• The State of Kansas would contract a third party print
management company to replace all.
• Printing systems in the State Capitol Complex buildings.
• The selected print management company would then
install more efficient printers a more efficient printing
management system.
22%
22%
B&W Print Total
375,239
344,239
Color Print Total
104,531
113,519
May
Jun
$8,710
$9,199
24%
25%
B&W Print Total
356,728
330,603
Color Print Total
99,960
87,579
Jul
Aug
Cost Avoidance
$8,134
$7,095
22%
19%
B&W Print Total
363,227
343,424
Color Print Total
108,829
Cost Avoidance
% Cost Avoidance
% Cost Avoidance
Recommendation #5 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$250
$250
$250
$250
$250
133,001
Cumulative
Total Annual Cost Avoidance
$96,670
Average Percent Cost Avoidance
22%
**Data provided by Xerox
Total Savings
$96,670
FTEs for intimal survey
Savings Per FTE
Estimated Total FTE Through Active
Estimated Potential Annual Savings
827
$117
1,314
$153,597
102 | Real Estate and Lease Mangagement
Recommendation #6 – Enter into an
agreement with a cell tower leasing
company and allow for the potential
lease of small state owned land parcels
or rooftops
Background
• The State of Kansas should—through an open
solicitation process—engage a cell tower leasing
company to analyze the portfolio of state owned
real estate.
• Large cellular data providers would likely pay a
premium for access to strategic land in locations
with increasing population and cellular activity.
• Kansas City, Topeka and Wichita as well as areas
along transportation corridors would likely be
desirable locations in which cellular companies
would be interested in leasing space.
• Verizon and T-Mobile are the most active carriers
in the market. AT&T has indicated some growth
in Kansas for 2016.
• There are needs for more cellular infrastructure
around parts of western Kansas along transportation corridors and some continued coverage upgrades. More cellular infrastructure is expected
in rural Kansas in the next 3-5 years.
• The growing market for cellular infrastructure
represents a considerable market opportunity for
the State of Kansas, with regard to surplus real estate assets.
Process
• At no cost to the state, the cell tower leasing company would provide a comprehensive radio frequency (RF) analysis, which the state could consider to include in the wireless master plan.
• At no cost to the state, the cell tower company would
provide an analysis of state owned assets and a final list
of assets which they would be interested in entering into
a long term ground lease.
• The cell tower leasing company would assume management and maintenance of all existing, state owned cell
towers.
• The cell tower leasing company would have
the opportunity to lease state real estate assets,
which could range from a solitary rooftop to larger tracts of land.
• For every land parcel leased by the cell tower leasing company, the state would receive a ground
lease payment and an additional payment for every sublease to the cell tower.
• The cell tower leasing would then market the
wireless master plan to wireless service providers
and gauge interest in collocating on any existing
and/or proposed sites within the wireless master
plan.
• The cell tower leasing company would own any
wireless communication facilities that it constructs on state owned or controlled land.
• Additionally, the state would have the ability to
lease any fiber optic communication systems,
which may have been previously installed.
Recommendation #6 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$0
$296
$296
$296
$296
Key Benefits to the State
• No upfront capital payments from the state.
• Opportunity to receive lease payments on small
portions of land that would otherwise go unused.
• The cell towers require minimal land (~2,500 sq.
ft.) and are minimally invasive.
Critical Steps to Implement
• The state should implement a project management function to analyze the state’s current portfolio of wireless facilities as well as produce a list
of land and building assets, which would be feasible to lease (to the cell tower leasing company).
• The state should solicit to select the most qualified cell tower leasing company.
• Upon selection of the most qualified company,
and after a careful review of legal premises, the
state should enter into a MOU with the cell tower
leasing company, which would grant the company exclusive access to particular state owned
assets.
• The state would begin to receive ground lease
payments upon the execution of each individual
ground lease, with additional participation fees
paid to the state for each sublease to the cell
tower facilities.
Case Study
• For illustrative purposes, A&M created a case
study to model potential revenue to the State of
Kansas.
• Assumptions
»» Assumed 0 revenue for the first two years
while the leasing company acquires land,
constructs towers, and acquires sub lessors.
»» Assumed 4 towers in Kansas City and the
surrounding metropolitan areas.
»» Assumed 2 towers in Wichita.
»» Assumes 2 towers in Topeka.
»» Assumes 2 towers in Lawrence.
»» Assumes 2 towers in Manhattan.
»» Assumes 2 Towers along the Kansas Turnpike.
»» Assumes that each tower will have two cellular providers holding sub-leases.
»» Assumes that the State will have a 40% participation in all sub-lease revenue. (The state should require a base lease payment as well as a participation payment for each lease and sub-lease, but for
the purpose of this analysis, we will assume that
the state only receives a 40% participation payment).
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 103
104 | Fleet Management and Reduction
Fleet Management
and Reduction
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the
Kansas Department of Administration. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this
endeavor, especially:
•
Sarah L. Shipman, Secretary - Kansas Department of Administration
•
Mark J. McGivern, Director - Office of Facilities and Property Management
Agency Overview
The State of Kansas should institute a two pronged
strategy to make better use of its passenger vehicle
fleet, garner significant revenue windfalls and enjoy
on-going cost savings. The comprehensive fleet strategy will employ both a reduction in vehicles owned
and an outsourced centralized fleet management system. In conjunction, these two initiatives will result in
fewer assets under management, reduced recurring
maintenance and associated costs, as well as efficient
use of vehicles for state employees to best serve the
state’s constituents.
Benchmarks
Kansas ranks in the higher end compared to its peers
on the basis of vehicles per full-time employee. The
following data are compiled from each state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report:
Fleet Ownership and FTE
60,000
30.00
50,000
25.00
40,000
20.00
30,000
15.00
20,000
10.00
10,000
5.00
0.00
0
Utah
New Mexico
Kansas
FTEs
Nevada
Vehicles
Arkansas
Nebraska
Kentucky
FTEs per Vehicle
Figure 1 – Shows total number of full-time employees, total vehicles owned and the corresponding ratio.
Consider the State Populations, from high to low: Kentucky, Arkansas, Utah, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico,
and Nebraska.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 105
Currently, Kansas ranks with the 3rd highest proportion of vehicles to FTE wielding roughly 22 vehicles
per every 100 employees. This calculation considers
all vehicles throughout the state, inclusive of specialty
or heavy vehicles, in order to appropriately compare
across peer states. The peer states with fewer vehicles
per FTE include Arkansas (11.1 vehicles per 100 FTE),
Nebraska (9.8 vehicles per every 100 FTE) and Kentucky (3.75 vehicles per 100 FTE). Based on this analysis, significant precedent exists for fleet reduction
within Kansas.
Recommendations
»» Integrate fleet management improvements
into management strategy to ensure the
proper training of employees and reduction
in use of third-party rental vehicles
Rationale and Assumptions
• Lack of interagency cooperation toward the efficient use of fleet management results in disparate systems, record keeping inconsistencies and
a lack of transparency
• Current fleet strategy has resulted in not only the
inefficient use of owned vehicles (in terms of FTE
per vehicle) but also considerable use of rental
cars
−− On average, state employees rent roughly 750 vehicles monthly for an average
cost of $35,000 a month
Fleet recommendations are quantified together due
to their causal nature, i.e. a centralized and outsourced
fleet management allows for a reduction in fleet.
−− These
figures
extrapolate
to
over
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec # Recommendation Name
1
Combined Fleet Recommendation
FY16
$1,333
FY17
$2,825
Recommendation #1 - Centralized Fleet
Management
Kansas should centralize passenger vehicle fleet resources under the Department of Administration and
outsource fleet management to a fleet operations
vendor. The consolidation of fleet operations under
DOA will allow for the implementation of a centralized
management solution and ensure resources are properly allocated to those employees who most require
them.
• Recommendation
»» Establish centralized ownership of all passenger vehicles – outside of the Universities
and Highway Patrol – under the Department
of Administration
»» Issue an RFP for vendors to bid on the management and optimization of fleet resources, inclusive of the analysis necessary to
determine fleet depot locations, on-going
rental rates and the implementation of a
network based reservation system
FY18
$995
FY19
$995
FY20
$995
FY21
$995
Total
$8,138
$425,000 spent yearly on rental vehicles
−− A modern, networked and more optimized fleet management system would
reduce these ad-hoc rentals.
»» More efficient use of passenger vehicles will
allow for the concurrent reduction in fleet,
and thus result in additional financial windfalls due to the sale of vehicles
»» “Combined Fleet Recommendation” annual savings illustrated above are net of fleet
management implementation costs ($300
annually per vehicle and upfront cost of
roughly $7,000).
Critical Steps to Implement
• Foster buy-in with agency Secretaries and design
a management strategy to train agency staff on
use of the fleet management systems.
• Open a competitive bidding process for potential fleet operations vendors to perform due diligence and submit proposals to cover pricing, implementation and operations of centralized fleet
management.
106 | Fleet Management and Reduction
Recommendation #2 - Fleet Reduction
The State of Kansas should reduce the number of vehicles owned and operated by the state. A reduction in
fleet owned will lower costs and reach usage efficiency
levels achieved by its highest performing peer states.
• Recommendation
»» The State should reduce the threshold by
which passenger vehicles may be sold to
88,000 miles from the current rule of thumb
of 130,000. This mileage target is derived
from analyzing the 1,229 state owned passenger vehicles (exclusive of University and
Highway Patrol vehicles) by their mileage
quartiles, then reducing the oldest vehicles
(by mileage) by 50%. The result is a smaller
fleet with lower average mileage, thus ensuring the most productive vehicles remain.
Fleet Reduction - Full Year Results
Average
Mileage of
Vehicle Sold
Quantity Sold
% Sold
Total Opportunity
129,697
437
36%
$1,487,875
»» Fleet reduction will be obligatory. Both during and after the initial fleet reduction in
FY2016 and FY2017, state agencies will replace vehicles at the rate of attrition.
»» Fleet reduction will result in roughly 650
fewer vehicles by the end of FY2017. This
reduction will be made possible by the concurrent adoption of a modern, centralized
fleet management system.
»» Savings in FY2018, FY2019 and FY2020 represent the recurring costs avoided made
possible by fleet reduction.
»» The State will augment its current relationship with contracted auctioneers and others
to dispose of the fleet in a timely and efficient manger.
Rationale and Assumptions
• The total eligible fleet for sale (and thus affected
by this analysis) is defined as those vehicles located in denser metropolitan areas such as Topeka,
Salina, Wichita and Kansas City, associated with
all agencies except Universities and Highway Patrol.
• Passenger vehicles are defined as two-door sedans, four-door sedans, vans, pickup trucks and
SUVs.
• Projected sale price of vehicles are derived from
actual results garnered by DOA and KDOC. Projected price was calculated as:
»» Projected Sale Price = Actual Realized Sale
Price of Similar Vehicle by Type – (Mileage of
Vehicle to be Sold * Dollar per Mile Value of
Similar Vehicle by Type at Sale)
• Yearly maintenance, insurance, et al., costs are an
estimated $1,518 per vehicle. This number was
derived from costs realized by KDOC fleet management.
• The savings estimates include the 10% commission paid to the auctioneers.
• No new legislation necessary to implement fleet
reductions.
• Savings do not take into account reduction of FTE
made possible by fleet reduction and centralized
management.
• Savings do not take into account lower wear and
tear per-vehicle incurred due to reduced usage
through centralized fleet management.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Assess the feasibility of vehicles to be sold with
agency Secretaries and staff
• Comprehensively integrate projected vehicle
reduction with DOA strategy and fleet management vendor to determine future usage patterns
and inform management decisions
• Communicate intentions with auctioneers to prepare for increased sales volume
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 107
Services
Print
Print Services
Recommendation #1 – Designate OPM
as the primary source of print services
for the state
The state should designate the Office of Print & Mailing as the primary source of print services for the state.
The consolidation of total services of $23.5 million in
print services across internal services and use of external vendors should be analyzed by the Department of
Administration for the least expensive service delivery
model, and to transform the centralized office around
the most efficient operating model for the benefit of
the state.
The top 5 product categories in 2015, which constituted 76% of total sales, are bond forms, 4-color processing, perfect bound books, envelopes, and color copies.
Top 5 Agency Sales in 2015
280558.14
703994.43
293494.36
397318.02
491569.78
REVENUE STOCKROOM
LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SER
REVISOR OF STATUTES
KDOT PRINT SHOP
DCF -SEND TO ADDRESS ON CARDS
Background and Findings
The Kansas Department of Administration’s Office of
Printing and Mailing (OPM) combines print services
and central mail functions and is the state’s resource
for these services.
Top 5 Category Sales in 2015
317,229
In 2015, Print Services invoiced $4.1 million to state
agencies. This is a 37 percent increase from 2014.
340,931
1,304,475
528,606
601,870
The top 5 customers in 2015, which constituted 53
percent of total sales, are Revenue Stockroom, Legislative Administrative Services, Revisor of Statutes, KDOT
Print Shop and the Department for Children and Families. In 2015, 97 customers had total sales amount of
$80,000 or less (or 2% of total sales or less).
BOND FORMS
ALL 4 COLOR PROCESS JOBS
PERFECT BOUND BOOKS 1 COLOR
ENVELOPES
COLOR COPY JOBS
Source: OPM Reports: FY 15 SALES BY AGENCY, FY 15 SALES BY
AGENCY, FY 15 SALES BY AGENCY
108 | Print Services
A&M reviewed the agencies spending on printing and
advertising for 2015. Total state expenditures on printing and advertising totaled $23.5 million. State agencies paid third-party vendors $9.0 million for print services, , and directed $6.4 million in work to the state
facilities.). There is potential to increase the usage of
OPM for these existing customers.
The Regent schools are exempt from utilizing the
state’s print services. The Regent schools expenditures for other vendor printing was $3.8 million in
2015. A&M recommends the state consider efforts to
bring the Regents onto the OPM system to gain further economies of scale for print services. By consolidating all print services across the state agencies and
regents, the state will be able to maximize the existing
print services capacity utilization, driving down costs,
and utilize the best value external vendors for surge
support or to replace internal services if the service
can be delivered cheaper.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Appoint Office of Printing and Mailing as the central source of print services for the state. OPM will
be responsible for all printing decisions, including make & buy decisions for all printed material,
establish policies and standards, and review all
procurement requests from state agencies related to printing.
• Designate OPM representatives for each agency.
The representatives will provide information, answer agency questions and assist with all their
printing needs.
• Assess the optimal service delivery model for the
state, whether it be an insourced or outsourced
model
• Begin to transition the agency to the optimal
model to drive costs savings to the front line
agencies
• OPM will work with agencies on RFPs with print
services requirement. OPM will decide the appropriate vendor for the project.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 109
Other Departmental
Review
110 | Department for Children and Families
Children
and Family Services
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the Kansas Department for Children and Families and within the Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund. Alvarez &
Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Phyllis Gilmore, Secretary - Department for Children and Family Services
•
Jaime Rogers, Deputy Secretary of Family Services
•
David Kurt, Deputy Secretary of Operations
•
Joel Morrison, Special Assitant - Department for Children and Families
•
Amanda Adkins, Chair - Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund
•
Janice Smith, Executive Director - Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund
Agency Overview
Previous Efficiency Initiatives
In recent years, the Kansas Department for Children
and Families (KDCF) has implemented innovative contracting and delivery models to better serve Kansas
families, improve program outcomes and increase efficiency.
• Child Support Services – The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 established
five measures for Child Support Services effectiveness: Paternity Establishment Percentage,
Support Order Establishment, Current Collections, Arrearage Collections and the Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (CER) for child support collections
efforts. Kansas improved its CER by 20% between
2011 and 2013. Then in 2013, Child Support Services were outsourced and the CER jumped another 43%. The CER remained high in 2015, putting Kansas 8% above the national average.1
• Business Process Management – Between 2011
and 2013 KDCF’s Economic and Employment Services (EES) team shifted from a case management
1
“Office of Child Support Enforcement Preliminary Report FY 2014,” US Department of Health and
Human Services, 2015; KDCF internal reporting.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 111
approach to a process management approach.
Their goals were to improve the speed and quality of service as well as improve efficiency.
»» Before process management was implemented,
the average eligibility determination took 28-34
days to complete. Now eligibility determinations
are generally processed in ten days or less.
»» Approximately 70% of service requests are now
resolved on first contact, eliminating an estimated
90,000 to 180,000 unnecessary repeat visits per
month.
»» Due in part to these efficiency improvements, 40
EES positions were eliminated in 2014. 2
Building on these innovations, A&M recommends two
specific efficiency efforts for KDCF:
• Child Support Collections – Since KDCF has improved the CER, the agency is now focusing on
improving collections—an area in which Kansas
lags behind its peers. A&M’s recommendations
include additional efforts to improve both current and arrearage collections, applying proven
practices from other states to increase the effectiveness of wage withholding and other collections mechanisms.
• Regional Facility Consolidation – As Kansas’
population shifts, the optimal placement of field
offices shifts as well. We have identified three
field offices which can be closed, with program
staff moved to nearby offices.
2
“Introduction to Process Management,” Internal Memo, KDCF.
In addition, the Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust
Fund, which oversees the Children’s Initiative Fund
(CIF), has also driven innovation in children’s programs
across Kansas in recent years. The Children’s Cabinet
has the opportunity to facilitate further improvement
by working with agencies to improve the targeting
and diversification of funding for CIF-supported programs.
• Children’s Initiatives Fund (CIF) Program
Evaluation – The Children’s Cabinet has mandated that all CIF-funded programs are evaluated
based in part on the extent to which they represent Evidence Based Practice (EBP). As such, they
are held to a higher standard for evaluation than
many state programs. Multiple CIF-funded programs demonstrated EBP score improvements
between 2014 and 2015, and several other programs which did not show improvement were
discontinued.
• Children’s Initiatives Fund (CIF) Optimization
– Five CIF-funded programs which consistently
received low EBP scores remain in place. A&M
recommends that these programs be reviewed,
and that each program either provide a plan to
improve its EBP or be redesigned or replaced
with new programs with a stronger evidence basis. To the extent possible, redesigned and new
programs should be designed to retain and/or
expand federal and private funding. In addition,
A&M recommends the Children’s Cabinet facilitate joint planning to further improve the targeting of funding and alignment of priorities among
agencies serving children.
Baseline Budget
Department for Children & Families
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2016
FY 2017
(All values in 000s)
Actual
Gov. Estimate
Base Budget
Gov. Rec.
Gov. Rec.
$585,795
$605,031
$627,026
$603,505
$608,895
Total
112 | Department for Children and Families
Benchmark Comparisons
Fiscal and Operational Benchmarks
Child Support Collections – The federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement monitors five measures of
fiscal and operational effectiveness for Child Support
Services, as outlined in the table3 below. Definitions
for the measures are provided in the appendix.
3
Source: “Office of Child Support Enforcement
Preliminary Report FY 2014,” US Department of Health
and Human Services, 2015
Child Support Collections Incentive Measures, FY 2014
State
IV-D Paternity Statewide PaterCases with SupEstablishment nity Establishment
port Orders
Percentage (PEP) Percentage (PEP)
Current CollecArrearage Cases
tions
Cost Effectiveness Ratio
Kansas
-
91%
82%
54%
60%
6
Oklahoma
-
115%
82%
55%
61%
5
Nebraska
-
98%
87%
71%
69%
5
Iowa
-
104%
90%
74%
71%
6
New Mexico
111%
-
81%
55%
65%
3
Arkansas
99%
-
89%
63%
68%
5
Utah
-
98%
89%
63%
64%
6
Idaho
100%
-
85%
62%
58%
7
Nevada
116%
-
85%
60%
60%
4
Mississippi
90%
-
72%
53%
57%
10
Peer Avg.
103%
101%
84%
61%
63%
6
Nat’l Avg.
100%
96%
85%
64%
63%
5
*Kansas reports Statewide PEP, which considers all out of wedlock births in the State. However, KDCF’s caseload is
almost entirely made up of children who are IV-E eligible. Therefore, IV-E PEP would be a better measure of KDCF’s
effectiveness. KDCF plans to shift to reporting the IV-E PEP in future years. Based on preliminary estimates, KDCF predicts that the results for IV-E PEP are at or above peer levels.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 113
Regional Facilities – KDCF operates in four regions,
with service centers throughout the state.
KDCF Service Centers4
4
Source: http://www.dcf.ks.gov/services/Pages/DCFOfficeLocatorMap.aspx, accessed December 2, 2015
Current Population Served by KDCF Service Centers
Children’s Initiatives Fund5 – The Kansas Children’s
Cabinet and Trust Fund (known as the Children’s Cabinet) advises the Governor on programs funded by the
Tobacco Master Settlement agreement through the
Children’s Initiatives Fund (CIF). As part of the Children’s Cabinet’s annual Accountability Process, program evaluations for all CIF-funded programs were
completed in 2014 and 2015, with the results as shown
in the table on the following page.
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) measures, on a 1-3 scale,
5
Source: “Annual Investment Impact Report,
Children’s Initiatives Fund,” Report, Kansas Children’s
Cabinet and Trust Fund, Oct. 16, 2015; and “Children’s
Initiatives Fund Briefing Binder,” Report, Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund, Nov. 14, 2014.
the extent to which programs and practices are supported by existing empirical evidence. Quality of Evaluation Checklist (QEC) measures, on a 0-100 scale, the
degree to which a program complies with best practices in evaluation. Cells in green indicate improvement between 2014 and 2015. Four 2014 programs
were not funded in 2015, and are not included. With
the exception of the Kansas Reading Initiative, all of
the above programs were funded in 2016 and are in
the 2017 Governor’s Budget.
For the Early Childhood Block Grant, each grantee’s
program is given an EBP. All grantees received scores
of 2 or 3 in 2015.
114 | Department for Children and Families
Children’s Initiatives Fund (CIF) Funding and Program Evaluation Results 2014 and 2015
CIF Funding,
CIF Funding,
Evidence Evidence
Other FundQuality of Quality of
Program (Agency Man2014
2015
Based Prac- Based Pracing Sources,
Eval Score, Eval Score,
aging the Program)
(Total Operating (Total Operating
tice Score, tice Score,
2015
2014
2015
Budget)
Budget)
2014
2015
Autism Diagnosis
(KCCTF)
$50,000
($410,561)
$50,000
($215,000)
SGF, Fed
1
1
85
100
$5,033,679
($54,858,702)
$5,033,679
($49,492,553)
SGF, Fed
2
3
83
100
Child Care Quality Initiative (KCCTF)
$500,000
($518,147)
$500,000
($500,000)
None
1
1
100
100
Children’s Mental
Health Waiver (KDADS)
$3,800,000
($64,817,855)
$3,800,000
($49,468,441)
SGF, Fed
1
2
98
NA
Early Childhood Block
Grant (KCCTF)
$18,129,144
($18,129,144)
$18,128,305
($18,128,305)
None
1
2-3*
100
100
Family Preservation
Services (KDCF)
$2,154,357
($9,697,076)
$2,154,357
($10,078,384)
SGF, Fed
3
3
85
100
Healthy Start Home
Visitor (KDHE)
$237,914
($739,358)
$237,914
($739,358)
SGF, Fed.,
Local
1
1
55
60
Infants and Toddlers
(KDHE)
$5,700,000
($27,355,960)
$5,800,000
($25,056,657)
SGF, Fed,
Local, Private
3
3
100
100
Kansas Preschool Program (KDSE)
$4,799,812
($4,799,812)
$4,799,812
($4,799,812)
None
1
1
100
100
Kansas Reading Initiative (KDCF)
$5,000,000
($5,000,000)
$6,000,000
($6,000,000)
None
2
2
100
100
KIDS Network Grant
(KDHE)
$96,374
($173,166)
$96,374
($242,988)
Private
1
1
100
100
Newborn Hearing Aid
Loan Bank (KDHE)
$47,161
($47,161)
$48,091
($48,091)
None
3
3
73
85
Parents as Teachers
(KDSE)
$7,237,635
($12,352,163)
$7,237,635
($12,370,461)
Local
3
3
95
100
Smoking Prevention
Grants (KDHE)
$946,671
($2,332,960)
$946,671
($2,332,161)
Federal
3
3
100
100
Child Care Assistance
(KDCF)
Summary
A&M’s approach to KDCF included a review of the largest areas of SGF spend in the agency’s budget: Foster Care (39% of FY15 SGF spend), Adoption Support
(9%) and Regional Offices (29%). We also reviewed the
largest source of outstanding accounts receivable—
Child Support, and the largest non-SGF state funding
source—the Children’s Initiatives Fund ($55 million). 6
6
Funding recommendations and oversight of
the Children’s Initiatives Fund (CIF) are under the authority of the independent Kansas Children’s Cabinet
and Trust Fund (Children’s Cabinet). KDCF acts as the
fiscal agent for the Children’s Cabinet.
After reviewing Kansas’ performance and practices, we
determined that Foster Care and Adoption Support,
although large areas of spend, did not hold significant
opportunities for efficiency.
A&M recommends three efficiency efforts for KDCF
and the Children’s Cabinet in the short to medium
term:
• Child Support Collections (KDCF): Raise Kansas’
child support collections (current and arrearage)
to peer state levels. Increasing collections by 8
percent, through improved wage withholding
and other collections mechanisms, will result in
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 115
»» A&M recommends that CIF-funded programs which consistently received low Evidence Based Practice (EBP) scores develop
a plan to improve EBP, or be redesigned or
replaced with new programs that have a
stronger evidence basis. To the extent possible, redesigned and new programs should
be designed to retain and/or expand federal
and private funding.
approximately $700 thousand a year of increased
revenue to the state. Higher collections rates will
also help Kansas families by ensuring that children and custodial parents have the financial
support they are owed.
• Regional Facility Consolidation (KDCF): Close
three service centers and move program staff to
nearby offices.
»» In addition, the Children’s Cabinet’s should
facilitate joint planning to further improve
the targeting of funding and alignment of
priorities among agencies serving children.
• Children’s Initiatives Fund (CIF) Optimization
(Children’s Cabinet): Improve the targeting of
funding and diversify funding sources.
Recommendations
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Child Support Collections
$735
$692
$659
$620
$590
$3,297
2
Regional Facility Consolidation
$121
$121
$121
$121
$121
$605
3
Children’s Initiatives Fund Optimization
$0
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$14,000
$856
$4,313
$4,280
$4,241
$4,211
$17,901
DCFS Total
Recommendation #1 – Raise Kansas’
Child Support Collections to Peer State
Levels
KDCF has improved the Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for
the Child Support Services (CSS) program by 60%
since 2011, putting Kansas 8% above the national average. Now the department is turning its focus to improving collections. Adopting proven practices from
other states can accelerate this effort.
Specifically, Kansas should:
• Coordinate with the Kansas Department of Labor (KDOL) to take further steps to increase the
number of employers self-reporting new hires—
including imposing a penalty for non-reporting
and requiring the reporting of independent contractors—so that additional Employment Withholding Orders (EWOs) can be established to collect court-ordered child support payments.
• Coordinate with the Kansas Department of Rev-
enue to deny issuances or renewal of car, boat, or
recreational vehicle registration until an EWO or
payment plan is in place.
• Coordinate with the Kansas Department of Revenue to establish an inter-local agreement with
neighboring states—many people work in Missouri and owe child support to a child living in
Kansas, or vice versa. Kansas can increase collections by using Missouri’s Set-Off program and
other collections tools.
• Kansas should continue current efforts to optimize the full range of collections measures currently in place.
Background and Findings
KDCF’s Child Support Services (CSS) help children receive child support:
• Services include establishing parentage and orders for child and medical support, locating noncustodial parents and their property, enforcing
child and medical support orders, and modifying
116 | Department for Children and Families
support orders as appropriate.
• CSS automatically serves families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
foster care, food assistance, and child care assistance. Assistance from CSS is also available to any
family regardless of income or residency. 7
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement monitors five measures of effectiveness for CSS programs.
• The measures are:
»» Establishment of paternity
»» Establishment of support orders
»» Collection of current support due
»» Collection of arrears
»» Cost effectiveness
• Incentive payments are provided to states based
on performance of these five measures.
increase Kansas’ incentive payment.
On average, child support represents 45 percent of
family income, for poor custodial families that receive
it.10 Therefore, increasing child support collections will
improve the financial stability of Kansas’ custodial parents, improving children’s lives and potentially reducing the rate of children requiring foster care and other
services.
Kansas already has a broad range of mechanisms in
place for collecting child support. In FY15:
• 75.6% of child support collections came through
Employment Withholding Orders (EWOs) (consistent with the national average of 75%)
• 13.7% came from the non-custodial parent sending a check or money order
• 10.4% through the US Treasury Offset Program
• 1.86% through the Kansas Debt Recovery Program
• CSS has set a goal of being #20 in the nation
across all measures.
As outlined in the operational benchmarks above,
Kansas is performing below its peers in the collection
of current child support owed and arrearage on behalf
of custodial parents.
• As of the end of FY15, $980.4 million of child
support receivables were outstanding, of which
$813.9 million was more than 365 days in arrears.
8
Increased collections benefit Kansas’ children, custodial parents, and the State and Federal governments.
When CSS collects child support, the majority of the
funds go directly to the custodial parent. However,
when the child is receiving TANF in foster care, or in juvenile justice custody, the child support goes to state
and federal funds. Of Kansas’ total Child Support collections in 2015, 5.79% represented state funds.9
In addition, Kansas receives incentive payments from
the Federal government based, in part, on collections
rates. Higher collections rates, all else being equal, can
7
KDCF website
8
KDCF FY2015 Accounts Receivables Report.
Note that because the child support is owed to custodial parents, these receivables are not treated in the
same way that State receivables are treated.
9
Ibid.
Measures such as placing restrictions on driver’s licenses, denying recreational licenses, withholding
lottery winnings, obtaining liens on property, and offsetting bank accounts through the Financial Institute
Data Match help drive collections.
Employers are legally required to report new hires in
order to facilitate the implementation of EWOs. However, Kansas has had challenges in enforcing this requirement.
• Of the nearly 80,000 private employers in Kansas,
only approximately 20,000 self-report new hires.
• Kansas does not impose a penalty on employers
for non-compliance with the reporting requirement.
• Federal law allows for civil penalties for non-reporting—up to $25 per newly hired employee,
or up to $500 per newly hired employee, if the
state shows a conspiracy between the employer
and employee not to report. States also have the
option of imposing non-monetary civil penalties
10
“Child Support 2014: More Money for Families,” Infographic, Federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 117
Key Assumptions
on employers who fail to report. 11
• Many other states, including Nebraska, New
Mexico and Arkansas, highlight their authority to
impose penalties in their employer communications. 12
KDCF and KDOL recently announced a partnership to
increase new-hire reporting. They implemented webenabled reporting for new hires and gave employers
online access to lists of EWOs. In addition, CSS staff
members are reaching out to employers who have not
reported, educating them about the process and legal
requirements.
Building on this effort, Kansas should:
• Impose a penalty for non-reporting at the maximum level allowed by federal statue, and include
the potential penalty in employer communications.
• Require reporting of independent contractors.
• Coordinate with the Kansas Department of Revenue to deny issuances or renewal of car, boat, or
recreational vehicle registration until an EWO or
payment plan is in place.
• Coordinate with the Kansas Department of Revenue to establish inter-local agreements with
neighboring states.
In addition, A&M recommends that Kansas monitor
and report on operational metrics for the collections
program (e.g., rates of employer compliance with new
hire reporting, number of EWOs instituted) and for the
new web-based employer tools (e.g., site hits, abandonment rates), and adjust CSS’s employer outreach
program accordingly.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$121
$121
$121
$121
$121
• An 8 percent increase in revenue from child support collections over the baseline budget.
• KDCF has already budgeted and planned for efforts to improve performance on the five measures of child support services performance.
These recommendations will help focus those
efforts and will not require significant additional
investment.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the child support collections recommendation include:
• Establish a requirement for employers to report
independent contractors as part of their new hire
reporting.
• Establish penalties for non-reporting of new hires
and communicate these potential penalties to
employers
• Develop agreements with the Kansas Department of Revenue and neighboring states on the
improvements outlined above
• Establish new operational metrics as outlined
above
Imposing penalties for employers who do not report
new hires on a timely basis and requiring reporting
of independent contractors may require statutory or
regulatory changes. However, the remaining recommendations can be implemented in parallel with this
change. The expected time to implement the recommendation is six months, exlusive of time needed for
regulatory or legal changes.
Recommendation #2 – Close Three Service Centers
A&M recommends that Kansas close three service centers and move the direct service staff to nearby facilities:
11
US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/
new-hire-reporting-answers-to-employer-questions.
Accessed December 8, 2015
12
State new hire reporting websites. Accessed
December 8, 2015
• Goodland (Sherman County) – move program
staff to Colby
• Greensburg (Kiowa County) – move program
staff to Dodge City or Pratt
• Iola (Allen County) – redistribute program staff to
118 | Department for Children and Families
Fort Scott, Independence, or Chanute
The lease for the Greensburg office ends in February
2016, and the Goodland and Iola leases end in July
2016. After the leases end, they can be shifted to a
month to month basis.
Additional closures may be possible in 2018 based on:
• Additional Business Process Management and
technology improvements, resulting in greater
efficiency and therefore reduced regional staffing needs.
• Changes in office traffic patterns and staffing
needs following the transfer of Medicaid eligibility to KDHE.
• With the implementation of Business Process
Management and technology improvements,
many back office duties can be performed in any
office, not just in the office where the beneficiary
applied.
• As population served declines in many areas of
the state, many service centers have (and need)
fewer FTE than they were originally designed to
hold.
As a result, Kansas has the opportunity to revisit the
need for individual offices.
• Trends in citizen’s choices on how to contact
KDCF (shift from office visits to internet based
service).
• Current operating metrics do not track demand
and capacity utilization at the office level. Therefore, our recommendation used FTE by office and
persons served (i.e., KDCF program beneficiaries)
by county as proxies for current demand for a local service center.
A&M recommends that KDCF establish metrics that
enable an annual review of the footprint. KDCF should
specifically monitor demand and capacity utilization
at the office level, breaking out back office versus front
office work (e.g., foot traffic in the office, local work in
the community such as court visits).
• Square footage per FTE was used as a proxy for
service center capacity utilization and as an indicator of decreasing demand. Empty offices indicate that the office no longer needs as many staff
members as they once needed when leases were
signed.
Background and Findings
KDCF has service centers in the field, serving multiple
purposes:
Every office with more than 500 square feet of space
per FTE was reviewed—fourteen offices fell into this
category:
• Citizens can visit to apply for, and ask questions
about, KDCF’s services.
• Six of these offices hold 15 or fewer FTE—of
those:
• In addition to working with visiting citizens, staff
members in the service centers perform a range
of back office duties, such as processing applications for benefits.
»» Three are proposed for closure. Program
staff positions can be relocated to another
office in the next county. All three offices are
in counties projected to experience population declines over the next five years.
• Many field staff travel regularly to execute their
duties. For example, social workers make home
visits and travel to court appointments throughout the region.
−− Goodland was built for 15 staff members,
but currently only has three staff members. Program staff can be relocated to
Colby.
As Kansas’ population and needs change, so do the
needs for individual offices in the field.
• Kansas’ population and KDCF’s client base are
both shifting.
• A rising percentage of applications and inquiries
that once came in person, at a service center, are
now being handled online.
−− The Greensburg office was rebuilt after
a devastating tornado but the town did
not rebuild. The office only has one staff
person—a social worker who travels frequently in her role. This position can be
relocated to Dodge City or Pratt.
−− Iola is located within 20 miles of the larger Chanute office, and 40 miles from Fort
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 119
Scott. Program staff can be redistributed
to one of these two offices, or to Independence.
»» Three offices are proposed to remain open
to minimize impact on clients:
−− Colby and Pratt will absorb FTE and/or clients from the proposed closures above.
Once the implications on staff and clients of the closures are clear, these two
offices should be reviewed to determine
whether additional action, such as reduction of space or additional subleasing is
appropriate.
−− For Concordia, there are no field offices in
bordering counties to absorb clients and
staff, so closure is not recommended.
• The remaining eight offices hold more than 15
FTE. Given their size, closure may put undue burden on clients.
»» Fort Scott will take in FTE relocated from Iola.
»» Conditions in Atchison, El Dorado, Lawrence,
Leavenworth, Newton, Ottawa and Phillipsburg should be reviewed to determine
whether the square footage can be reduced
or additional space can be sublet.
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$735
$692
$659
$620
$590
Key Assumptions
• All direct service positions will be transferred to
nearby offices, thus consolidating the footprint
but not reducing service capacity.
• Administrative and temporary staff positions in
the closed offices will be eliminated, with nontemporary incumbents offered comparable vacancies in other offices if available.
• SGF currently funds 60.5% of the facilities costs in
the offices planned for closure. The table above
represents only the SGF savings, and does not include savings of Federal funds.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Create a staff transfer plan and work with staff on
relocation
• Develop and execute an outreach plan for clients
and communities near closed offices
• Terminate leases
The expected time to implement the recommendation is six months. This will allow for time to work with
staff, clients and communities on the transition. The
recommendation is not expected to require statutory
or regulatory changes, as the Secretary has the authority to determine the number and locations of field
offices.
Recommendation #3 – Improve the targeting of CIF funding and diversify the
funding mix
The Children’s Initiative Fund (CIF) is overseen by the
Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund. The CIF supports children’s health, child care, and early childhood
education programs. Such programs, if well designed,
can result in significant long term savings for the
State. For example, a study of The Opportunity Project
(TOP) in Sedgwick County, which provides early education to children living in poverty, showed a savings
of $4.5 million just from avoiding K-12 special education placement for students enrolled in the program
for two years – an 11 percent annual return on investment. 13
Every CIF-funded program is evaluated annually
based, in part, on the extent to which it is supported
by empirical evidence. As such, CIF-funded programs
are held to a higher standard of evaluation than many
State programs. These evaluations can be used to focus further improvements to the returns on the CIF
investments.
A&M recommends that CIF-funded programs which
consistently received low Evidence Based Practice
(EBP) scores be reviewed, and the agencies executing
each program either:
• Establish a plan to improve EBP performance, or
• Redesign or replace the program with new programs that have a stronger evidence basis.
13
“Little Footprints Have a Big Impact,” Kansas
Children’s Cabinet Report, December 3, 2015.
120 | Department for Children and Families
To the extent possible, redesigned and new programs
should be designed to retain and/or expand federal
and private funding.
In addition, with the expected drop in CIF funding due
to the reduction in Tobacco Settlement revenues after 2017 and with new leadership in place in multiple
agencies, A&M recommends that the Children’s Cabinet facilitate joint planning for 2018 to to further evaluate and align funding priorities and strategies across
relevant agencies.
Background and Findings
The Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund, known as the
Children’s Cabinet, was created by the Legislature in 1999.
It is comprised of voting members appointed by the Governor and Legislature, and non-voting ex-officio members from
KDCF, KDSE, KDHE, the Kansas Board of Regents, and the
Kansas Supreme Court. These are the statutory responsibilities of the Children’s Cabinet14:
• Advising the Governor and the legislature regarding the uses of the moneys credited to the
Children’s Initiatives Fund
• Evaluating programs which utilize Children’s Initiatives Fund moneys
• Assisting the Governor in developing and implementing a coordinated, comprehensive delivery
system to serve children and families of Kansas
• Supporting the prevention of child abuse and neglect through the Children’s Trust Fund
The Children’s Initiatives Fund was established by the
Legislature in 1999 to support programs promoting
the health and welfare of the children of Kansas.
• The CIF is funded by the Tobacco Master Settlement agreement.
• Settlement monies flow into the Kansas Endowment for Youth (KEY) Fund
• The CIF is funded with annual transfers from the
KEY Fund.
• The Children’s Cabinet then recommends transfers from the CIF to specific programs for children.
These include programs managed directly by the
Children’s Cabinet, as well as multiple programs
which are administered by KDCF, KDHE, KDADS,
14
http://kschildrenscabinet.org/mission/, accessed Dec 2, 2015.
and KSDE.
• In some cases, the CIF funds bring in additional
federal funding. A portion of the CIF funds supporting the following programs represents state
match and/or Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for
federal grants:
»» KDCF’s Family Preservation and Child Care
Assistance programs
»» KDADS’ Children’s Mental Health Waiver
program
»» KDHE’s Healthy Start Home Visitor and KIDS
Network Grant programs
»» The Children’s Cabinet’s Early Childhood
Block Grant program.
• However, the majority of CIF funds are not used
as state match to bring in Federal or other grant
funds.
Tobacco Settlement Funds are expected to drop by approximately 25 percent after 2017 - States and grantees are beginning to plan for the transition.
• The Children’s Cabinet has stressed the importance of diversifying funding to its grantees,
given the projected reduction in Tobacco Settlement funds.
• The Children’s Cabinet and related agencies
should also diversify the funding of early childhood programs by continuing to seek private
funding and pursuing a wider range of federal
grants.
• Many states are also choosing to take future Tobacco
Settlement funds as a lump sum at a discount to allow
for more flexibility in the timing of the spend. Alabama,
Alaska, South Dakota, and South Carolina took lump
sums before 2003, and several other states have since
followed suit. 15
The Children’s Cabinet undertakes an annual Accountability Process in which programs are evaluated and
priorities set for the coming year. The program evaluation results are published in Annual Investment Impact Report (AIIR) and are included in the benchmarking section above.
15
“Securitization Of Tobacco Settlement Funds,”
Report, Connecticut Office of Legislative Research,
2002-R-0736.
• The 2015 Annual Investment Impact Report (AIIR)
demonstrates strong program governance.
»» Funding is clearly tied to strategic objectives
outlined in the Children’s Cabinet’s Blueprint for Early Childhood.
»» Programs are evaluated based on a clear set
of criteria, and several programs improved
their evaluation scores from 2014 to 2015.
»» Four programs that were funded in 2014
were not funded in 2015, representing a willingness to adapt funding as needs change.
• However, five programs received Evidence Based
Practice (EBP) scores of “1” (on a scale of 1-3) in
both 2014 and 2015 and are still being funded in
2016.
»» In some cases, a low EBP is the result of innovation – newer approaches have not been in
place long enough to build up the evidence
required.
»» In other cases, differences between the existing evaluation method for a long standing
program and the EBP evaluation method
may result in a delay in accurate EBP scoring.
»» To account for these factors, and to further
measure the quality of programs, every program will be required to report on at least
one approved outcome measure in 2016.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 121
To the extent possible, redesigned and new programs
should be designed to retain and/or expand federal
and private funding.
• Three low-EBP programs (Autism Diagnosis,
Healthy Start Home Visitor, KIDS Network Grant)
currently receive significant federal and private
funding. EBP improvement plans and redesigns
should be undertaken in such a way as to retain
the outside funding while improving evidence
based practice.
• Two low-EBP programs are currently entirely
CIF-funded. (Child Care Quality Initiative, Kansas Preschool Program). Redesigned or replacement programs may qualify for federal or private
grants.
For example, TANF Block Grant funds can be applied to new
or substantially redesigned programs in the following areas:16
• Preschool and other early childhood education
programs which are means tested or designed to
reduce out of wedlock births by reducing dropout rates
• Abuse prevention programs
• Child care programs. 17
• In addition, financial efficiency and agency alignment are not systematically evaluated.
The Kansas TANF Fund18 includes $3.5 million of uncommitted funds each year from 2017-2020. The TANF Fund is
funded by the Federal TANF Block Grant, which is designed to
support needy children and their families.
»» Although select CIF-funded programs have
been evaluated for financial return, the Accountability Process does not systematically
review financial efficiency.
• KDCF administers the TANF fund, as well as administering multiple programs supported by
TANF.
»» Although the AIIR demonstrates how the
CIF funding priorities align to the Children’s
Cabinet’s Blueprint for Early Childhood, it
is not clear that the Blueprint and the individual Department strategies for children’s
programs are explicitly aligned. Agency
leadership input is obtained through ex-officio membership on the Children’s Cabinet,
but the Agencies strategic planning and the
Children’s Cabinet’s planning process are
not formally connected.
A&M recommends that CIF-funded programs which
consistently received low Evidence Based Practice
(EBP) scores develop a plan to improve EBP or be redesigned or replaced with new programs that have a
stronger evidence basis.
• If a new or redesigned program meets the TANF
eligibility requirements, it must be included in
the state TANF plan and specific Federal reporting requirements must be fulfilled in order to
claim the funds.
• With the exception of the Children’s Cabinet itself, the agencies which administer the CIF-fund16
HHS Program Instruction TANF-ACF-PI-2001.
17
Note: the Child Care Quality Initiative is designed, in part, to improve the identification of child
abuse and neglect..
18
“TANF and CCDF Fund Report, FY2016FY2020 Submitted Budget with Approved Policies,
11/24/2015,” report provided by KDCF.
122 | Department for Children and Families
ed programs have extensive expertise in federal
funds management and reporting, and therefore
should have the capabilities in place to establish
the fiscal reporting required for TANF.
Savings resulting from agencies bringing in new Federal or Private funds for redesigned or replacement
programs will free up CIF funds, which can then be
transferred to core children’s programs currently funded by SGF, such as the Infants and Toddlers program or
Child Care Assistance.
In addition to addressing low-EBP programs, with the
projected reduction in Tobacco Settlement Funds after 2017 and new leadership in place in multiple agencies, an overall review of children’s program priorities
and funding strategies is in order.
• The above recommendation is a first step, and
should be executed jointly by the relevant agencies and the Children’s Cabinet, consistent with
both Agency strategies and the Children’s Cabinet’s Blueprint for Early Childhood.
• To further the Children’s Cabinet’s mandate of
“assisting the Governor in developing and implementing a coordinated, comprehensive delivery
system to serve children and families of Kansas”,
A&M recommends that the Children’s Cabinet facilitate joint planning for FY18 funding cycle to
ensure that priorities are aligned and the impact
of funding decisions on both the Blueprint for
Early Childhood and Agency objectives are considered and addressed.
• To the extent feasible, the common measures
under development by the Children’s Cabinet
should be expanded to cover additional children’s programs so that funding tradeoffs may
consider relative impact on child welfare across
program types.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
lined above with minimal additional administrative cost.
• At least one major new or redesigned program
will be eligible for TANF funding, and the TANF
surplus, which is projected at $3.5 million per
year from FY17 through FY20, will also be at least
$3.5 million in FY21.
• Savings resulting from the application of TANF
funds to redesigned or replacement programs
will free up CIF funds, which can then be transferred to core children’s programs currently funded by SGF. The table in this section represents
the resultant SGF savings.
• Savings may be higher if needs can be met with
programs that are less costly than the current set
of programs, or if additional Federal or private
funding can be obtained.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Determine which programs will implement a
plan to improve EBP, which will be redesigned,
which replaced.
• Determine whether the proposed new or redesigned programs meet TANF objectives and/
or are eligible for other federal grants or private
funding.
• Develop the program policies, documentation,
and reporting required.
• Communicate changes to key stakeholders, and
engage them in the new program designs as appropriate.
• Update the State TANF plan and obtain federal
approval.
• Execute fund transfers.
• Implement the program changes.
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$0
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
Key Assumptions
• All existing programs will continue until redesigned or new programs are in place.
• Current KDCF, KDHE, and/or KDSE staff have the
capability to execute the recommendations out-
A preliminary draft of steps one and two above can
be completed within one month. However, depending on the extent of the proposed program changes,
the remaining steps may take six to twelve months.
Program redesigns and replacements will therefore
be implemented for the FY18 grant cycle. This recommendation is not expected to require statutory or regulatory changes.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 123
Appendix - KDCF
The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement monitors five measures of effectiveness for Child Support
Services. The definitions of these measures are provided below. For the first measure—Paternity Establishment Percentage, States have two choices. They may
consider only those children born out of wedlock who
are IV-D eligible, or they may consider all children born
out of wedlock in the state.
Source: “Office of Child Support Enforcement Preliminary Report
FY 2014,” US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015.
124 | Commerce and Economic Development
Commerce
and Economic Development
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the insight, time, and fact finding input of several individuals within the Department of Commerce. A&M is appreciative of the time and effort that many took
out of their schedules to meet with us, and who provided the Commerce team with information
and reports, especially:
•
Antonio Soave , Acting Secretary - Department of Commerce
•
Traci Herrick, Chief Finance Officer - Department of Commerce
•
Steve Kelly, Deputy Secretary - Department of Commerce
•
Michael Copeland, Former Acting Secretary and Director of Workforce Development Division
•
Robert North, Chief Attorney - Department of Commerce
•
Ben Cleeves, Budget/Fiscal Officer
Department of Commerce
plished through the department’s two divisions: Business and Community Development and Workforce
Services.
As the state’s lead economic development agency, the
Kansas Department of Commerce strives to empower
individuals, businesses, and communities to achieve
prosperity in Kansas. The department comprises a variety of programs and services that create jobs, attract
new investment, provide workforce training, encourage community development, and promote the state
as a wonderful place to live and work1. This is accom-
The Business and Community Development Division
oversees a portfolio of financial incentives for Kansas
rural communities and businesses that are looking to
locate or expand in Kansas. Programs include:
1
Kansas Department of Commerce website
• Retention of withholding taxes
• Investment tax credits
• Sales tax project exemptions
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 125
• Revolving loan funds for local infrastructure projects
• Applicant pre-screening and application acceptance
• Loans and/or grants—to assist rural communities
in improving infrastructure, housing, and urgent
needs to maintain and growth
• Facility location to conduct interviews as well as
staff to assist in scheduling
The most widely utilized financial incentives include:
• Space for job fairs
• Certified Development Companies (CDC)
• Employment applicant assessment services and
testing
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program
• Veteran services
• Community Service Program (CSP) Tax Credit
• Employer Partner Incentive
• Energy Incentives
• High Performance Incentive Program (HPIP)
• Individual Development Account (IDA) Tax Credit
Program
• Kansas Industrial Retraining (KIR)
• Kansas Industrial Training (KIT)
• Kansas Partnership Fund
• Private Activity Bonds (PABs)
• Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK)
Program
• Property Tax Abatement Assistance
• Rural Opportunity Zones (ROZ)
• Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) Bonds
• Small Communities Improve Program (SCIP)
• State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI)
• Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
Kansas Workforce Services provide a wide variety of
services that are available through the Kansas Workforce Centers, located in 22 regional offices across Kansas. Services that are offered to both Kansas employers
and residents at no charge include:
• Job listings for local, statewide, and national employment opportunities
• General labor market information
The department’s Administrative Division consists of
the Office of the Secretary, Human Resources, Public
Affairs and Marketing, Information Technology, Fiscal
Services, Building Services, the Governor’s Economic
Council of Advisors, and Legal and Regulatory Compliance. The department also includes two commissions:
the Kansas Athletic Commission and the Creative Arts
Industries Commission.
The Kansas Athletic Commission administers regulated
sports and wrestling within the state. The Commission
strives to provide authorized control and direction for
professional boxing, kickboxing, mixed martial arts,
and wrestling while encouraging the promotion of
such sporting events in the state of Kansas. The Commission continues to facilitate the health and safety
of contestants and fair and competitive bouts. The
Kansas Creative Arts Industries Commission merged
the former Kansas Film Commission and Kansas Arts
Commission into a new designated state arts agency,
designed to capitalize on the potential for the creative
sector to drive economic growth in Kansas.
Additionally, the department provides support to the
Governor's Council of Economic Advisors. The mission
of this Council is to “serve the citizens of Kansas by
providing economic insights directly to the Governor
through assessing local, national, and global business
conditions and trends, evaluating the significance of
those conditions as related to Kansas towards an economic development strategy, and research related
topics of importance to Kansas and report directly to
the Governor.”2
The day to day operations of the department are funded primarily from the Kansas Economic Development
Initiatives Fund (EDIF). The EDIF is a grant allocation
2
Kansas Department of Commerce website
126 | Commerce and Economic Development
from the State Gaming Revenues Fund (SGRF) and is
funded through monthly transfers from the Kansas
Lottery. Transfers are made from the Gaming Fund to
funds dedicated to economic development initiatives,
prison construction and maintenance projects, local
juvenile detention facilities, problem gambling assistance, and the State General Fund. The first $50 million
is divided by a formula, which first transfers $80,000
to the Problem Gambling and Addictions Grant Fund,
and then 85 percent of the balance is transferred to the
Economic Development Initiatives Fund, 10 percent
to the Correctional Institutions Building Fund, and 5
percent to the Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund. Any
receipts in excess of $50 million must be transferred to
the State General Fund.3
Gaming Revenues Fund Fiscal Year 2014
• Economic Development
$42,432,000
Initiatives
Fund
-
• Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund - $2,496,000
• Correctional
$4,992,000
Institutions
Building
Fund
-
alignment of programs and services within other departments for improved delivery to Kansans.
Since FY08, the Department of Commerce has reduced
its budget in the Economic Development Incentive
Fund from $18.1 million to $13.7 million in FY16. The
department currently has no State General Fund allocation. State General Fund support was eliminated in
FY14. The department has experienced a 14.5 percent
cost reduction from $17.9 million in FY11 to $15.3 million in FY15. This has resulted in the reduction of 72
filled positions from a headcount of 312 in FY11 to 240
in FY15.
The Department of Commerce has successfully implemented the following efficiencies over the past several years:
• Merged the Rural Development Division and the
Trade Division into the Business Development
Division to become the Business and Community
Development Division
• Eliminated the Kansas Main Street program
• Realigned services and programs
• Problem Gambling Grant Fund - $80,000
»» Travel and Tourism Division moved to the
former Wildlife and Parks Department to
become the Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism
Department
• State General Fund - $ 24,300,000
»» Consolidated the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation (K-TEC) into the Innovative Growth Program with substantial cost
savings
The Department of Commerce received an allocation
of $13.8 million in FY15, compared to $16.4 million in
FY14 for the following programs and services4:
Department of Commerce EDIF Allocations:
Program or Project:
Operating Grant
Older Kansans Employment Program
Rural Opportunity Zones Program
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Strong Military Bases Program
Governor's Council of Economic Advisors
Airport Incentive Fund
Innovation Growth Program
Kansas Creative Arts Industries Commission
Medicaid Reform Employment Incentive
Total - Commerce
FY2014
$
8,648,981
261,702
3,991,818
12,617
179,122
222,841
15,000
1,827,318
765,127
450,000
$ 16,374,526
Operational Efficiencies
FY2015
$
9,192,279
253,139
1,831,012
8,100
100,000
186,205
1,568,648
200,000
450,000
$ 13,789,383
The department has been successful over the past several years in the implementation of major operational
and efficiency initiatives. Their efforts have included
collaboration with other state agencies, including the
3
4
Kansas Department of Lottery website
Kansas Department of Lottery website
»» Moved the Disabilities Commission to the
Governor's Office
»» Moved Agriculture Marketing program to
the Department of Agriculture
•
Eliminated land line phones for business development field staff in favor of cell phones
• Administered new and expanded programs are
managed by existing staff rather than hiring new
staff, including SSBCI, PEAK, Kansas Creative Arts
Industries Commission, Minority and Women
Disadvantaged Certification program, and a variety of "pass-through" assistance programs
• Reduced square footage of the agency by moving the IT Department from the basement of
the Curtis Building to an existing space on the
first floor that had been created by downsiz-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 127
press releases
ing, which saved 3,660 square-feet of space and
$59,475 annually in rent
• Deployed virtual services savings resulting in
approximately $300,000 in reduced staff travel
costs
• Eliminated the Curtis Building parking subsidy
(the agency paid for half the employees' parking)
• Created central printing hubs by reducing the
number of individual printers used by employees, saving on printing and maintenance costs
• Employees are routinely overseeing multiple
programs versus single programs
• Operational efficiency measures within Workforce Services including:
»»
Closure of Atchison, Liberal, and Colby offices
»» Selling of state owned facilities in Emporia,
Pittsburg, Hutchinson, and Chanute, and a
parking lot in Hays
• Revamped the administration of KIT and KIR programs to have more money available for use by
companies for training
• Reduced administrative overhead for Workforce
Investment Act administration from 15 percent
to 5 percent
Since the appointment of the new Acting Secretary on
December 1, 2015, the department has taken on major accountability process improvements including:
• Review and analysis of all existing tax incentive
programs to measure the comprehensive impact
to the state in addition to the capital investment
Benchmarking Analysis
In the annual CNBC 2015 Survey in the Cost of Doing
Business, 50 states are rated on more than 60 measures of competitiveness, developed with input from
a broad and diverse array of business and policy experts, official government sources, the CNBC Global
CFO Council, and the states themselves. CNBC indicated states receive points based on their rankings in
each metric which are then made into separate metrics
grouped into 10 broad categories, weighted based on
how frequently each is used as a selling point in state
economic development marketing materials.5
As shown below, from the data in the CNBC 2015 survey, the state of Kansas ranks 24th in overall competitiveness in the cost of doing business. Factors in the
top ten include: infrastructure, cost of living, education systems for training of workforce, and available
workforce. The competiveness factors Kansas has
in the bottom 10 included Access to Capital and the
Economy.
2015 Cost of Doing Business Peer Analysis
State
Texas
Colorado Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri Oklahoma Arkansas
Overall Competitiveness
2
4
7
10
24
26
31
32
Workforce
20
16
11
44
10
38
41
12
Cost of Doing Business
21
36
15
8
30
11
9
4
Infrastructure
1
14
21
28
7
18
17
35
Economy
2
3
20
10
44
33
14
16
Quality of Life
33
9
15
9
35
47
49
Technology
11
5
32
24
30
23
43
46
Education
28
24
16
18
10
20
44
35
Business
14
18
Cost of Living
15
31
8
14
8
17
5
11
Access to Capital
6
8
36
39
46
24
33
38
5
19
16
15
21
44
37
Source: CNBC, Cost of Doing Business 2015
• Development of Strategic Market Entity Analysis
for each major development opportunity that
will be used as a leads tool
• Combination of the electronic data bases for
customer management reporting and supplier
database into an integrated marketing tool for
improved mailings to future and existing businesses in the state
• Enhanced business-to-business strategies with
use on social media, commercials, business
friendly website, and improved messaging in its
5
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/24/americas-top-statesfor-business.html
128 | Commerce and Economic Development
Recommendations – a summary of the State
General Fund and Economic Development
Initiatives Fund Savings
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Enhance Commerce’s Business to Business
Strategies with increased financial modeling, research analysis, project auditing, and
marketing/sales service support efforts
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$32,000
3
Revise Primary Tax Incentive Programs
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
4
Eliminate Community Service Tax Credit
Program
$2,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$18,000
State General Fund Subtotal
$13,400
$15,400
$10,400
$10,400
$10,400
$60,000
1
Enhance Commerce’s Business to Business
Strategies with increased financial modeling, research analysis, project auditing, and
marketing/sales service support efforts
(EDIF)
($530)
($530)
($530)
($530)
($530)
($2,650)
2
Implement a Community Finance Administrative Fee, Tax Incentive Application
Fee, and Administrative Cost Recovery on
Grants (EDIF)
$3,018
$3,018
$3,018
$3,018
$3,018
$15,090
5
Ensure no program subsidy for Athletic
Commission fee for service operation (Athletic Fee Fund)
$26
$26
$26
$26
$26
$130
6
Centralize Commerce’s Human Resources
and Information Technology Infrastructure
Operations within the Department of Administration (EDIF)
$25.4
$25.4
$25.4
$25.4
$25.4
$127
Non-General Fund Total
$2,539
$2,539
$2,539
$2,539
$2,539
$12,697
Department of Commerce Total
$15,939
Recommendation #1 – Enhance Commerce’s Business to Business Strategies with increased financial modeling,
research analysis, project auditing, and
marketing/sales service support efforts
Various state agencies, including the Department of
Commerce, the Kansas BioSciences Authority, and the
Department of Revenue, administer the state’s economic development programs. The state’s incentive
programs are also combined with community finance
or local government incentives to form development
incentives for new and expanding businesses.
$17,939
$12,939
$12,939
$12,939
$72,697
In December 2014, a Legislative Post Audit (LPA) Report analyzed whether the major Kansas economic
development programs have been successful. The report highlights the major economic programs, which
created significant returns on investment for Kansas
through business activities of the associated state and
local tax revenue generations.6
The Report also highlighted several High Performance
Incentive Program (HPIP) limitations in reporting the
6
2014 Legislative Post Audit Report Highlights – Economic
Development: Determining Which Economic Development Tools are Most
Important and Effective in Promoting Job Creation and Economic Growth in
Kansas, Part 3
benefits of the program. Per the LPA report7:
• HPIP is more like an economic development entitlement program—its incentives may be given
to companies for investments that would have
been made without the incentives
• LPA was not able to analyze projects that had
only HPIP incentives due to the programs’ structures and lack of documentation
The department identified a requirement for six new
staffing resources to address the need for improved
financial analysis, project forecasting, monitoring, and
enhanced business to business sales and marketing
strategies. Any new positions would be funded from
the dedicated Economic Development Initiative Fund
and not the State General Fund. These positions could
allow the department to improve the total financial
impact of development projects including the direct,
indirect, and induced impacts that new proposed developments would bring into the state.
Since mid-December 2015, the department is now
creating strategic roadmaps, or Strategic Market Entity
Analysis (SMEA), on all new development projects to
measure the true economic impact and value of the
state’s portfolio of economic development incentives.
However, added resources are needed within the Incentive and Marketing Units to support the enhanced
business-to-business proactive marketing efforts.
The department indicated that the existing Business
Incentive sales and marketing staff actively pursue 175
to 200 new projects each year with 80 projects closing, all of which generate 8,000 to 10,000 new jobs
each year. The four new positions in the marketing
and sales business incentive unit would provide return
on investment to the state. Currently, each existing
sales and marketing representative has an annual net
return on bringing in 1,000 per jobs annually to the
State. Each new job, based on annual salary between
$56,000 and $65,000, generates $1,600 to $2,000 in
new Kansas state income tax withholdings annually.
The state should undertake a more comprehensive incentive analysis and should analyze more than just the
initial capital investment to the state-provided incentives. The direct, indirect, and induced impacts of projects provide a significant economic value to the state
7
Ibid
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 129
and should be considered.
Program enhancements recommended include:
• Fiscal Modeling, Research Support, and Audit/
Compliance – Two positions for increased accountability of Investment Projects
»» Currently, only one Research/Fiscal Support
modeling expert position exists within the
Department of Commerce
»» The two additional positions would allow
the department to increase its financial forecasting and Return on Investment Analysis
on proposed development projects
»» New staffing resources would also allow the
department to place added effort upfront in
the marketing of the state and creating Strategic Market Entity Analysis roadmaps that
highlight the competiveness of the state’s
assets (e.g., infrastructure, education, quality of life,) as an introduction to what the
state has to offer
»» The state should be leading its development discussions on the Strategic Quality of
the state and not highlighting its incentive
tools
»» While most of the department’s incentive
programs are performance based, the department does not always claw back incentives from developments for sustaining the
job creation or capital investment measures
for a variety of reasons
»» The department should coordinate project
reviews with the Department of Revenue
of existing and new incentives to ensure
the state is receiving sufficient financial and
compliance information for accountability
of the provided tax incentives
• Marketing & Sales Support – Four positions for
Marketing, Branding, and Imaging
»» Retool marketing and sales departments
to support efforts for a more positive and
direct marketing business to business targeted campaigns
»» Proactively recruit new and expanding business in the state using the new business to
business SE
»» Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina
have all experienced significant success in
their state economic growth due to strong
marketing efforts to align new development
efforts with existing workforce skills and
130 | Commerce and Economic Development
supplier locations
»» Expand its business-to-business social media and advertising efforts
As shown below, the proposed expansion of the department’s business-to-business strategy will result in
increased revenues to the state. The EDIF funded staff
proposal is estimated to generate $6.0 million in new
tax revenue for a net return of investment, resulting
from new state income tax withholding revenues to
Kansas of $5.87 million annually or $26.7 million over
the next five years. While it requires an initial outlay of
funds, the return on investment is significant if Commerce is successful in its revitalized business-to-business strategy.
Secondly, the added Research Analyst positions will
reduce the future spending requirements for outside
consulting services for development of Strategic Market Entity Analysis documents (SMEAs). The new SMEA
analytical tools would cost $25,000 to $50,000 each,
if the department had to acquire from outside resources. Currently, the department’s budget does not
include monies for SMEAs. The marketing analysis will
be a primary tool for the entire department for both
inbound and outbound business opportunities.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
($530)
($530)
($530)
($530)
($530)
State General Fund $6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
Economic Development Initiative
Funds
Key Assumptions:
• New position cost estimated at $80,000 per position (salary and benefits) paid from the EDIF.
• Increased marketing and research support costs
of $50,000 annually paid from the EDIF.
• Based on historical data from the past four years,
it is estimated that each new sales and marketing position will recruit 1,000 new jobs annually
to the State, with an annual salary of between
$56,000 and $65,000. Each new job is estimated
to generate between $1,600 to $2,000 in new
Kansas state income tax withholdings annually.
• The $6.4 million in new State General Fund In-
come Tax Withholdings assumes each new Business Incentive Sales/Marketing position would
generate $1.6 million in new revenue to the state.
This does not take into account any other direct,
indirect or induced impacts generated by the increase in jobs and related business investments
these indirect and induced impacts will add to
the direct ROI.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Commerce needs to deploy modeling applications to supplement its tax incentive projections
including estimating the direct, indirect, and
induced revenues and local spending related
to proposed new development projects. Commerce is investigating the potential use of the
Department of Revenue’s modeling application
to mitigate any added cost increase.
• Commerce needs to finalize its internal market
branding and imaging campaigns to roll out a revamped business-to-business strategy plan.
• The department will have increased marketing
and research operating costs including printing,
publications, and travel and modeling application tools.
Recommendation #2 – Implement
Community Finance Administrative Fee
and Tax Incentive Application Fees to
Recover Program Oversight Costs
The department does not assess any administrative
fee for its major economic development incentive
programs or any of the community finance incentive
projects. Commerce staff spends significant time each
year in review, analysis, and negotiation of new proposed projects. The limited audit and project review
that does occur is also not covered by any application
or administrative fee.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 131
Department of Commerce
Allocation of Staffing and Overhead Costs to Major Incentive Programs
Three Year
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Average
HPIP
$
77,659
$
79,484
$
72,234
$
76,459
PEAK
44,391
86,366
112,451
81,069
KIT/KIR
95,831
101,976
146,339
114,715
IMPACT
23,512
7,837
JCF
45,489
127,537
8,759
60,595
TOTAL
$ 286,881
$ 395,362
$ 339,783
$ 340,675
Source: Kansas Department of Commerce Fiscal Office - December 2015
While the department does not have a time allocation/
project tracking system, they did provide an estimate
of personnel costs and direct administrative overhead
costs that could be attributed to the major economic
incentive projects. The estimate reflects staffing costs
for ten positions in the Business Incentive unit including an allocation for time spent by the department’s
executive leadership.
Note: The IMPACT program technically ceased to exist
other than spending down of final tax incentives. The
department allocated any administrative overhead to
the JCF program which was the replacement program.
Comparison Summary of Kansas Primary Tax Incentive Programs
PEAK
HPIP
Applications Processed
FY13
44
303
FY14
53
299
FY 15
33
285
Three Yr Avg
43
296
Active Projects/Agreements
* 227
** 311
JCF
KIT/KIR
18
8
25
17
113
90
108
104
*** 4
**** 50
Notes Related to Project Values and Tax Incentives:
* As of December 2015, the 227 active agreements had an estimated incentive value
$380.5 million of which $80.6 million has been actualized.
** As of December 30, 2015, the active HPIP projects represents approx. $3.1 billion
in new anticipated capital investment which may potentially qualify for income
tax credits and sales tax exemptions
*** The four active JCF projects total $3.65 million
**** The KIT/KIR 50 active projects totaling $911,120
Commerce reported the following tax incentive program activity over the past three years:
It should be noted, that the Department of Commerce
certifies projects as eligible for HPIP with the Department of Revenue being responsible for oversight of
the businesses claiming the tax credit.
The above staffing allocation does not include time
and effort the department staff spent on Community Finance Projects (like STAR Bond Projects), which
take significant review and discussions with the local
communities and developers. Even after the project financing is issued, Commerce has continued monitoring responsibilities on an annual basis for STAR Bond
projects. As shown in the accompanying table, in cal-
endar year 2015, the department completed the following STAR Bond Community Finance Initiatives. In
most cases, the community finance projects (like STAR
Bonds, e.g.) are complex development proposals with
the work spanning several years before the project financing is issued.
Department of Commerce - 2015 STAR Bond Issues
Total
Project Costs
(in millions)
STAR Bond Projects
Wichita K-96
$
427
Goddard
155
Dodge City
43
Schlitterbahn(UG)
300
National Training Center
150
Wichita West Bank
31
Total
$
1,106
STAR
Bonds
(in millions)
$
33
25
13
97
63
5
$ 236.15
Source: Department of Commerce - Chief Attorney's Office
Commerce also indicated that during calendar year
2015, the state allocated $301.5 million in Private Activity Bonds (PAB) to six issuers. As of December 31,
2015, $17.3 million was actually issued. The department does collect application fees for all PAB projects
but issuance fees apply only to the housing and qualified small issue projects.
The Beginning Farmers Program administered by Kansas Development Finance Authority (KDFA) is provided allocations that Commerce then reallocates to multiple, typically small users. Any issuance fees resulting
from housing-related activities are remitted to the
Kansas Housing Resource Corporation but Commerce
retains the application fees.
The department indicated the demand for PAB allocation is very low at this time because of other financing
options that exist. The First Time Homebuyer Program,
which is where the vast majority of allocation goes, is
as a holding mechanism for unused PAB authority. This
is because housing has carry forward capability which
allows the PAB allocation to be viable for a period of
time into the future.
It is also our understanding the Kansas Development
Finance Authority requires the state agency, which issues bonds through KDAF, to recover costs their ongoing monitoring costs.
Application fees for development projects can be
viewed as a hindrance for promoting new development. However, significant time and resources are
spent by the Commerce staff in the research, analysis,
132 | Commerce and Economic Development
and negotiation of the development projects, which
often does not move forward. The department currently requires an Application Fee for all Private Activity Bonds. The current fee schedule is:
• $250 Allocation per request up to $5,000,000
• $500 Allocation per request from $5,000,001 to
$10,000,000
• $1,000 Allocation per request from $10,000,001
and above
Another example of project application fees is from
a local unit of government. The Unified Government
of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas in conjunction with the State of Kansas for the development of
a Casino Project, required each developer to submit a
non-refundable application fee of $25,000 to cover the
costs of the development review process.
A&M recommends Commerce propose legislation that
would require any Community Finance Initiative—including Private Activity Bonds (PABs) and Sales Tax
Revenue (STAR) Bonds—to include a one percent administrative fee for STAR Bonds and an application fee
of up to five percent of the issuance amount for Private
Activity Bonds.
Secondly, Commerce should develop an application
fee for its major tax incentive projects where the department is not recovering any administrative processing or monitoring fees. We recommend an application fee of $750 per application processed for the
PEAK, HPIP, JCF, and KIT/KIR programs. The application
fee would cover the costs of administration for the tax
incentive applications.
Additionally, the department is not allocating all administrative overhead costs to its various grants and
pass-through funding programs. Based on the FY15
Budget, two grant programs that are not being assessed for any administrative overhead include:
• Kan-Grow Engineering Fund
$ 10,500,000
• State Affordability Airfare Fund $
5,005,000
The department should have the availability to assess
any operational overhead program expenses against
these program funds.
• State Affordability Airfare Fund: Currently Commerce has a contract agreement with Sedgwick
County for the Affordable Airfare funds to use
$10,000 for the independent review by the University of Kansas. The department would need to
clarify this provision which would also allow Commerce to assess an administrative fee. The state
could request clarification in KSA 74-50,150(a), or
language could be added to the appropriations
bill to allow for administrative overhead recoupment.
• Kan-Grow Engineering Fund: Similarly, KSA 767,141 would have to be amended to make the
provision for Commerce to recoup any overhead
expenses in the authorization of the appropriation bill.
In both instances, the appropriation language could
include the citation: “Secretary is authorized to deduct
from amounts transferred under this act an annual administrative fee not to exceed two percent of annual
grant appropriation.”
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$3,018
$3,018
$3,018
$3,018
$3,018
Key Assumptions:
• An application fee of $750 per filed tax incentive
application (PEAK, HPIP, JCF, KIT/KIR Programs)
based on a three-year average of 460 applications would generate $340,000 in administrative
fees to recover Commerce direct and indirect
costs.
• Proposed 100 basis points or one percent of cost
of issuance for Department of Commence administrative fee for STAR and PAB Bond issuances.
»» STAR Bonds - $ 2,361,500 »» Private Activity Bonds - $ 157,275 »» Total Community Finance Admin Fee - $
2,518,775
»» Based on FY15 PAB Bond issuances of - $17.3
million
»» Based on FY15 STAR Bond issuances of $236.15 million
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 133
Note: The Private Activity Bond projections are
net of the existing $3,500 in PAB application fees
and $12,225 in Business Expansion Qualified
Small Issue bond financing issuance fees.
• Annual administrative fee not exceeding one
percent of the annual grant amount for the existing operating grants where administrative costs
are not assessed or $155,050. This amount is one
percent of the above two grants Kan-Grow Engineering Fund, $10,500,000 and State Affordability
Airfare Fund, $5,005,000 where Commerce is not
recovering any administrative overhead or programming costs for the two pass through grants.
• Any monies generated should be credited back
to the department.
As shown in the accompanying tables, the December
2014 Legislative Post Audit Report analyzed whether
the major Kansas economic development programs
have been successful. The report highlights the major
economic programs that did create significant returns
on investment for Kansas, with regard to business activities and of the associated state and local tax revenue generations.8
The December 2014 Legislative Post Audit also reported the existing economic development programs
generate a return on investment of $56.20 for each
dollar HPIP dollar awarded, and $57 of economic activity generated by every dollar of foregone revenue
through PEAK.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Revise appropriate statutes and KAR’s to allow
the Department of Commerce to assess the administrative fee on any STAR Bond and Private
Activity Bond financings
• Revise appropriate statutes and KAR’s to allow
the Department of Commerce to assess the tax
incentive administrative fee on any approved tax
incentive projects
• Communicate administrative fee provisions to
the local governments issuing the STAR Bond or
PAB financings
• Create an application process for the tax incentive programs to recover an administrative application fee
• Clarify the existing contract language related to
administrative costs for the Affordability Airfund
Grant with Sedgwick County
• Clarify either the budget appropriation bill and/
or statute allowing the Secretary of Commerce to
assess the administration fee
• Communication to the grantee agencies of the
administrative fee offset
Recommendation #3 – Revise Primary
Tax Incentive Program Caps
High Performance Incentive Program9
The High Performance Incentive Program (HPIP) provides tax incentives to employers that pay above-average wages and have a strong commitment to skills development for their workers. This program recognizes
the need for Kansas companies to remain competitive, and encourages capital investment in facilities,
technology, and continued employee training and
education. A substantial investment tax credit for new
capital investment in Kansas and a related sales tax exemption are the primary benefits of this program.
8
2014 Legislative Post Audit Report Highlights – Economic Development: Determining Which Economic Development
Tools are Most Important and Effective in Promoting Job Creation
and Economic Growth in Kansas, Part 3
9
Kansas Department of Commerce, Testimony to the
Special Committee on Taxation, November 6, 2015
134 | Commerce and Economic Development
HPIP offers employers four potential benefits:
• A 10 percent income tax credit for eligible capital
investment in a company’s facility with a carryforward that can be used in any of the next 16
years in which the qualified facility re-qualifies for
HPIP.
• A sales tax exemption to use in conjunction with
the company’s eligible capital investment at its
qualified facility.
• A training tax credit of up to $50,000.
• Priority consideration for access to other business assistance programs.
Eligibility criteria for HPIP include:
• The capital investment must exceed $1 million in
Douglas, Johnson, Sedgwick, Shawnee, or Wyandotte counties, and $50,000 in all other counties.
• Businesses must meet certain wage standards
that depend upon their NAICS code.
• Potential location in Kansas of the operations of a
major employer
• Award of a significant federal or private sector
grant that has a financial matching requirement
• Potential departure from Kansas or the substantial reduction of the operations of a major Kansas
employer
• Training or retraining activities for employees in
Kansas companies
• Potential closure or substantial reduction of the
operations of a major state or federal institution
• Projects in counties with at least a 10 percent
population decline during the period from 2000
to 2010
• Other unique economic development opportunities
Economic Benefits11
The Department of Commerce certifies projects as eligible for
HPIP with the Department of Revenue being responsible for
oversight of the businesses claiming the tax credit. The Department processed 303 applications in FY13, 299 in FY14,
and 285 in FY15. As of December 31, 2015, there were currently 311 active projects totaling approximately $3.1 billion
in new anticipated capital investment, which may potentially
qualify for income tax credits and sales tax exemptions. FY2013
Leads
436
Successes
New Jobs
Retained Jobs
Payroll (in millions)
Capital Investment (in
billions)
FY2014
416
FY2015
Three Year
Total
370
1,222
201
164
174
539
12,063
8,239
8,150
28,452
8,026
4,789
4,219
17,034
$1,049
$697
$770
$2,516
$1.76
$1.01
$1.35
$4.12
Source: Department of Commerce Testimony to the Special Committee on Taxation
November 6, 2015
Job Creation Fund10
The Job Creation Fund (JCF) helps attract new companies to Kansas. Payments to companies from the JCF
are typically made over three years as the companies
meet certain benchmarks, such as creating jobs, making capital investments, equipment purchases, or facilities improvements.
Commerce reported to the Kansas Legislature in September 2015 that existing incentive programs are the
most effective tool to support job growth and investment in the state. During the past three fiscal years,
Commerce indicated it has worked with more than 500
successful projects, which had 28,452 new employment opportunities resulting in direct payroll increase
of $2.5 billion and $4.12 billion in capital investment.
Eligible projects include:
• Major expansion of an existing Kansas commercial enterprise
10
Kansas Department of Commerce, Testimony to the
Special Committee on Taxation, November 6, 2015
11
Kansas Department of Commerce, Testimony to the
Special Committee on Taxation, November 6, 2015
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 135
New State Income
Number of
tax (based on
Agreements Annual Payroll three percent rate)
1
$
2,215,200 $
66,456
7
20,007,635
600,229
28
89,618,640
2,688,559
45
242,545,895
7,276,377
51
230,586,435
6,917,593
47
342,038,172
10,261,145
23
183,202,674
5,496,080
321,130,964
9,633,929
19
6
149,540,217
4,486,207
4
138,180,881
4,145,426
1
14,158,394
424,752
232
$ 1,733,225,107 $
51,996,753
Fiscal
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total
Source:
Department of Commerce Testimony to the Special Committee
on Taxation - November 6, 2015
LPA’s performance audit findings were consistent with
the results of another independent study of the PEAK
program, conducted by the Docking Institute of Public
Affairs at Fort Hays State University, which concluded
that PEAK has had a $7.5 billion economic impact on
the state.12
Fiscal
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total
Source:
New State Income
Number of
tax (based on
Agreements Annual Payroll three percent rate)
1
$
2,215,200 $
66,456
7
20,007,635
600,229
28
89,618,640
2,688,559
45
242,545,895
7,276,377
51
230,586,435
6,917,593
47
342,038,172
10,261,145
23
183,202,674
5,496,080
19
321,130,964
9,633,929
6
149,540,217
4,486,207
4
138,180,881
4,145,426
1
14,158,394
424,752
232
$ 1,733,225,107 $
51,996,753
Department of Commerce Testimony to the Special Committee
on Taxation - November 6, 2015
Tax Benefits
Commerce testified in November 2015 to the Special
Committee on Taxation “as businesses exit the program, these new jobs will begin to contribute income
taxes to state revenues for the first time. Based upon
current projects and estimated payroll, 232 PEAK
agreements will end and bring $52 million in new
annual income tax revenue to the state by the year
2025.”13
12
13
Kansas Department of Commerce, Testimony to the
Special Committee on Taxation, November 6, 2015
Kansas Department of Commerce, Testimony to the
Special Committee on Taxation, November 6, 2015
Promoting Employment across Kansas (PEAK)
PEAK was created by 2009 Legislature with the Secretary of Commerce having the discretion to approve
applications of qualified companies and determine
the benefit period. Qualifying PEAK companies may
retain 95 percent of the payroll withholding tax of
PEAK eligible employees/jobs that pay at or above the
county median wage. The Department of Commerce
can approve benefits for up to 10 years.
We also compared the state’s primary tax programs
with surrounding states and found most other surrounding states had similar tax incentive programs to
Kansas.
Commerce indicated that the HPIP, Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK), and Jobs Creation Fund
(JCF) incentive programs were deemed to be mission
critical, to assist and incent development, job growth,
and capital investment. The primary direct beneficiaries of these programs are recipient businesses that
use these programs to grow and expand in Kansas. Indirect beneficiaries are their employees, their families,
the communities in which they reside; and ultimately
the state whose economy is strengthened when companies are successful and growing.
The department stated that any elimination or scaling
back of these programs will have a negative impact
on the state’s ability to grow business and to compete
with other states and countries that are vying with
Kansas for new and existing business opportunities.
As discussed previously, we recommend the department needs to not only quantify the cost of the investment compared to actual incentive payment, but the
offset should also be considering the direct, indirect
and induced impact of all tax incentives and reporting
the full economic contribution to the state.
When assessing the fiscal impact to the state’s budget
we found:
• The first annual impact will be in FY17 (in tax year
2016) with the HPIP tax credits totaling $25 million.
• Annual revenue increases in future years from
$15 million to $20 million in HPIP tax credits are
claimed each year as earned in previous tax years.
• HPIP is an entitlement program. If the recipient
company reaches minimum qualifications, they
will be awarded the tax credit. Legislation will be
136 | Commerce and Economic Development
Peer Analysis of Tax Incentives (2013 Data)
Arkansas
Job Creation Tax Credits
X
Job Training Tax Credits
X
Agriculture/Rural Investment Tax Credits
Angel Investment/Small
Business/Venture Capital Tax Credits
Research & Development Investment
Tax Credit
Quality of Life Investment Tax Credits
General Investment Tax Credits
Film Investment Tax Credits
Tourism Investment Tax Credits
Closing Fund
X
Colorado
X
X
Iowa
X
X
Kansas
X
X
Missouri
X
X
Nebraska
X
Oklahoma
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: 2013 State of Nebraska Legislative Audit Office Audit Report, Comparison of Tax Incentive Report
required to limit the amount of tax credits or allow discretion for the Secretary of Commerce to
determine if projects receive the tax credit.
• The State Budget Office reported between $450
million and $550 million in outstanding HPIP
credits have been approved, but not yet claimed.
Budget officials indicated that a large portion
will never be claimed, but companies tend to list
these credits as assets, which makes them appear
more profitable.
• Any changes to HPIP tax credit program for tax
year 2016 will have strong opposition from industries and large employers in the state.
• The state is committed to approximately $48 million in FY15, FY16, and FY17 before PEAK benefits
start to expire.
• PEAK program benefits are at the discretion of
the Secretary of Commerce and are not an entitlement program with $24 million available for
approval in FY16, and $30 million in FY17.
In discussions with the department and the State Budget Office, we identified that the 2009 Legislature enacted a 10 percent reduction to most tax credits for
tax years 2009 and 2010 including the HPIP tax credit. Companies were allowed to claim 90 percent of the
credits. The 10 percent reduction or “haircut” was not
allowed to be carried forward on newly earned tax
credits. We recommend that the state follow the 2009 legislation initiative and enact a 10 percent reduction to
the existing tax credits for FY 2017 (2016 tax year) and
FY 2018 (2017 tax year). The fiscal impact to the state
would be a savings of approximately $5 million to $6
million in FY17 and FY18, but companies would be
able to use the carry forward starting in tax year 2018.
Secondly, due to the statutory requirement that companies seeking HPIP benefits must participate in a
training program, many KIT/KIR users access the program solely as a path to HPIP benefits. This puts pressure on KIT/KIR that otherwise wouldn’t exist. Commerce reported they completed 108 projects in 2015
with approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of KIT/KIR
companies also accessing HPIP.
The department indicated that there are a “relatively large number of companies who access HPIP
using KIT/KIR which don’t really need the training.”
Most project awards are relatively small (e.g., under
$20,000). Potential changes to disconnect the training
requirement for HPIP should be further reviewed. Further analysis is needed to determine the fiscal and operational efficiency impacts; however, we recommend
the department continue the review and potential
program modifications.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
Key Assumptions
• The fiscal impact to the state would be a savings
of approximately $5 million to $6 million in FY17
and FY18, but companies would be able to use
the carry forward starting in tax year 2018.
• The above cost saving estimates are based on
the 2009 and 2010 tax incentive reduction that
resulted in the following cost saving actions:
»» Any reduction in the investment credit
claimed in tax years 2009 and 2010 may
be carried forward and claimed in tax year
2011, for any taxpayer that has received a
letter from the Department of Commerce
that is dated prior to June 1, 2009 certifying
the taxpayer as qualifying under the High
Performance Incentive Program. The carry
forward period for the amount of credit reduced will be extended for two years.
»» If however the letter certifying the taxpayer
is dated on or after June 1, 2009 and the investment becomes operational during tax
year 2009 or tax year 2010, credits claimed
in tax year 2009 or tax year 2010 will be reduced, and the reduction cannot be carried
forward. The carry forward period is not extended in this situation. In order to use any
remaining carry forwards, a taxpayer must
be certified for the majority of the tax year.
• To address the changes to the HPIP training requirement, K.S.A. 71-50,131, and amendments
there to would need to be amended. It is suggested that the statutory language that “and that
has received written approval from the secretary
of commerce for participation and has participated, during the tax year for which the exemption is
claimed, in the Kansas industrial training, Kansas
industrial retraining or the state of Kansas investments in lifelong learning program or is eligible
for the tax credit established in K.S.A. 74-50,132,”
be removed.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Any changes to the major tax incentives would
require changes to existing Kansas statutes
• Communication and coordination with the Department of Revenue and existing HPIP qualifying taxpayers
• Revise marketing and promotional material
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 137
Recommendation #4 – Eliminate Community Service Tax Credit Program
Kansas Department of Commerce oversees the Kansas Community Service Program, as authorized under
K.S.A. 79-32,194, 197 et seq. and Schedule K-60, allows
business firms which contribute to an approved community service organization engaged in providing
community service to potentially be eligible to receive
a tax credit of at least 50 percent of the total contribution made. The Community Service Program (CSP)
allows for tax credits against the state income tax, premium tax, and privilege tax for businesses that make
contributions toward state-approved community service capital projects.
To receive the credit, awarded organizations must
engage in activities that meet demonstrated needs
in the state in the areas of community service, health
care, and/or crime prevention. Contributions toward
approved projects are eligible for up to a 50 percent
credit. Contributions toward approved projects in
designated rural areas are eligible for up to a 70 percent credit. The credit represents a tax credit donation
and must be no less than $250. It also represents a tax
credit made by business firms or individuals subject to
Kansas taxes.
The eligible uses of the existing Kansas Community
Service Tax Program include:
• Community Service: Meet demonstrated community needs—which are designed to achieve
improved educational and social services for Kansas’s children and their families. These activities
include but are not limited to: social and human
services that address causes of poverty through
programs and services that assist low-income
persons in areas of employment, food, housing,
emergency assistance, and health care.
• Health Care Services: Health care services provided by local health department, city, and county
nursing homes, and other residential institutions.
Non- profit or community service organizations
that offer immunizations, prenatal care, and
home health care services, which may enable the
postponement of entry into a nursing home.
• Community Services: Assistance for the disabled,
mental health services, indigent health care, physician or healthcare worker recruitment, health
138 | Commerce and Economic Development
education, medical services, and equipment.
• Crime Prevention: Any non-governmental activity that aids in the prevention of crime.
The department indicated that recent award recipients including: Hospitals, Boy Scouts of America, Historic Theatres, Museums, Public Libraries, Humane Societies, Child Advocacy
Centers, Community Colleges, Foundations, have recently
utilized the CSP program.
The department reported $4.13 million is annually allocated for the CSP program from the Tax Credits. Records from the Department of Revenue for tax year
2012 indicated 899 tax credit filers submitted tax credits of $4,006,556.
Our findings include:
• Commerce received approximately $10.7 million
in requests for CSP tax credits during the last fiscal year and awarded 22 applications out of 50
submitted.
• The length of the term to use tax credits is 18
months—July 1st through December 31st of the
next year (Example-July 1, 2015 through Dec 31,
2016).
• The average request is $250,000.
• The department indicated that to stretch this allocation, an average reduction of award of approximately 20 percent to 30 percent is applied.
Commerce indicated the reduction helped them
expand the awards to more community organizations. This practice has been in place for approximately three years.
In 2015, the department indicated they had eight
community organizations on a waiting list requesting
any unused tax credits, for a cumulative total of approximately $700,000 or greater to be reallocated to
them to use by December 31, 2015.
Based on analysis of credit programs in other states,
not all states offer a similar tax credit program. Yet, the
department identified some states to have programs
with a type of incentive that has similarities to Kansas’
program. State programs that were highlighted include:
• Connecticut: 60 percent tax credits generally,
but 100 percent for certain energy conservation
projects, limiting businesses to $150,000 in credits annually, and limiting nonprofit recipients to
receiving $150,000 in program support through
the credits.
• Delaware: Tax credits for business or individual
taxpayer donors to nonprofits delivering community services, crime prevention, economic development, education, and affordable housing
services in low or moderate income communities,
capping the benefit to any taxpayer at $100,000,
and with a statewide cap of $500,000.
• Indiana: Tax credits for business and individual
taxpayers, capped statewide at $2.5 million, for
donations to approved nonprofit projects in affordable housing, counseling, child care, educational assistance, emergency assistance, job
training, medical care, recreational facilities,
downtown rehabilitation, and neighborhood
commercial revitalization benefiting low and
moderate income communities.
• Missouri: 50 percent or 70 percent tax credits,
the latter for projects in designated low-income
urban or rural areas, for business donations to approved Neighborhood Assistance Projects—$10
million cap for 50 percent credits, $6 million for
70 percent credits.
Although the program has provided a benefit to state
nonprofits, many of the program efforts funded with
the annual allocation could be funded with other potential federal grant funds and private foundations.
The efficiency recommendation suggests the state
seek external funding for the program or eliminate the
annual allocation process. Staffing resources dedicated to the program for both the Departments of Commerce and Revenue could be redirected to internal
review and audit functions of each department.
A&M also reviewed the other primary tax incentive
programs including PEAK, JDF, and the HPIP Tax Incentive programs. These three incentive programs
are mission critical to the state to assist and incent
development, job growth, and capital investment.
The primary direct beneficiaries of these programs are
those businesses that use these programs to grow and
expand in Kansas. Indirect beneficiaries are their employees, their families, and the communities in which
they reside, and ultimately the state whose economy
is strengthened when companies are successful and
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 139
growing.
Any elimination or scaling back of these programs
would have a negative impact on the state’s ability
to grow business and compete with other states and
countries vying with Kansas for new and existing business opportunities.
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$2,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
Key Assumptions
• Elimination of the Community Service Program
Tax Credits could result in an additional $4.0 million in taxable income from the almost 900 Kansas taxpayers who filed for the exemption in state
tax year 2012.
gram subsidy for Athletic Commission
fee for service operation
As noted in the introduction of this Chapter, the department oversees the operations of the Kansas Athletic Commission. This includes inspection of the
health and safety of the contestants and the revenue
facilities. The programs cover authorized control and
direction for professional boxing, kickboxing, mixed
martial arts, and wrestling, while encouraging the promotion of such sporting events in the State of Kansas.
The Commission continues to facilitate the health and
safety of contestants and fair and competitive bouts,
in addition to protecting the public.
Department of Commerce - Athletic Commission Comparison
• Kansas would realize a first year impact after January 1, 2017 due based upon implementation at
the beginning of a state tax year.
Revenues
FY 2013
Actuals
$ 106,691
Expenses
$ 142,777
$ 32,681
$ 104,218
Difference
$ (36,086)
$ 68,057
$ (25,536)
• The staff resource savings in the Department of
Commerce and Department of Revenue for the
monitoring efforts are assumed to be redirected
to other program activities within each department’s tax incentive program functions.
Source: Department of Commerce Fiscal Office - November 2015
• Staff efficiency savings from Department of Commerce personnel would not be a savings to the
State General Fund but from the Economic Development Initiative Fund which is funded from
the Kansas Lottery Fund appropriation.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Create a working committee to determine if the
Community Service Tax Credit program allocations could be funded with private resources and
foundations instead of directing the business tax
contribution.
• If the decision is made to eliminate the Community Service Tax Credit Program, legislation would
be needed to amend the K.S.A. 79-32,194 and 197
et seq. and Schedule K-60, which allows business
firms contributing to an approved community
service organization to participate.
Recommendation 5 – Ensure no pro-
FY 2014
Actuals
$ 100,738
FY 2015
Actuals
$ 78,682
We found over the past several years, the revenues
from 5 percent of the gross receipts fee from gate fees,
event application, and promoter license/fees were
not fully covering the costs of the department’s oversight. While not significant today, if boxing, wrestling,
and related Athletic Commission events are expanded
across Kansas, the state should not be subsidizing the
cost of the events from its state coffers.
It is recommended that the licenses and gross receipt
fees should fully recover the costs for the Athletic
Commission to regulate the commissioned events.
The state assesses a 5 percent athletic fee upon the
gross receipts calculated for Boxing, Mixed Martial
Arts, Kickboxing, and Wrestling events. K.A.R. 128-3-1defines gross receipts “as the total amount of all ticket
sales, including complimentary tickets and passes, after sales tax is deducted.”
In addition to various professional license and application fees, the event promoters shall obtain a surety
bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of
$10,000 to guarantee payment of all fees and taxes
due the Athletic Commission. The Commission may
140 | Commerce and Economic Development
adjust the required amount to assure sufficient protection to the state.
keeping application resulting in manual processing of
leave approval time.
The department should adjust the gross receipt fee for
each event to ensure its costs in providing the statutory defined regulatory and compliance functions are
fully recovered.
The consolidation would transfer the Human Resource
related workload of the 235 full-time positions to the
Department of Administration including position requisition requests, desk audits, and other payroll related
tasks.
Recommendation #5 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$26
$26
$26
$26
$26
Key Assumptions
• No growth in sporting events over the planning
period
• Increased license fees and/or increase in gross
receipt fee to ensure the Athletic Commissions
costs are recouped with each event
• Ability of the Athletic Commission to recover any
costs not recovered by the license fee or gross receipt fee to be recovered by the $10,000 posted
event surety bond
• All monies received are credited back to the Athletic Commission budget
Critical Steps to Implement
• Amendments to KAR 128 allowing the Athletic
Commission to fully recover its regulatory and
enforcement costs from applicant license fees,
gross receipt fees, or the surety bond
• Communication to promoters of the cost recovery changes including any administrative overhead costs
Recommendation 6 – Centralize Commerce’s Human Resources and Information Technology Infrastructure
Operations within the Department of
Administration
Secondly, the department should also automate its
payroll processing procedures to eliminate the manual paper sign-off of vacation and other personal leave
requests. Any functions not assumed by the Department of Administration should be assumed by the Office of the Chief Finance Officer and the fiscal staff.
• Information Technology and Infrastructure Operations
»» The Information Technology and Infrastructure Team consists of six full-time employees that support the 223 full-time and nine
part-time staff members throughout the 29
Commerce work sites. Three sites utilize the
KanWin network including the Curtis State
Office Buildings, the 1430 SW Topeka Workforce Center, and the Manhattan Workforce
Center. The rest of the Commerce field offices utilize the local ISP’s to gain access to
the network.
The department indicated their infrastructure sits behind a pair of Cisco ASA 5520 firewalls (except what
resides in the DMZ and operates a Microsoft Hyper V
Host environment) currently consisting of:
• Various physical boxes located in the LSOB data
center that include seven host servers, two Domain Controllers, four boxes for Polycom (server,
bridge, video boarder proxy, and five port recording servers)
• Two database servers
• Two file servers
• One mail server
• One App server
• One O365 mail hybrid server
Human Resources
The Department of Commerce currently has 1.5 FTE
assigned to support Human Resource functions. The
department is also not currently using the state’s time-
The current use of virtual server images includes various applications including:
• Two for MS CRM production and test
• Two SQL data base production and test
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 141
• Two SharePoint production and test
• Four Application
• One Domain Controller
• One SQL server, four File servers
• One Cert Server
• One SC Comfit Manager
• One SC Service Manager
• One C Virtual Machine Manager
• One Windows Update Server
Commerce IT is currently in the process of virtualizing
the majority of their physical environment. They utilize
Microsoft System Center Suite for protection and deployment and industry appliances to deploy third party patches. Microsoft Exchange 2010 is Commerce’s
mail system and is currently slated to move into the
state consolidated O365 mail system approximately in
January of 2016.
There are two main business applications utilized by
Commerce associates for business functionality: MS
Dynamics 2011 (which is configured as an internal
facing application) and SharePoint 2007. They are currently in the process of migrating and rebuilding their
SharePoint 2007 sites to SharePoint 2013 while migrating off older 2003 and 2008 servers to a virtual environment.
As such, with the current configuration of older and
non-virtual server applications and migration of Commerce’s mail system to the state’s O365 mail system in
January 2016, A&M recommends that the IT Operations of the department be merged within the Department of Administration Office of Technology Information Support (OTIS) program. The merger would result
in a consolidated IT system platform for delivery of
services across the state and potential IT savings with
consolidation of servers within the Commerce platform.
Further review is needed to examine the current server
infrastructure design and to evaluate if further refinements can be made to provide a more efficient operating structure.
Recommendation #6 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
Key Assumptions
• The above cost savings include only the personnel costs for the department’s Human Resource
operations or $127,707.
• There is assumed to be a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that will be structured between DOA
and Commerce at 80 percent of the staff salaries.
• Personnel costs of $646,265 for the department’s
Information Technology and Infrastructure Operations are included in cost savings under the
Technology efficiency review chapter of this report and are not included in the Commerce cost
savings projections.
• Cost savings excludes any training, system licenses, applications, and system maintenance due to
these costs having to be assumed by the Department of Administration.
• The existing budgeted positions within the Department of Commerce would be eliminated
with the workload being assumed within existing
FTEs of the Department of Administration.
• No reductions in operating costs were included
in the cost savings, except for the administrative
overhead tax on the current space allocation at
the Curtis and Landon Buildings.
• The Department of Administration OTIS would
enter into a Service Level Agreement with the
Department of Commerce for the delivery of IT
support services.
• The Department of Administration Human Resources office would enter into a Service Level
Agreement with the Department of Commerce
for the delivery of Human Resource support services.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Commerce and Administration would need to
develop Service Level Standards to address their
requirements.
142 | Commerce and Economic Development
• Department of Administration OTIS should review the technology infrastructure inventory and
define the best plan and needs for Commerce.
• Any purchases of IT equipment funded with Federal Grant funds would have to be reviewed and
evaluated if there was a transfer of assets for the
Department of Administration.
• All closed Human Resource files of former Department of Commerce employees would be
transferred to the Department of Administration.
Other Areas for Further Efficiency
A&M also reviewed and have under consideration
several efficiency measures that we recommend for
continued study and analysis. Due to the close-out of
the study period, we were unable to complete this final analysis. Other efficiency focus areas for continued
operating efficiency within the Department of Commerce include:
• Centralize building leases and property management. All departmental leases and assets should
be maintained by a central agency within the
state (Department of Administration) to pursue
enhanced facility lease pricing, payment review,
and potential consolidation of buildings and facilities across the state. Commerce has a number
of leased facilities for its Workforce Center operations, which should be managed by a central asset manager for all state agencies. A state-wide
centralized asset manager would be able review
the location of existing building and facilities
(both owned by the state and leased property)
to determine if cost savings could be achieved
through consolidation of buildings and improved
lease negotiation and management.
• Review of vacant positions. The department had
57 positions, or 53.55 FTE that have remained
vacant on an average of 289.47 days. The 57 positions total $1,545,812 in various funding commitments of which $281,526 were Economic Development Incentive Fund funded positions.
The department is completing a review of the positions to determine which are critical to the operations
of the state. As of January 8, 2016, the analysis was
not complete so no cost savings are included in our
recommendations at this time. We recommend the
department review the existing inventory focusing on
positions that have been vacant for a significant period
of time to potentially achieve additional cost savings.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 143
Corrections
Programs and Facilities
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the
Kansas Department of Corrections. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this
endeavor, especially:
•
Ray Roberts, Secretary of Corrections
•
Johnnie Goddard, Deputy Secretary for Facilities Management
•
Kathleen Graves, Deputy Secretary for Community & Field Services
•
Terri Williams, Deputy Secretary for Juvenile Services
•
Adam Phannenstiel, Special Assitant/Commuications Director
Agency Overview
The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) is a
leader in reducing recidivism and cost per inmate in
comparison to its peer states (based on population,
demographics and other key criteria). KDOC has also
made strides in lowering the rate of adult incarceration while also reducing its juvenile population. The
state struggles with a high number of violent and
juvenile offenders as well as high turnover in prison
staff. The purpose of this study was to identify, qualify
and quantify opportunities to improve the efficacy of
programs, increase revenue, lower costs, consolidate
certain functions and improve operational efficiency.
The following recommendations either address a specific need or identify an opportunity for operational,
organizational or fiscal efficiency. In creating our recommendations, we used the criteria below to determine inclusion—all of A&M’s recommendations meet
both criteria 1 and 2 as well as touch on a combination
of criteria 3 through 6.
Criteria for Inclusion
1. The recommendation adheres to the department’s values and serves its many stakeholders—the community, corrections staff, victims
and offenders who seek peaceful reentry into the
general population.
144| Corrections
2. The recommendation is realistic and fundable.
3. The recommendation reduces costs without sacrificing quality or performance.
4. The recommendation improves efficiency—either qualitatively through the adoption of best
practices or quantitatively via the adoption of financial, operational or other improvements.
5. The recommendation addresses KDOC’s stated
key challenges:
vi. Growing prison population
vii. Greater concentration of violent and recalcitrant offenders in prison
viii.Managing offenders with behavioral health
needs
ix. Increasing number of juvenile offenders
that recidivate/continue to struggle
x. Staff retention, recruitment, and training
xi. The recommendation helps further the
helps further the KDOC vision, mission
statement and strategic goals1:
Vision: A safer Kansas through effective correctional services.
Mission: “The Department of Corrections, as
part of the criminal justice system, contributes
to public safety and supports victims of crime
by exercising safe and effective containment
and supervision of inmates, by managing offenders in the community and by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become
law-abiding citizens.”
KDOC Strategic Goals:
−− Protect public safety through reduced recidivism, offender success and sound security practices
−− Identify the driving cost of corrections and
develop efficient management strategies
−− Continue to develop strategies to manage
a growing prison population
−− Promote collaborative relationships
1
FY2015 KDOC Annual Report
−− Ensure implementation of federally mandated Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
standards
−− Increase the KDOC’s ability to analyze and
provide data for the juvenile and adult
populations
−− Ensure programs and interventions are
based on evidence and focus on those offenders identified as most at risk and most
violent
−− Ensure the smooth transition of juvenile
services through the implementation of
improved safety and security measures
and efficiencies that allow for the continuation of evidence-based programs and
quality assurance measures to enhance
public safety and rehabilitative outcomes
for youth and the families served by juvenile services
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 145
Baseline Budget
Benchmarks2
Prison Population
Of the eleven comparison states, Kansas has the sixth
highest prison population (9,663)3. Missouri and Oklahoma both have roughly three times as many people
in prisons as Kansas. A variance of only 4,200 or few-
er people separate Kansas and the five states below
it, whereas a variance of up to 22,300 separate Kansas from the five states above it. In terms of proportion of men and women, Kansas is consistent with the
comparison states, at roughly 90-92% men and 8-10%
women.
2
For further detail on benchmarks, refer to
the Benchmark section at the beginning of this
document.
3
Notes: Prisoners under jurisdiction of state or
federal correctional authorities. Source: http://www.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf
Corrections - Total Budget
(values in 000s)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2017
Actuals
Gov. Estimate
Base Budget
Gov. Rec.
Gov. Rec.
Department of Corrections
$185,039
$196,739
$199,065
$200,722
$205,502
Total Facilities
$197,328
$194,893
$193,758
$191,550
$197,946
El Dorado Correctional Facility
$28,270
$28,624
$28,350
$28,054
$28,971
Ellsworth Correctional Facility
$14,621
$14,609
$14,496
$14,321
$14,711
Hutchinson Correctional Facility
$30,887
$31,127
$31,207
$30,836
$31,925
Lansing Correctional Facility
$42,597
$41,052
$41,045
$40,598
$41,965
Larned Correctional Mental Health
Facility
$10,590
$10,840
$10,682
$10,548
$10,871
Norton Correctional Facility
$16,423
$15,873
$15,747
$15,547
$16,118
Topeka Correctional Facility
$14,749
$15,364
$15,233
$15,043
$15,760
Winfield Correctional Facility
$13,930
$13,278
$13,288
$13,147
$13,568
Kansas Juvenile Corrctional Complex
$16,244
$15,062
$15,120
$14,964
$15,342
Larned Juvenile Correctional Facility
$9,017
$9,064
$8,590
$8,492
$8,715
$382,367
$391,632
$392,823
$392,272
$403,448
Total
Imprisonment Rate
Imprisonment rate is most frequently measured per
100,000 people. Of the eleven comparison states, Kansas has the fourth lowest imprisonment rate for all
ages (322 per 100,000).4 As with the prison population,
Kansas was closer in scale to those in the bottom five,
which ranged from 237 to 329 per 100,000, than to the
top six, which ranged from 434 to 700 per 100,000.
Kansas also has the fourth lowest imprisonment rate
for men of all ages, women of all ages, and all adults.
Compared to both its peer states and the national average, Kansas commits and detains juveniles at the
highest rate.5
4
Notes: Imprisonment rate per 100,000
residents. US Total includes state and federal
prisoners. Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
5
Notes: Imprisonment rate per 100,000
residents. US Total includes state and federal
prisoners. Source: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/
pdf/p14.pdf
special_topics/stateprofile.asp
146| Corrections
Community Supervision
Imprisonment Rate (2014)
All Ages
Men All Women All
Ages
Ages
Adults
Oklahoma
700
1,269
142
928
Arkansas
599
1,125
92
786
Missouri
526
967
100
682
Idaho
489
852
125
663
National
Average
471
890
65
612
Nevada
434
789
76
566
New Mexico
329
601
63
433
Kansas
322
596
49
428
Nebraska
283
523
45
376
Iowa
282
520
47
368
Utah
237
427
45
342
Notes
Imprisonment rate per 100,000 residents. US
Total includes state and federal prisoners
Source
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf
Juvenile Justice (2013)
Commitment
Rate
Detention
Rate
Kansas
186
89
Idaho
170
64
Iowa
168
53
Missouri
146
38
Arkansas
142
70
Nebraska
136
67
Nevada
134
33
New Mexico
127
52
National Avg.
114
57
Utah
108
53
Oklahoma
68
57
Notes
Per 100,000 juveniles (age 10 to
upper age)
Source
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/
special_topics/stateprofile.asp
Community supervision refers to the numbers of people on probation and parole. Oklahoma does not have
readily available probation numbers, but the ten remaining comparison states (including Kansas) showed
significant variations in the size of their supervised
populations. Of those ten, Kansas has the sixth highest
total supervised population (22,147) but the numbers
ranged from 14,460 up to 76,379.6 Kansas also has the
sixth highest probation population (17,021), ranging
from 11,321 on the low end to 55,700 on the high end.
The largest variances are found in the parole population. Kansas had the sixth highest (5,126), but the values ranged from as low as 1,383 up to 23,227.
Based upon from analysis of prison populations, imprisonment rate, and community supervision statistics
is that among the comparison states, Kansas is on the
lower end of the continuum when it comes to both
sheer numbers and comparative rates of people under justice supervision. In no measure was Kansas at
the extreme high end, which might have been a “red
flag” indicative of a need for a policy change related
to numbers of people in prison or under community
supervision.
6
The Sentencing Project, http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm
Community Supervision
Total
Probation
Parole
N/A
N/A
2,310
National Avg.
95,707
78,916
16,791
Missouri
76,379
55,700
20,679
Arkansas
53,173
29,946
23,227
Idaho
34,826
30,978
3,848
Iowa
34,484
29,333
5,151
Kansas
22,147
17,021
5,126
New Mexico
19,393
16,925
2,468
Nevada
16,700
11,321
5,379
Nebraska
14,460
13,077
1,383
Utah
14,365
11,379
2,986
Oklahoma
Source
http://www.sentencingproject.org/
map/map.cfm
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 147
3-Year Recidivism
3-Year Recidivism is the benchmark recidivism measure for prison releases, and indicates numbers of people who are “reincarcerated,” and not just re-arrested.
As such, it is an important driver of prison population
and therefore prison expense. The last comprehensive
cross-state comparison of recidivism was published by
Pew in 2011 for offenders released in 2004.7 In that report, Kansas was slightly below the national average
of 43.3% returning to prison within three years, and at
42.9% was average among the eight other comparison states included in the study, ranging from 26.4%
to 53.7%. Where Kansas stood out among the comparison states was in the reason for recidivism. Kansas’ 12% new crime recidivism rate was tied for lowest
among the comparison states, and its 31% technical
violation was third highest only to Missouri’s 40% and
Utah’s 32%. Of all the comparison states, Missouri’s
14%/40% and Kansas’ 12%/31% were by far the most
heavily skewed in favor of technical violations versus
new crimes.
The inference to be drawn from these recidivism statistics is that at the time they were measured, Kansas
had a very low rate of recidivism based on new crimes,
which is a good indicator. However, Kansas also had
a disproportionately high rate of technical violations,
which accounted for 72% of all individuals returning
to prison. On its face, this data suggests that an assessment of technical violation practices and policies is in
order. However, the timeliness of the data must also be
considered, as practices are likely to have changed in
the past 10 years. The 12% new crime / 31% technical
violation ratio should serve as a benchmark by which
current recidivism statistics are evaluated.
Recidivism Metrics
3-Year
Reason Self-Report Self-Report
Recidivism (New Crime
Rate
Year
Rate 2004- / Tech Vio)
2007
Nevada
N/A
N/A
28%
2012
Missouri
54%
14% / 40%
41%
2014
Utah
54%
21% / 32%
46%
2014
Arkansas
44%
44% / 0%
42%
2014
New
Mexico
44%
21% / 23%
45%
2008
National
Avg.
43%
-
50%
2010
Kansas
43%
12% / 31%
33%
2013
Iowa
34%
23% / 11%
30%
2013
Idaho
34%
12% / 22%
35%
2013
Nebraska
32%
21% / 12%
N/A
N/A
Oklahoma
26%
15% / 11%
N/A
N/A
Notes
“Self Report Year” If reported more recently than 2007
Costs of State Prisons
A more recent study by the Association of State Correctional Administrators estimates Kansas’s recidivism
rate within three years of the year 2010. Note, study
was not nationally comprehensive and thus does not
include all of Kansas’s peer states as per this report.
However, it is instructive in that it shows Kansas’s performance.
In 2010, Vera attempted to derive a more accurate taxpayer cost of prisons across different states.8 It looked
only at the cost of prison operations - i.e. not probation, parole, or juvenile systems - but also included
costs that may not have appeared directly in the DOC
budget, such as administrative costs, inmate hospital
care, and others. Some states include these items in
their DOC budget, and some do not. Only eight of the
comparison states were part of this study alongside
Kansas. Among these states, Kansas had the second
lowest total cost for its prisons, the second lowest
cost in both the DOC and non-DOC cost centers, the
second lowest percent of costs not in the DOC budget (a factor of 3-9 times less than higher states), and
ultimately the lowest cost per inmate. Kansas’ cost per
inmate of $18,207 was almost half that of the highest
comparison state, Nebraska, at $35,950. Beyond just
the comparison states, of all 40 states participating in
the Vera study, Kansas’ $18,207 was fifth lowest, and
well below the national average of $31,286.
7
8
Note: Only 40 states provided data. Vera
Institute: The Price of Prisons (2014)
Note that the increase in technical violations is one
reason for the growing population, despite a decrease
in crime rates. As each state uses different methods for
calculating recidivism, interstate assessments require
further analysis of each state’s unique environmental
variables.
Pew State of Recidivism 2011
148| Corrections
Overall Recidivism Rate within 3 Years- FY2010 Releases
PBMS - Participating States
48.8%
% Returned to Prison
41.8% 41.1%
38.8% 37.9% 37.5%
35.8% 34.8% 34.3%
30.3%
26.9% 25.5%
24.9%
22.5% 21.5%
13.7%
As Vera notes in its study, prison cost should not be the
only factor when comparing states, as costs obviously
don’t take into account reductions in recidivism (effectiveness) or the collateral costs of policies intended reduce prison costs (cost-shifting). For example, a
policy that sees inmates released more quickly may
reduce prison expenditures but may increase costs for
supervision or public safety operations. However, with
a below-average recidivism rate, a well-below-average
new crime recidivism rate and a well-below-average
cost per inmate, it does appear that Kansas’ prison system is more effective at keeping costs down while also
maintaining a low recidivism rate as compared to the
other ten states.
deficit of over 600 beds for the male prison population by FY2018 and general prison population growth
of 7.7% over the next ten years. This predicted growth
in prison populations contrasts with both the state’s
observed and projected decrease in crime rates. One
Note that according to Vera Institute, this spend is “for
prisons only”, which is defined as “residential facilities
that hold sentenced adult defenders”. These costs,
whether in the DOC budget or otherwise, are associated with prisons only, i.e. not probation, parole, juvenile, or anything else.
2015 Situation Analysis
Kansas faces a challenge occurring frequently nationwide—a rising adult prison population. Despite
a considerable focus on reform over the past decade,
the Kansas Sentencing Commission—the body responsible for prison population estimates—predicts a
Costs of State Prisons (2010) - in thousands
New
Mexico
Cost Per
Inmate
Total
DOC
Non-DOC
% NonDOC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nebras$35,950 $163,284 $158,190 $5,094
ka
3%
Iowa
$32,925 $276,039 $265,409 $10,630
4%
Utah
$29,349 $186,013 $178,095 $7,918
4%
Arkansas
$24,391 $326,081 $288,609 $37,472
11%
Missouri $22,350 $680,487 $503,987 $176,500
26%
Nevada $20,656 $282,903 $267,890 $15,013
5%
Idaho
$19,545 $144,669 $143,211 $1,458
1%
Oklahoma
$18,467 $453,356 $441,772 $11,584
3%
Kansas
$18,207 $158,198 $156,141 $2,057
1%
Notes Only 40 states provided data
reason for this relates to the high number of technical parole and probation violations. Even worse, the
growing demand for prison beds is made logistically
more difficult by the challenge of managing a sprawling and aging correctional infrastructure.
KDOC’s demanding budgetary reality and its effective
use of taxpayers’ dollars are ultimately most impacted
by these rising adult prison populations. The leading
population drivers include:
• A large number of probation condition revocations – a group highly susceptible to recidivism
• A significant proportion of violent inmates with
lengthy sentences, many of which pose a longterm strain on bed space and resources as they
age through their sentences9
• Persistent challenges related to unmet behavioral health needs for offenders throughout their
exposure to correctional services
As of 2015, KDOC has reduced the overall three-year
adult recidivism rate to 35.1%. Yet, its greatest challenge is the reduction of probation condition violators.
These violators account for an estimated 25% of annual prison admissions. In recent years, a comprehensive
Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), led by the Council
on State Governments, constructed a reform package
including increased behavioral health investments in
communities. In conjunction, these programs have
proven successful at reducing probation revocation
among participants. However, Kansas probation revocations have remained high, and an unanticipated
application of a provision allowing local courts to use
short prison stays as a form of graduated sanction10
has undermined Kansas’s adoption of JRI.
Additional challenges include the state’s trifurcated
probation/parole system. Probationer management
across the state’s three discrete systems lacks cohesion. Duplicative administrative costs draw limited
9
75% of inmates are incarcerated for person or violent crimes in Kansas.
10
Graduated sanctions are a form of intervention within the criminal justice system by
which offenders receive increasingly harsher
punishment with each offence. This accountability based system of adjudication is focused on
rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. It is more
commonly used with juvenile offenders.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 149
resources away from effective reentry programs and
clinical services. These effects combine to increase the
risk of revocation.
The Kansas correctional system is structured as a “confederation,”—the Department of Corrections and the
disparate correctional facilities are statutorily defined
as independent agencies. While each facility reports to
the KDOC Deputy Secretary, the structure inhibits realization of potential cost savings and operational efficiencies intrinsic to increased centralization and the
use certain shared services.
In recent years, Juvenile Corrections has successfully
reduced both populations and costs. Yet, a recent
study by the Pew Charitable Trusts notes that, despite these improvements, Kansas has fallen behind
its peers. On average, other states have reduced juvenile populations at a rate 10% greater than Kansas.
This challenge appears related to costly over-reliance
on residential placements and a lack of performance
accountability. In addition, Kansas has yet to make a
significant dent in juvenile recidivism. A Pew-led coalition of stakeholders is currently working to outline
solutions to address these concerns.
A final key metric and major cost driver is the mentally
ill population. According to the FY15 KDOC Annual Report, 35% (3,470) of adult inmates are either mentally
ill or exhibit a serious substance abuse issue (score
of 4+). To address this, 150 specialized mental health
beds have been added to the Lansing facility and additional treatment units with 34 additional behavioral
health FTEs have been added across all targeted KDOC
facilities.
Overall, KDOC was found to be operating at relatively
low staffing levels due to high turnover and program
cuts, but still able to achieve a reduction in recidivism.
Below are self-reported population figures from the
2015 KDOC Annual Report.11 These figures show a
compounding problem related to exceeding prison
capacity and an increase of required funding if no action is taken. Many of the recommendations included
in this report focus on reducing prison populations or
operating costs over time in order to help KDOC realize its goals and achieve cost savings.
Adult Male Inmate Bed Space Needs
• In 2015, the KDOC male inmate capacity of 8,799
11
Population and cost data provided by
KDOC FY15 KDOC Annual Report.
150| Corrections
Recommendations
was exceeded.
• By 2018, the Kansas Sentencing Commission estimates that the KDOC will exceed current capacity
by 609 male beds.
The following recommendations are grouped into two
types, based on their complexity and expected time of
completion:
• Phase 1 recommendations can begin or be implemented within a 12-month period, once approved
• The overall adult inmate population is estimated
to gfrow by 7% within 5 years, with women growing by 22% and men by 6%.
• Phase 2 recommendations are expected to be implemented within 12-18 months due to increased
complexity or possible legislative action required
Due to increased complexity, Phase 2 recommendations are not quantified.
The marginal cost used in our savings calculations was
Adult Inmate Population
(Historic and Projected)
12,000
10,000
Population
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2013
2014
2015
Female
2016
Male
2017
Overall Total
2018
2019
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 151
Phase 1 Recommendations
based on a 2015 daily marginal cost of $24.98,12 inclusive of medical cost. This figure was provided by the
KDOC and is used as the baseline for estimating cost
savings by implementing recommendations resulting
in a prison population reduction. Individual recommendations will outline the methodology and specific
assumptions used in calculating savings.
Recommendation #1 - Program & Credit Expansion
• Increase the amount of credit inmates can earn
from 90 to 120 days.13 Credits are awarded for
successful participation in prison-based programs, which reduces the risk of recidivism and
improve the likelihood of their reentry into society as crime and drug-free citizens that enjoy
stable employment.
• Strategically increase overall access to prison-
13
If an increase to 120 days is successful, a
Phase 2 recommendation would be to increase
available credits to 150 days.
12
The adult daily marginal cost of $24.98 includes daily average medical costs of $15.53 and
$9.45 worth of clothing, bedding, supplies, food,
incentive pay, gratuity, postage and utilities.
Target Revenue and Savings Estimates
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Phase 1 Recommendations
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Prison-based Program and Credit
Expansion
$-
$1,189
$3,247
$2,925
$2,783
$2,583
$12,727
2
Expand Correctional Industries
$-
$1,512
$1,512
$1,512
$1,512
$1,512
$7,562
3
Work Release Expansion and
Stockton Consolidation
$-
$1,037
$1,137
$1,137
$1,137
$1,137
$5,585
4
Expand Access to Substance
Abuse Treatment Program
$-
$759
$759
$783
$771
$795
$3,866
5
Community Corrections Transformation
$-
$1,469
$1,937
$1,960
$1,972
$1,972
$9,310
6
Strategic Overtime Reduction
$38
$93
$85
$77
$70
$64
$426
7
Centralize Good Time Forfieture
and Revocation Process
$-
$49
$49
$49
$49
$49
$245
8
Reduce Utilities Cost through
Alternative Energy Distributed
Grid at EDCF
$-
$47
$50
$53
$56
$59
$265
Phase 2 Recommendations
9
Expand On-Site Medical Services
and Telehealth agreements
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
10
Leverage Medicaid & Private
Health Insurance for Parole &
Community Corrections
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
11
Consolidate Shared Services
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
12
Key Performance Indicator
Framework
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$75
$6,248
$8,860
$8,573
$8,420
$8,235
$39,986
Department of Corrections Total
152| Corrections
based programming.
• Implement a pilot program that allows inmates
or their families to purchase electronic tablets to
access cost effective educational programming
and reentry resources that contribute to their
program credit accretion. These programs also
improve prison safety and culture.
Background & Findings
Kansas state law imposes a 90-day cap on the amount
of days that an eligible inmate may earn against their
length of stay in prison. This is referred to as “program
credits” or “earned time” and is considered a valuable
release incentive designed to not only trim time inmates serve in prison and lower costs of incarceration,
but to provide programs that improve offender success in the community and reduce recidivism.
• Thirty seven states offer earned time credits for
certain inmates who participate in, or complete
educational courses, vocational training, treatment, work or other developmental programs,
according to the National Council on State Legislatures (NCSL) August 2011 report “Principles of
Effective State Sentencing & Corrections Policy.”
• Other studies indicate that each state has a range
of credits with varying criteria, but many provide
inmates with access to a higher amount of days
than Kansas—Iowa offers 365 days for what it defines as “service,” Arkansas has a cap at 270 days,
and New Mexico offers varying levels of credit for
programs, including 90-150 days for completion
of an education program. This indicates that Kansas is missing an opportunity to achieve cost savings and reduce recidivism.
• According to the KDOC 2015 Annual Report,
education programming coupled with quality
employment (viable wage) has reduced recidivism among their population by over 5%. When
inmates were assessed as higher risk to reoffend
gainful employment brought their recidivism
rates down rate from 38% to 13%.
• In FY 2015, out of 4532 releasing offenders, 1919
were eligible for program credit, and 1454 earned
credit, which was 75.77%. In the first 5 months of
FY 2016, 853 eligible offenders were released, of
whom 737 earned credit, for 86.4%. Increasing
the participation rate to 90% would add an additional 73 offenders receiving credit, which at the
rate of 120 days would free 24 more beds.
• Challenges to increasing eligibility and participation include lack sufficient time for offenders to
complete a program. For example, some offenders are out on court writ pending legal matters or
in segregation.
• Tablets
»» KDOC currently has a contract with a firm
called JPAY to manage kiosks throughout
their facilities where inmates can pay to
download music and send approved messages to their family.
»» JPAY has produced a tablet that was specifically designed to allow inmates to participate in educational and other specialized
programs in a prison-based setting. The tablet can be purchased by an inmate or their
family and the content can be supported by
the existing kiosks.
»» This program would offer KDOC the opportunity to build a program credit incentive
system to expand access to constructive,
meaningful activities throughout the system in a cost effective manner.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,189
$3,247
$2,925
$2,783
$2,583
Key Assumptions
Based on projections provided by the Kansas Sentencing Commission. If KDOC increased the maximum
program credit cap from 90 days to 120 days, the Department would save a minimum of 142 beds and a
maximum of 316 beds annually from FY17 to FY21.
If this recommendation is successful in achieving the
projected savings during a 2 year period beginning
from implementation, a consideration should be
Fiscal Year
Estimated Beds Saved
2017
142
2018
316
2019
289
2020
277
2021
260
made to increase the program credit cap to 150 days.
• In order to achieve these goals, it is assumed that
KDOC will earn credits appropriately among the
most eligible current inmates.
• Savings estimates were calculated based on yearend, average bed counts provided by the Kansas
Sentencing Commission.
• The tablet program is self-funded through fees
and costs avoided.
• The tablet program is intended for low to medium-risk inmates and is not intended to replace
programming requiring person-to-person behavioral counseling and interaction.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Legislation is required in 2016 to support the cap
increase from 90 days to 120 days
• KDOC will have to quantify the necessary appropriations to target needed program expansion
areas by FY17
• KDOC will have to develop a pilot program to
make the tablet education program accessible
and assign credits to tablet program offerings by
FY17
Recommendation #2 - Kansas Correctional Industries (KCI) Expansion
• Increase KCI’s customer base to include non-state
agencies and increase production at underutilized production facilities.
• Enforce mandate for Kansas State Agencies to
purchase from KCI.
• Improve KCI marketing and business development strategy.
Background & Findings
Kansas Correctional Industry (KCI) is a program that
employs prisoners at manufacturing facilities run by
DOC and through private corporations who partner
with DOC. These companies provide training and employment to program participants either at in-prison
production facilities or at offsite manufacturing facilities, under supervision.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 153
• As of 2014, KCI employs 1,264 inmates—324 traditional (in-prison) and 940 private (577 prisonbased, 363 non-prison-based).
• KCI participants exhibit an 18% recidivism rate,
which compares favorably to the 35% observed
for non-participants.
• In addition to reducing recidivism, KCI participants learn valuable technical skills and earn
wages, which are used to offset the cost of their
incarceration and pay restitution to victims.
• Kansas state agencies are required to purchase
available products from KCI but this mandate is
currently not enforced.
• KCI generates $3,991 of net benefit per participant.
• Products currently produced through KCI include:
»» Textiles
»» Metal products
»» Furniture
»» Chemicals (paint, janitorial, etc.)
»» Farm products (corn, soybeans, cattle, etc.)
»» Dental products (dentures, bridges, etc.)
»» Additional products
• KCI is not operating at full capacity and its production facilities are underutilized.
• The following production space within KDOC is
currently vacant:
»» EDCF – 29,344 square feet of manufacturing
space;
»» EDCF South (Oswego) – 2,440 square feet
»» NCF – 5,000 square feet of manufacturing
space.
• According to the KCI Director, if KCI were to operate at 85% capacity and expand its customer
base to include non-state agencies, even in a limited capacity, an increase of 11% ($1.5 million/annually) in revenue is estimated.*
154| Corrections
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,512
$1,512
$1,512
$1,512
$1,512
Critical Steps to Implement
• Enforce state mandate for other state agencies to
purchase available products from KCI.
• Executive and all other Agency Leadership to
convey the message and set the tone of support
for KCI through patronage. This would apply to
agencies with a need for products or services provided by KCI.
Additional
Revenue @
85% ProducLocation, Cattion Capacity
egory, Item
2015 Revenue
(Est.)*
$637,134
Total
$9,576,969
Private Industries
$4,245,302
Chemical
$3,682,470
$561,841
$4,244,311
Farm
$899,287
$6,109
$905,395
Metal Products
$517,703
$61,001
$578,703
Data Entry
$144,735
Warehouse
$86,166
Administration
$1,306
Hutchinson
$4,335,462
$782,769
$5,118,231
Textiles
$1,817,912
$323,934
$2,141,846
Canteen
$1,303,375
$195,477
$1,498,851
$10,214,102
$4,245,302
$144,735
$94,349
$503,284
Print
$467,667
$116,917
$584,583
Furniture
$225,310
$146,442
$371,752
Leasing Division
$17,862
$17,862
$53
$53
$503,284
Topeka
$162,250
$40,872
$203,122
Dental
$150,116
$40,872
$190,988
Marketing
$12,135
Norton
$82,916
Microfilm
$82,916
»» Sell to contractors that have state contracts;
»» Sell KCI products through the commissary to
inmates
»» Sell to businesses and residents of the state
of Kansas.
• The expansion of the KCI program will require
additional long-term capital investment to maintain and upgrade equipment, to provide better
training and to enhance quality.
• Review and improve marketing strategy and refresh KCI website.
• Review Procurement Section of this report for
recommendations on incorporated sourcing
Recommendation #3 - Work Release
Expansion
$1,306
Wild Horse
Program
Warehouse
• Expand KCI customer base (would likely require
statutory amendment.) to :
• Promote and expand the Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) partnerships to include Textiles, Furniture, etc.
Lansing
$8,183
• Build business partnership with other state agencies and position KCI as a strategic supplier of services and manufactured products. KCI is poised
to work with partners on new product development.
$12,135
$51,618
$51,618
$134,535
$134,535
Repurpose or close and divest minimum security
housing units, such as the 120 bed Stockton Minimum
Security Prison. This can be achieved through the expansion of low cost Work Release slots statewide, including the 50-75 beds in the Wichita Work Release
Center, full utilization of the 15 slots at Johnson County Jail, and the use of others offered in limited capacity
throughout the state.
Background & Findings
• Work Release programs in Kansas (and across the
nation) provide value to prison systems for numerous reasons, including:
»» Work Release programs offer inmates the
opportunity to work and earn wages that
help refund taxpayers for a portion of the
costs of their incarceration
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 155
»» Work Release programs provide valuable
work experience that will help prepare them
to secure honest work upon release from
prison
Johnson County Jail through the thoughtful expansion of current Department screening and
referral systems.
»» Work Release programs result in lower recidivism rates
• Consideration: In some cases, KCI and Private Industries compete for participants with Work Release. It has been noted that inmates favor work
opportunities through KCI over Work Release.
There are challenges in identifying eligible participants.
• According to recent figures provided by KDOC,
the Wichita Work Release Center currently houses 254 inmates that pay 25% of their wages back
to state taxpayers for room/board and court-ordered restitution. In FY2014, KDOC reported that
inmates earned $3,370,004 in gross wages, of
which $847,948 was paid back to the state general revenue fund to support the costs of incarceration—an average contribution of $3,316 per
participating inmate.
• There are opportunities for the program to grow:
»» The KDOC operations team believes that 5075 beds can be added to the Wichita Work
Release Center
»» Johnson County Jail offers 15 beds (at no
cost) to the KDOC for Work Release Offenders
»» Other jails offer scattered beds for Work Release placements
• Assuming achieved reductions in populations,
considerable savings could be achieved by the
closure of the Stockton Minimum Security Unit.
The Stockton facility has an operating budget of
$1.8 million. Remaining offenders may then be
redistributed throughout the system, as well as
into open Work Release slots. Stockton’s marginal inmate cost is over $40 per day. In comparison,
work release facilities are estimated to have marginal costs of $24.98 per day. These costs are not
inclusive of garnered wages that further benefit
the state and would be retained when prisoners
are relocated.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,037
$1,137
$1,137
$1,137
$1,137
Key Assumptions
• It is assumed that KDOC will build the programmatic capacity to expand the Wichita Work
Release Center and the Work Release beds at
• Consideration: There is sensitivity around closure
of the Stockton facility from the community. Closure would impact 2 private industries, 3 cities
and other State Agencies due to existing Private
Industry and Work Release beds.
• Note: This recommendation should be implemented alongside other population reduction
measures that project to reduce minimum security populations, such as the program credit expansion.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Limited structural enhancements and furnishings
must be funded in the FY17 budget to support
the increased population at Wichita Work Release Center. Referrals to Johnson County Jail and
other county locations could begin immediately.
• Redirect a percentage of work release revenue
dollars back to support KDOC operations, rather
than the State General Fund.
• KDOC should:
»» Conduct review of protocols for referral procedures and formalize a plan for early identification and referral.
»» Illustrate an operations plan for the movement of inmates from Stockton.
»» Perform detailed cost-benefit analysis of closure, including feasibility and social impact
assessment.
156| Corrections
Recommendation #4 - Expand Access to
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
• Expand access to court diversion and sentence
reduction programs for substance abuse offenders by:
»» Allow KDOC to selectively allow probation
condition violators who have had their probation revoked for substance-abuse related
issues to access a four-month drug treatment program in prison. Upon successful
completion, they can return to Community
Corrections supervision
»» Allow KDOC to selectively allow for nonviolent offenders who previously failed, refused or were discharged from treatment to
participate in the four-month prison-based
drug treatment program and earn a reduced
sentence upon completion
»» Permit KDOC to selectively allow for offenders convicted of Small Sales Drug Level-4 felonies to participate in the SB123 18-month
drug treatment diversion program that
serves as an alternative to incarceration
»» Build small unit demonstrations of best
practice therapeutic communities and/or
program treatment units in prisons of each
security level to ensure additional allocations of substance abuse resources are centralized, leveraged and targeted in a manner
that also promotes culture change.
Background & Findings
• In FY15, KDOC had 5,876 prison admissions of
which 45.7% were diagnosed as requiring substance abuse treatment and 15.9% for co-occurring disorders. Among them, there were 1,489
probation violators. KDOC staff illustrated the
impact of substance abuse was so great among a
subset of that group, the 1,321 probation condition violators, that one randomized (yet unscientific) snapshot of them revealed that upwards of
73% had been revoked due to a substance-abuse
related compliance issue.
• Currently, Kansas has two key substance abuse
laws that either allow for the diversion of substance abuse offenders from prison entirely, or a
reduction of their length of stay:
»» The Alternative Sentencing Policy for Nonviolent Drug Offenders Law (K.S.A. 21-6824),
commonly known as SB123, authorizes the
diversion from prison of 1st and 2nd time
nonviolent drug possession offenders to
an 18-month intensive community-based
treatment program.
»» “Special Rule #26” (K.S.A. 21-6805), which
offers 3rd and subsequent drug possession
offenders that have not previously refused,
failed or been discharged from treatment
the opportunity to have their sentence reduced by completing a prison-based drug
treatment program.
• SB123 is managed by The Kansas State Sentencing Commission. The program has maintained
a fairly consistent budget and enrollment level
over the years—most recently touting the diversion of more than 1,600 drug offenders from
prison last year. However, reports indicate that
“Special Rule #26” may have been insufficiently
funded by KDOC due to either unavailability of
funding or lack of eligible offenders.
• According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
most drug-involved offenders do not necessarily
serve time in prison for drug possession, and other reports indicate that property crimes and small
sales are often committed to finance one’s addiction. Furthermore, the National Institute on Drug
Abuse reports that 40%-60% of all drug addicts
will relapse from their plan of treatment. Translating those statistics into policies will help expand
the reach and impact the state’s two most effective substance abuse laws.
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$759
$759
$783
$771
$795
Key Assumptions
• Many of the potential cost savings highlighted in
this report are based on projected prison population reductions and made possible by relevant
previous recommendations.
• KDOC has reported the increase of beds contracted to local jails at a rate of $40/day to satiate
overflowing demand.
• The marginal cost of incarceration at a state prison is $24.98/day.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 157
• Significant cost savings would be realized by Recommendation #5 - Community Correducing the time probation revocations serve,
rections Transformation
from 11.5 months to approximately 6 months,
for violators identified by the KDOC. Savings for
this exercise were determined based on the aver- Reducing probation violations has proven to be difage of the two rates to achieve $30.99/day—this ficult in Kansas for many reasons. Challenges include
the state’s two distinct probation systems:
estimate is conservative.
• KDOC has illustrated other, more costly possibilities such as contracting with private prisons
(marginal costs upwards of $55/day) or building
new facilities (at a cost of $55.37/day, exclusive of
capital outlays).
• Substance Abuse
• Court Services probation is funded and managed
by the Office of Judicial Administration and was
designed to provide supervision for lower risk offenders
• Community Corrections is funded by KDOC, but
managed by 31 different Community Corrections
Agencies consisting of various counties or Judicial Districts of all sizes, and was designed to provide intensive supervision for moderate and high
risk offenders.
»» Based on projections provided by the Kansas Sentencing Commission and the KDOC,
if all four substance abuse expansion recommendations were implemented, the state
prison system would save a minimum of 162 These two probation systems result in entities operatbeds and a maximum of 214 beds annually
ing side-by-side, serving the same courts, yet spendfrom FY17 to FY21.
ing duplicative administrative costs and possibly even
»» In addition, it is assumed that an invest- missing caseload processing opportunities due to the
ment of $452,588 would have to be made lack of shared services among them. When combined
in FY 2017 and sustained at approximately
$577,500 annually thereafter to ensure im- with the nature of having separate Community Correcpact. The investment would build the capac- tions Agencies (which may contain more than one per
ity of KDOC staff to deliver cognitive/sub- Judicial District), these types of investments regularly
stance abuse treatment, as well as ensure drain funding away from the very kinds of services and
the reach of the Kansas Sentencing Commis- interventions needed (and proven) to reduce probasion’s community-based network.
tion revocations and improve public safety.
»» A recent evaluation of the Substance Abuse
Program shows high risk offenders have a The recommendation follows:
decreased recidivism rate of 15.8% less than
the control group, and all risk levels com- • Develop a performance-based contracting
agreement by putting the three lowest performbined are at 7.8% less.14
ing Community Corrections Agencies on Correc»» Estimated bed savings is averaged over the
tive Action Status with Revocation Review for a
fiscal year.
period of two years.
Fiscal Year
Estimated Beds Saved
2017
162
2018
212
2019
213
2020
214
2021
214
14
Data provided by DOC Communications
Director, Jan 2016.
• Create partnership incentivizing grants to encourage more counties and Judicial Districts to
band together as unified Community Corrections
Agencies and reduce administrative costs in the
long-term.
• Redirect unspent funding to more localized prison “stop gap” graduated sanctions, particularly
community-based interventions,15 in the neediest regions.
15
Community-based intervention programs
similar to halfway-back program.
158| Corrections
• Review administrative costs of counties with less
than 100 in their caseloads for opportunities to
consolidate shared services.
Background & Findings
• Kansas has made great strides toward promoting
evidence-based practices and has dramatically
reduced recidivism to a three-year rate of 35%.
However, despite numerous interventions, nearly
25% of all prison admissions each year are probation violators.
• Even though KDOC invests more than $22 million
annually into the Community Corrections system, nearly 40% of the Community Corrections
Agencies it funds, fail to achieve the minimum
performance requirements established in their
contracts.16
• KDOC has demonstrated successful investments
into direct services with programs that have
shown reductions in recidivism, such as the $3
million Behavioral Health Program. However, dollars that are unallocated at the end of each fiscal
year have been reallocated to make payments
for additional jail cells to house overflow inmates
or for administrative incentives, such as funding
vehicle mileage, for local Community Corrections
Agencies. In fact, at least $300,000 remains unallocated at the close of each fiscal year.
• Community Corrections Agencies have reported
that courts often send probation violators to state
prisons when there is no other option within the
community.
Recommendation #5 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,469
$1,937
$1,960
$1,972
$1,972
Key Assumptions
• Based on projections provided by the Kansas
Sentencing Commission, if the recommended reforms result in a 5% reduction in probation condition violations, the state prison system would
save approximately 64 beds per year. If it were to
achieve a 10% reduction in probation condition
violations, it would save an average of 130 beds
per year.
16
This figure is based on an update FY15
number provided by KDOC staff.
• In addition, it is assumed that Community Corrections would redirect $1 million of their budget
toward the following:
»» At least three one-time challenge incentive grants of $20,000 each for Community
Corrections Agencies that agree to band together with larger agencies for a period no
less than three years. The amount proposed
is approximately double the current bonus
incentive grants and would be considered
more attractive.
»» Funding to provide technical assistance or
additional staff to support the revocation
review process at three Corrective Action
Agencies ($150,000 total).
»» Issue an RFI to fund a minimum of two (2)
community-based intervention programs ,
from 60-90 days, as the last opportunity before revocation.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Before the close of FY16, KDOC will have to identify the top three worst performing Community
Corrections Agencies (considered pilots) with the
highest impact on admissions, and define the
terms of a two-year Corrective Action process
(including monthly revocation reviews, at a minimum frequency) to be established for kickoff in
FY17
• KDOC will have to reassess its Community Corrections budget performance monitoring to inform
an RFI and subsequent RFP by May 2016. The RFI
will call for evidence-based models to deliver impactful community-based interventions, which
directly slows the flow of probation violators into
state prisons
• Legislation must be passed in 2016 to expand access to both community-based and prison-based
substance abuse programs, and additional resources must be allocated to support increased
services for FY17
• Perform cost-benefit analysis of maintaining
multiple probation systems.
• Redirect discretionary funds to performance
based community interventions that are proven
to reduce probation revocation in targeted high
need regions.
• Conduct performance review of Community Cor-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 159
rections contracts and rationalize programs. This
involves redirecting funds from underperforming
programs to those with proven success based on
defined criteria. See recommendation #12 for
further detail on Key Performance Indicators and
their use in evaluating program and contract performance.
Recommendation #6 - Improve Staff
Recruitment and Overtime Reduction
• The Department of Corrections faces a staffing
challenge due to constrained resources and high
turnover. Competition for labor stems from other
correctional systems, both federal and private, as
well as public safety and private industries.
• The Kansas Department of Corrections currently
lacks the ability to make the commensurate investment in wages necessary to match market
rates. This creates an undesirable side effect of an
over-reliance on overtime as a short-term staffing
solution.
• However, overtime labor is often the most expensive option to meet staffing needs. Fortunately,
there is precedent within the Kansas corrections
environment—in addition to industry best practice literature—that inspires optimism for a statewide implementation of operational efficiencies
meant to minimize overtime (and thus reduce a
major cost driver for the Department and correctional facilities).
major gain in operational efficiency was achieved
not through wage hikes or a hiring boon but
through strong leadership and proficient staffing
analyses. Without significant capital investment,
the KJCC was able to realize vast operational improvements through increased staffing efficiencies.
• Juvenile facilities face their own challenges
when compared to adult female or male facilities, mental health facilities, etc. For this reason,
in addition to codifying and replicating KJCC’s
historical success, it is important to embody and
propagate best practices as put forth by industry
standard bearers in the federal U.S. Department
of Justice and the National Governors Association. A nominal investment will be required to
explore the research and implementation details
of a corrections-wide overtime reduction strategy but, importantly, the strategy exists and has
seen success in the State of Kansas. (To be cited:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/022667.pdf) Facilities across Kansas corrections have initiated staffing analysis and
• Facilities across Kansas corrections have initiated
recruiting strategies, staffing analysis and overtime reduction efforts in the past. Understandably, recruiting and keeping labor talent is critical to any overtime reduction efforts; this difficult
reality should contextualize any success metric
used in overtime reduction. However, strong
leadership and effective organizational management are traits that may always be improved and
shared institution-wide.
Background & Findings
• Overtime staffing costs increased by over
$480,000, or 23%, across the Department of
Corrections and all facilities from 2014 to 2015.
The greatest contributors to this increase were
the Ellsworth Correctional Facility, Lansing Correctional Facility and Topeka Correctional Facility. The DOC and facilities portfolio saw a 17%
increase of overtime spend from $2.1 million in
2012 to $2.5 million in 2015.
• Over this same period from 2012 to 2015, the
Kansas Juvenile Correctional Complex (KJCC) averaged an annual reduction of 8.9% in overtime
spend that culminated in an absolute reduction
of more than $565,000 in just three years. This
Recommendation #6 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$38
$93
$85
$77
$70
$64
Key Assumptions
• Assumptions based on 4.5% annual savings estimate derived from conservative reduction in
actual overtime spend reduction realized of 5%20% at Kansas Juvenile Correctional Facility
• No assumed significant costs to implement Department of Justice staffing analysis strategy
160| Corrections
within codified overtime reduction strategy
• Assumed projection of prison population in accordance with historic actuals and Sentencing
Commission predictions
developing the 120-day report and the counselors spend another 200 hours on the process.
Recommendation #7 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$49
$49
$49
$49
$49
Critical Steps to Implement
• Task an internal KDOC team member and process
expert from KJCC to collaborate on how to codify
KJCC’s best practices
• Incorporate input from wardens that serve adult
populations and synthesize their input with Department of Justice staffing analysis
• Establish new staffing guidelines as a KDOC strategic mission for the second half of FY16 and beyond
Recommendation #7 - Centralize Good
Time Forfeiture and Revocation Process
KDOC adult prisons should centralize the good time
forfeiture/restoration monitoring process and consolidate the Records Office staff (whose primary function
involves creation of 120-day good time reports).
Background & Findings
• 328,911 days of earned good time has been forfeited from inmates for disciplinary infractions
committed within a 10-year period, which resulted in net increase on the average daily prison
population of 90 beds and a cost of $820,593 per
year (based on marginal costs per inmate). While
it is unreasonable to assume that all of these forfeited days should be restored, it was found that
tens of thousands were for nonviolent offenses,
including 24,258 for tobacco use and 17,284 for
disobeying orders.
• The process for managing good time is decentralized. Each facility’s leadership employs varying
levels of tolerance for infractions, and forfeitures/
restorations are granted inconsistently. In addition, each facility has its own manner of fulfilling
a required 120-day report to each inmate regarding the status of their good time. KDOC Operations staff noted gross inefficiencies in record
keeping. For example, one facility reported that
the records office spends 100 hours per month
Key Assumptions
• By establishing a formal, centralized operation
for the monitoring and approval of good time
forfeitures/ restorations and reporting process,
KDOC has the potential to save 10%-15% off the
estimated average or 32,890 good time forfeitures annually.
• Further analysis is needed from KDOC—it is estimated that some positions within the eight adult
prisons would be consolidated into two positions
within Central Operations to maintain this program. This would not only save funding, but also
improve the operations of the facilities by allowing counselors to spend more time with inmates
to prepare them for a successful reentry to society (see shared services recommendation below).
Critical Steps to Implement
• Issue a statewide directive to all prison wardens
with a clear, standardized protocol for the reporting and approval of all good time forfeitures/restorations.
• Review all current good time forfeitures to determine where opportunities exist to return 10-15%
of good time to prisoners.
• Conduct an audit of the earned good time 120day reporting process at all eight adult prisons
and develop a consolidation plan.
Recommendation #8 - Reduce Utilities
Cost through Alternative Distributed
Energy Pilot at El Dorado
A renewable energy power purchase agreement pilot
program could help reduce costs to the state over a
long period of time—12 years to 20 years. It could also
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 161
ensure operational security and prove a replicable pilot to be implemented at other correctional facilities
or state-owned buildings. Prison facilities are ideal
candidates for supplemental renewable energy due to
their consistent and predictable electricity needs.
is that all risk is taken on by the PPA vendor, not
the client (El Dorado Correctional Facility). EDCF
would incur no upfront or ongoing capital investment, nor would the facility own or maintain any
hardware. In return, EDCF would receive a savings on its utility spend allocations, stable baseline electricity generation ensuring safety standards during potential grid outages and a more
sustainable energy portfolio statewide.17
Background & Findings
• After funds allocated for salaries, electricity utility costs are the number one cost driver across all
correctional facilities—at Larned Juvenile Correctional Facility, electricity costs are even greater
than Classified Regular salaries). El Dorado Correctional Facility is the number two user of electricity of all corrections facilities in Kansas and has
the requisite amount of space needed for a solar
array. El Dorado allocated more than $870,000 to
electric utility costs in 2015. Fortunately, over the
last four fiscal years, electricity costs as a percentage of total budget allocations have remained
relatively stagnant at 2.5%-3%. This is due to a
flat energy market that has resulted in depressed
prices, which are unlikely to remain similarly low
for the duration of a proposed PPA.
• Fortunately for the State of Kansas and the El
Dorado Correctional Facility, by some measures
Kansas has the seventh highest potential for solar energy generation in the country.(For citation:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf)
• Solar power purchase agreements are financial
contracts enacted between a given facility (in this
case, EDCF) and a vendor (or vendors). They allow the customer to lock-in a guaranteed savings
over the course of many years—up to 20. On average, a solar PPA will net the customer a savings
of $0.01 or $0.02 per kilowatt-hour of electricity used on site (in FY2015, EDCF used 4,172,110
KWH which would result in $41,000-$82,000 in
savings annually). (For citation: http://www3.epa.
gov/greenpower/buygp/solarpower.htm)
• There are a number of case studies nation-wide
that have proven the model for solar arrays at
correctional facilities, such as Santa Clara County,
California or the (less sunny) Southern State Correctional Facility in Vermont. The details of the
arrangement would require on-site due diligence
and engineering (paid for and conducted by a
vendor), but the crucial component of solar PPAs
Recommendation #8 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$47
$50
$53
$56
$59
Key Assumptions
• Assumptions based on $0.012/KWH savings estimate derived from comparative valuations of
solar PPA implementations at other state correctional facilities
• Electricity utility usage was linearly projected
from 5 years of historic actuals
• Assumptions do not assume any rise in the
price of energy in the future. If the price of energy returns to historic averages savings realized
through the PPA would increase
• There are no significant legal hurdles given the
grid-connected nature of the project
Critical Steps to Implement
• Initiate an RFP for solar PPA vendor to begin due
diligence process
Phase 2 Recommendations - Long-Term Performance Improvement
Recommendation #9 - Expand OnSite Medical Services & Telemedicine
Agreements
Strive to reduce off-site medical transports 10%-15%
by strategically sourcing and consolidating affordable
medical equipment prison medical units. Addition-
17
http://governor.vermont.gov/node/2581
162| Corrections
ally, cooperation with the Kansas State Department
of Administration will be required to clear hurdles for
medical professionals seeking licensure to provide
telemedicine services throughout KDOC facilities.
Background & Findings
• KDOC ranks 25th nationally on capitated health
care spending, according to the 2014 Pew &
MacArthur Report on State Prison Health Care
Spending
• Kansas had 2,756 off-site medical care transports
in 2014, compared to Iowa’s 3,500 off-site medical care transports
• Despite KDOC’s progress, the strain of low staffing and overtime remains a challenge and off-site
medical visits impose an additional cost on the
system
• Topeka Correctional Facility, the state’s only
women’s prison, reported that the high number
of off-site visits for mammograms was a significant cost driver and taxing on their staff
• The state should explore the business case behind either a mobile unit arrangement with an
area hospital or purchase of a unit for the facility
Key Assumptions
• The department is seeking to reduce medical
transports by an additional 120 transports in the
next year and projects it could save as much as
$120,000 as a result
• The staff expressed challenges with onboarding
out-of-state providers to offer telemedicine services as a potential challenge
• Developing an inter-agency support team to help
facilitate these agreements will help advance this
effort
Critical Steps to Implement
• By February 2016, KDOC should conduct a thorough statewide impact assessment of off-site
medical transports on overtime, staffing and re-
sources in order to project savings
• By February 2016, KDOC should coordinate with
the Department of Administration and present
anticipated challenges to onboarding providers,
as well as establish a plan for overcoming them in
an efficient way moving forward
Recommendation #10 - Leverage Medicaid & Private Health Insurance for
Parole & Community Corrections
Ensure that the state incentivizes Parole and Community Corrections contractors to become qualified to bill
Medicaid and private health insurance, when possible,
in order to maximize savings potential for health and
behavioral health care. Create a task force to examine
the feasibility of shifting the older, frailer inmate populations that are either Medicare or Medicaid eligible
into a specialized, more secure nursing home setting
on a form of any medical parole status.
Background & Findings
• Medicaid & Health Care Enrollment
»» KDOC is a national leader at identifying
Medicare and Medicaid eligible prisoners.
While states are prohibited from accessing
Medicaid for inmates receiving health care
services within a prison facility, they may be
reimbursed for off-site medical services. By
developing an efficient process, KDOC has
achieved significant savings on behalf of
prisoners by identifying nearly 10% of the
adult prison population (over 900 inmates)
as eligible for Medicaid, and saving an average of $1.2 million annually. While this has
been a great success, more savings opportunities present themselves.
»» The benefits of Medicaid or any form of
health care enrollment should not begin
and end at the prison gate. However, there
is little effort made to ensure that community-based providers serving Parole and
Community Corrections programs obtain
the necessary certifications to bill Medicaid,
Medicare or even private health care plans.
In fact, one official suggested that the process could begin as early as an offender’s
admission to local jails, where they can be
screened for eligibility and enrolled soon
enough to begin accessing outpatient benefits that would then carry into a probation
sentence.
• Exploration of Nursing Home Medical Parole
Model
»» With such a high number of Medicaid eligible inmates, as well as more than 1,000
inmates 55 and older, the costs imposed by
a growing aged and long-term care population within KDOC are significant. In response
to similar conditions, other states, have developed an innovative solution: they reclassify segments of their population to serve
the remainder of their sentence in specialized nursing home care that is outside of
prison walls and, therefore, reimbursable by
Medicare and Medicaid.
Key Assumptions
• Medicaid & Healthcare Enrollment
»» Sufficient data to conduct a thorough cost
savings estimate does not exist. However,
it is clear that investments in behavioral
health services will reduce recidivism and
ultimately reduce the impact on the state
prison population. At least 900 state prison
inmates are eligible for Medicaid and 97%
of all inmates will be released back to Kansas communities. This evidence suggests
that considerable costs may be shifted away
from the state budget.
»» Furthermore, with an estimated 25,000 inmates incarcerated in county jails and thousands more on probation, there is potential
for even greater savings to be achieved for
both health and behavioral health care services at the local level.
• Exploration of Nursing Home Medical Parole
Model
»» A detailed analysis must be conducted to
determine the target population. However,
it has been reported by KDOC that at least
14% of the prison population requires assistance with daily living, including more than
1,000 inmates aged 55 and older (a threshold provided by DOC)
»» The challenge will be to determine the risk
level to society and the level of security that
inmates may require in a nursing home setting
»» Furthermore, it is assumed that an analysis
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 163
of the current law will have to be conducted
to determine if legislation will be required to
make this recommendation possible
Critical Steps to Implement
• By February 2016, KDOC should evaluate its aging and frail populations to determine how many
inmates could be reasonably housed in a specialized nursing home setting. Based on the population profile, the department would need to
craft legislation by March 2016 establishing the
appropriate criteria for medical parole status for
those inmates to be permanently housed in such
a facility. Should the legislation pass, then an RFI
would be issued to seek nursing home providers
willing to establish specialized care facilities in
Kansas dedicated to housing this population.
• By May 2016, KDOC should evaluate all of its
community-based contractors and determine
how many are certified to bill Medicaid or private
health insurance for services. In addition, the department should require all Community Corrections contractors to do the same. Based on the
findings, a plan should be established to require
or incentivize more providers to become certified.
Recommendation #11 - Consolidate
Shared Services
Review and rationalize shared service functions at
each prison facility. Shared service functions can include, but are not limited to, Accounting (AP/AR), HR,
and IT. If shared service FTE utilization is found to be
greater than demand, or is a function which can be
consolidated under the Central Office, then reduce or
reallocate FTEs as needed. Security staffing was found
to be adequate at each location examined and a reduction or reallocation of security related staff is not in
scope for this recommended assessment.
Background & Findings
• At each prison facility there exist a number of
resources that perform shared service functions
such as HR, accounting or IT.
• Shared service related functions are also located
164| Corrections
at the Central Office and may be candidates for
consolidation.
• The potential for savings will vary based on the
outcome of the assessment. An example of potential savings could be in the form of a headcount reduction of 10 FTEs totaling: 10 FTEs x
$60,000/yr. = $600,000/yr. savings. Note: This
savings example is for illustration purposes only
and requires additional analysis. It is therefore excluded from savings estimate calculations above.
• Even if a reduction is not found to be viable, this
assessment would allow the department and individual facilities to reallocate resources as needed. This would improve operational efficiency.
• Savings calculation assumes an average of $60K/
yr. for one Full Time Employee (FTE).
Critical Steps to Implement
• Perform a resource utilization assessment to
understand utilization by prison facility and employee position.
• Review or develop optimized future state organization chart with clearly defined roles and responsibilities by employee grade, group, position, type, title, etc.
• Rationalize shared service staff and consolidate
FTEs under the DOC Central Office (as applicable).
Recommendation #12 - Implement a
Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Framework
Create a unified and scalable KPI Framework with the
people, process, and tools to empower KDOC with
transparency and fact based decision-making ability.
• Define additional KPIs for performance based
(quantitative) evaluation of program funding
versus recidivism, vendor performance, staff performance, shared service performance, juvenile
population, community corrections and others.
• Expand the set of programs included in the KDOC
Results First cost benefit model. This includes defining KPIs used to track the cost-benefit of key
KDOC programs, in addition to collecting and
analyzing results, identifying trends and synthesizing findings.
Background & Findings
• KDOC currently performs cost benefit analyses
on three programs with the help of Results First
(Pew Foundation):
»» Cognitive Behavior Therapy
»» Drug Treatment (Prison)
»» Sex Offender Treatment Program (Prison)
• The information gathered through Results First
is currently used for informational purposes and
is not used in budgeting or the decision making
process.
• KDOC currently gathers and publishes a number of operational and financial metrics in its annual report. The metrics contain multi-year trend
graphs but lack synthesis and analysis of reported
data. This makes it difficult to use when budgeting or when addressing systemic problems.
• From interviews with KDOC stakeholders and the
review of available KDOC operational and fiscal
data, it is uncertain whether true performance
metrics are being gathered, analyzed and used to
drive transparency and help with the budgeting
and the decision making process.
• A report from the Pew Charitable Trusts revealed
considerable challenges within the community
corrections system, including an over reliance on
costly, high end residential placements and rising recidivism rates among the state’s juvenile
population.
Key Assumptions
• A robust KPI Framework provides transparency
into the cost, quality and effectiveness of the program, group or individual being measured.
• The cost-benefit of implementing a KPI Framework is difficult to quantify but considered a strategic business capability focused on improving
operational efficiency and driving down cost in
the long term.
• Once implemented, data necessary to begin
trend analysis will typically become available after two or more business cycles.
• Benchmark analysis should be used to compare
KDOC against its cohorts and gauge relative performance in key operational, fiscal and programmatic areas.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Perform a current state assessment of the existing KDOC performance indicator data, tools and
process. This assessment should outline an ideal
future state KPI Framework, identify gaps and
provide a roadmap to achieve the recommended
future state.
• Additional background on KPI Framework:
• A successful organization will use a KPI Framework to drive operational efficiency and realize
long-term cost savings. Benefits include:
»» Ability to measure organizational and programmatic cost, quality and performance
»» Driving transparency and accountability
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 165
»» Enabling leadership with data-driven decision making ability
»» Providing a process for continuous improvement
• Key Point: In order to realize the benefits of a KPI
Framework, Executive sponsorship and organizational adoption is required.
• The components of an effective KPI Framework
are:
»» Clearly defined critical success factors (CSF)
and performance indicator metrics, which
accurately measure cost, quality and performance of a service, process, group or individual responsible for executing a specific
action (customer centric or operational).
These metrics should align to one or more
KDOC strategic goals.
»» A scalable data model, process and tools
for collecting, analyzing, reporting and synthesis of KPI metric data for identification of
trends, risks, issues, as well as for general reporting.
»» A process and cadence for review of findings
to drive transparency and empower leadership and stakeholders with fact based decision-making ability.
166 | Department of Education
Education
K-12 and Higher Ed
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the
Kansas Department of Education, as well as, superintendents from several Kansas school districts. Alvarez &
Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Randy Watson, Commissioner of Education
•
Dale Dennis, Deputy Commissioner of Education
•
Craig Neuenswander, School Finance Team Director
•
Mike Michael, Director, State Employee Health Benefits Program
•
Aon Hewitt, State Employee Health Plan Actuary
Agency Overview
As part of the efficiency review, A&M researched previous education studies and initiatives in Kansas’ education. The following is a summary of the findings from
these previous initiatives:
tions to many areas including food service, facility maintenance, course/curriculum planning,
transportation, cash management, compliance
and risk controls. Since district expenditures are
controlled at the local level, efficiency reviews
are one of the few ways the state can encourage
fiscal responsibility and narrow differences between state funding and district spending.
• Legislative Post Audit (LPA) Efficiency Studies
– The LPA is required to complete three school
district efficiency studies per year. These studies
evaluate if the district can “…achieve significant
cost savings by improving resource management…” Efficiency studies take a broad look at
district operations and provide recommenda-
• District Health Insurance Costs – In 2010, the
state reevaluated how its public school districts
acquired healthcare. Health insurance is a major cost for school districts; however, most districts do not have the expertise to negotiate an
affordable plan. Although there are five health
insurance pools in the state that a district could
Previous Efficiency Initiatives
join—including the statewide health insurance
pool—the requirements for joining can be prohibitive. The study established that a lack of safeguards on past health insurance pools caused
them to fail or become prohibitively expensive.
Therefore, it recommended that any pools created in the future have controls in place to prevent
adverse selection and rising costs. The study did
not specifically recommend an overhaul or any
action to the current health insurance system.
Recent discussions with superintendents established that health insurance remains a deteriorating issue in their districts.
• Higher Education Efforts – Kansas’ community
colleges and universities have conducted efficiency reviews on multiple occasions. In 2008,
the community college system evaluated if colleges in close proximity to one another could
save money through shared services or group
purchasing. It was determined that most shared
services would not be possible due to issues such
as strong school rivalry, non-standardized processes, and a desire to differentiate to compete
for students. The study did determine that group
purchasing of utilities, common supplies and insurance could lead to savings if barriers such as
conflict resolution and non-standard procedures
could be mitigated.
• The public universities completed a study in 2009
to answer questions including:
»» What actions could the universities take to
reduce academic spending?
»» What actions could universities take to reduce their institutional spending?
»» How do costs per student and staffing levels
compare across the six major universities?
• The 2009 study recommended consolidating or
eliminating low enrollment classes, eliminating
certain degree programs, collaborating across
universities, increasing faculty workloads, and
administrative consolidation, as ways to become
more efficient.
• District Consolidation Recommendations –
School district consolidations have been recommended repeatedly to the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) from a variety of
sources including sitting superintendents, for-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 167
mer state Board of Education members, policy
groups, and the Kansas Legislative Post Audit
Committee’s 2010 report. Historically these consolidation efforts have been focused on consolidating districts to eliminate smaller, less efficient
school districts. Gaining legislative and local support for these recommendations are difficult for
several reasons:
»» Concern for diminished student experience
and negative impact on achievement
»» Impacts on local communities
»» Post consolidation funding cuts can mean
financial benefit for the state at the expense
of districts
• Funding Formula Validation – In addition to standard efficiency reviews of the K-12 public education system, the LPA conducts occasional studies
to validate source data used in determining the
amount of funding schools received. Specifically these audits were conducted to validate free
and reduced lunch eligible students and special
needs students. While these measures were not
directly “efficiency” studies, they were intended
to ensure the state was appropriately allocating
its resources. The funding formula is currently under review.
168 | Department of Education
Baseline Budget
For the state of Kansas, spending on education can be
segmented into two categories: K-12 education system and the higher education system. Approximately
60% of the state’s annual education spend is on K-12
education and the remaining spend is distributed
across multiple higher education universities and
other smaller entities. In 2014, spending on K-12 education was at 59% (of total education spend) and it
can increase up to 63% by 2017. Hence, A&M focused
its efficiency study primarily on the K-12 education
system.
Education
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
(All values in 000s)
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
$3,808,653
$4,532,761
$4,614,267
$4,643,034
University of Kansas
$716,923
$725,884
$714,345
$725,811
Kansas State University
$552,498
$591,892
$575,810
$585,236
University of Kansas Medical Center
$327,593
$346,656
$336,591
$349,017
Wichita State University
$279,384
$305,025
$291,191
$298,192
Board of Regents
$213,049
$218,405
$245,455
$248,459
Fort Hays State University
$129,776
$137,645
$150,899
$135,846
Kansas State University--ESARP
$133,378
$132,650
$131,806
$132,591
Pittsburg State University
$106,092
$111,066
$108,671
$110,161
Emporia State University
$86,759
$93,486
$87,413
$88,913
Other 5
$74,861
$83,433
$79,867
$78,655
$6,428,967
$7,278,901
$7,336,314
$7,395,916
Department of Education
Total
Benchmark Comparisons
highest in its peer group.
Fiscal Benchmarks
Among the benchmark states, federal funding comprises of about 10% the state’s K-12 expenditures, less
than half that of Arkansas and Oklahoma, yet substantially higher than other states in the peer group.
Kansas spends 26% of its total annual expenditures on
K-12 education. This is tied with Utah for the highest
percentage in its peer group. Kansas also increased its
education expenditures in fiscal year 2014 by 23%, the
FY14 K-12 Fund Source % Mix
FY14 K-12 Expenditures in $ Millions
State General Fund
Other State
Funds
Federal
Funds
Nebraska
$1,142
$303
$77
Arkansas
$2,103
$520
Oklahoma
$2,046
Iowa
State
% of State
Expenditures
State
State General
Fund
Other State
Funds
Federal Funds
Arkansas
61%
15%
24%
$816
14%
15%
Oklahoma
59%
18%
23%
$628
$817
16%
Nevada
70%
14%
16%
$2,864
$439
$67
17%
Kansas
78%
12%
10%
New
Mexico
$2,556
$414
$2
18%
Idaho
81%
14%
5%
Nevada
$1,298
$257
$291
20%
Nebraska
75%
20%
5%
Idaho
$1,327
$232
$86
24%
Iowa
85%
13%
2%
Utah
$2,654
$419
$60
26%
Utah
85%
13%
2%
Kansas
$2,963
$470
$376
26%
New
Mexico
86%
14%
0%
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 169
Kansas spends 18% of its total annual expenditures on
higher education. This ranks in the top half of its peers.
FY14 Higher Ed Expenditures in $
Millions
State
State Gen- Other State
eral Fund
Funds
Federal
Funds
% of State
Expenditures
Kansas
$762
$1,233
$542
Idaho
$323
$220
$5
18%
8%
Nevada
$484
$271
$3
8%
Utah
$803
$730
$10
13%
Arkansas
$778
$2,750
$13
16%
New
Mexico
$796
$1,442
$673
18%
Oklahoma
$989
$3,598
$510
23%
Nebraska
$690
$1,455
$332
24%
Iowa
$835
$4,122
$485
27%
Health Insurance Benchmarks
As health insurance costs continue to rise and administrative requirements on plan sponsors become more
complex, states around the country are evaluating
the opportunity to develop consolidated health plan
programs for their teacher populations. A number of
states have implemented this approach with much
success.
Nebraska - Educators Health Alliance (EHA), the largest insurance pool in the State of Nebraska, was developed over 45 years ago to provide health care for
Nebraska teachers. The group was formed in partnership with the Nebraska State Education Association
(NSEA), Nebraska Association of School Boards (NASB),
and the Nebraska Council of School Administrators
(NCSA), and is led by a 12-member board. All but three
of the school districts in Nebraska participate in this
program and the plan currently covers approximately
77,000 participants.
The EHA program consistently provides participants
with seven plan design options and competitive plan
pricing. The EHA reported that 2015 was the 13th year
in which the rate increases within the plan were less
than 10%, with the most recent rate renewal requiring
only 1.9% increase. This is much more favorable than
could be achieved for many of the districts on their
own.1
1
Educators Health Alliance. www.ehaplan.org
Oregon – Due to unsustainable increases in healthcare costs, the Oregon Educators Benefit Board (OEBB)
was created in 2008 to provide health coverage for Oregon’s school district employees. Legislation requires
all districts to participate in the OEBB program, though
Oregon has allowed for a few exceptions since inception. The program provided benefits for approximately
61,000 employees and their dependents for the 20142015 plan year. The 10-member OEBB oversees the
program, providing participating districts with nine
plan design options and allows the districts to implement their own contribution structure.2
Texas – Texas’s statewide program for education employees, TRS-ActiveCare, was established in 2002, after
years of contemplation by the Texas Legislature. Districts with fewer than 500 employees are required to
participate in the program while larger districts have
the option of participation. However, the program currently covers 90 percent of the eligible districts in Texas with a total population of approximately 460,000
including covered members and their dependents.
Despite the positive participation, the Texas Legislature is currently conducting a study to determine the
impact of the current practice that allows for districts
to opt out of the program.3
The Texas ActiveCare program provides participants
with a choice between six health plans and allows for
school districts to determine their own contribution
structure.
Washington – In 2012, the Governor of Washington
state signed The Public School Employees’ Insurance
Benefits Bill, ESSB 5940. This directed the Washington
Health Care Authority (HCA) to provide an analysis to
the Legislature regarding the K-12 health benefit programs at the districts, in order to assess the advantages/disadvantages of consolidating K-12 health benefit
programs. The HCA provided its final analysis to the
Governor and Legislature on June 1, 2015, which details the different purchasing program options and
structures. It is set to be discussed during the next
Legislature session.
2
www.oregon.gov/oha/OEBB/Pages/AboutUs.aspx
3
“Summary of 2015 TRS-Related Legislation.” www.trs.state.tx.us/info.
jsp?submenu=legislation&page_id=/about/legislative_update
170 | Department of Education
Summary
A&M has identified opportunities to improve efficiencies within local K-12 school districts, the Kansas Department of Education as well as within higher education.
The largest component of education spending in Kansas is at the K-12 level, which is determined at the local
school district level and is not within the decision making authority of the state. Therefore, A&M took the approach to focus on opportunities that align the interests of the school districts and the state but maintain
respect for local control. A&M is not making recommendations that would impact collective bargaining
(except with respect to health benefits), curriculum or
instructional methods or challenge the sanctity of local control, with one exception—health benefits.
The funding of K-12 spending is largely the responsibility of the state and the current funding formula has
been the subject of change via legislative and litigious
action and remains under review by legislature for another change. In its assessment, A&M has not evaluated the funding formula or participated in re-crafting
its components.
The recommendations were developed with an understanding of the uncertain future of the funding formula as well as the desire of K-12 districts to maintain
local control. These opportunities, for both K-12 and
higher education, consist of cost reductions resulting
from centralized procurement of materials and services. Also included are potential savings from centralized procurement of property and casualty insurance
and health benefits. The specifics of these recommendations that aggregate more than $600 million
over the next five years. To capture these savings, it is
critical to have cooperation and acceptance at the local school district level and higher education institutions, in order to implement these recommendations.
Furthermore, establishing a standardized guideline for
carrying general fund cash balances across the school
districts can release excess cash to be used more effectively. Kansas can also seek additional educational
grant and foundation opportunities to access new
funding sources.
Finally, analysis of KSDE’s organizational design suggests that it has evolved in reaction to funding chal-
lenges rather than aligned to support stated strategic
education goals. As Commissioner Watson is new to
his position, we expect that he will present a fresh strategic vision to the State Board of Education in 2016; it
would be appropriate to reconsider the organizational
design of the department to support that vision.
• Short-term opportunities – Savings opportunities
in both excess cash carryover balances and some
elements of KSDE organizational design could be
captured as early as FY 2017.
• Medium-term opportunities – Procurement and
health benefits opportunities might be captured
as early as FY 2018 but may take longer depending on local K-12 and higher education institutions acceptance.
A final note about KSDE’s organizational design: Historically, state education agencies (SEAs) have been
organized around programs or funding sources in order to maintain a focus on oversight and compliance.
Over the last decade, SEAs have become increasingly
responsible for ensuring academic performance and
necessitating that SEAs adopt an internal organizational structure that is driven by performance management. SEA’s should consider shifting focus away
from data collection and towards use of data to drive
improvement, at the school and district levels. Additionally, SEAs should strive to break down silos and
create opportunities for SEA personnel to collaborate.
KSDE may wish to consider the following guidelines if
it chooses to refocus towards a newly articulated strategic vision:
• Define the roles and responsibilities for each department within KSDE, based on the agency’s
goals and desired academic outcomes.
• Clarify the specific roles and responsibilities for
each position within each department and increase emphasis on academic support functions.
• Compare the roles and responsibilities of employees in individual departments to ensure
there is no overlap of functions.
• Develop a personnel coding system that makes
it possible to link the specific role and function of
every employee to a specific academic program
or academic outcome.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 171
Recommendations
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
$33,000 $193,000
1
Excess Cash Carryover Balances
Reduction
S-
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
2
New Grant and Foundation Opportunities
S-
$299
$299
$299
$299
$299
$1,495
3
Reorganization of KSDE IT Functions
S-
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
$2,500
4
K-12 Benefit Program Consolidation
S-
$40,000
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
5
Collaboratively Source Select Categories on a Statewide Basis
$-
$7,200
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$43,200
6
Expand participation of the K-12
Unified School Districts (USDs) in
Insurance Pool Program(s)
$75
$725
$1,375
$1,875
$2,375
$2,875
$9,300
Department of Education Total
$75
$80,000 $360,000
$88,724 $131,174 $131,674 $132,174 $125,674 $609,495
Department Of Education
Recommendation #1 – Reduce Excess
Cash Carryover Balances
The state of Kansas currently has 286 school
districts. Each school district carries a cash balance within more than 30 different funds, such as
general funds and reserve funds, to pay various
operating and capital expenses. The combined
cash balance carried within these funds has continued to increase disproportionately in relation
to the increase in annual expenditure. To reduce
excess cash carried over by school districts, the
state should establish a recommended guideline
for carrying an Adjusted Cash Balance (ACB), as
defined below, within each fund as follows:
• Minimum Adjusted Cash Balance of 10% of its annual operating expenditure
• Maximum Adjusted Cash Balance not to exceed
15% of its annual operating expenditure
• The Adjusted Cash Balance should preferably be
retained within the Reserve funds, where possible, instead of being retained across 30+ different funds
• Any Adjusted Cash Balance in excess of the maximum allowed per the state guideline, can be
deducted from future funding from state based
on a three, five, or seven year amortization of the
excess funds
Background and Findings
A&M compared the Total Cash Balance for each school
district at the beginning of the fiscal year (July 1st)
to the operating expenditure during the fiscal year
from FY2009 to FY20154. All 286 school districts were
grouped into three groups based on 2015 student enrollment to form comparison peer groups as follows:
• Group 1: Enrollment less than 1,000
• Group 2: Enrollment between 1,000–5,000
• Group 3: Enrollment greater than 5,000
4
Cash balance, student enrollment, and annual expenditure data for school districts sourced
from Kansas State Department of Education
172 | Department of Education
Additionally, the ACB carry over analysis shows (reference the following three scatter charts):
Adjusted Cash
Balance
FY15 Operating
Expenditure
Group 1
207
$190,817,929
$1,106,820,857
Group 2
59
$194,982,550
$1,231,019,503
Group 3
20
$446,428,403
$2,657,625,912
Total
286
$832,228,882
$4,995,466,272
Furthermore, A&M reduced Total Cash Balances by
cash balance retained within Federal Funds, Capital
Outlay, Gifts/Grants, and Bond & Interest Funds to focus on unencumbered funds, to yield Adjusted Cash
Balance (ACB). The chart below compares cash balance in all funds versus the cash balance for the funds
included in the analysis.
$2,000
$1,800
$1,726
$1,741
$1,721
$1,714
$1,600
$1,573
$1,505
$1,400
$1,369
Cash Balance
$ Millions
$1,200
• There is a lot of variation on the ACB maintained
by the school districts relative to their peer group
• The smaller school districts have greater variation
in ACBs
• The variation in ACB across school districts has increased progressively from 2009 to 2015
Group 1 Districts (2015)
80.0%
70.0%
Adj. Cash Balance as % of Operating Expenditure
No. of Districts
District Group
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
$1,000
-
$800
$869
$855
$862
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
4,000
5,000
6,000
Student Enrollment
$832
$756
$682
$600
Group 2 Districts (2015)
$573
$400
50.0%
$200
45.0%
$FY2010
FY2011
Total Cash Balance (All Funds)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
40.0%
Adjusted Cash Balance (Included in Analysis)
Analysis of the ACB carried over by school districts (see
chart below) indicates the total year-end ACB has increased by 45% from 2009 to 2015 while operating expenditure has only increased by 7%. Also, the ACB has
increased more significantly for Group 1 and 2 districts
by 61% compared to 34% increase for Group 3 districts.
Adj. Cash Balance as % of Operating Expenditure
FY2009
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
Student Enrollment
Group 3 Districts (2015)
40.0%
35.0%
$6,000
$1,800
$1,600
$4,685
$4,586
$4,576
$4,740
$4,810
$4,938
$4,995
$5,000
Adjusted Cash Balance
$4,000
$1,200
$1,000
$3,000
$855
$869
$862
$449
$456
$456
$202
$208
$203
$195
$205
$205
$203
$191
$832
$756
$800
$682
$600
$573
$400
$334
$402
$2,000
$446
$384
$200
$-
$121
$145
$118
$153
FY2009
FY2010
$174
$180
Group 1 Districts
Group 2 Districts
FY2012
Group 3 Districts
FY2013
FY2014
Total K-12 Oper. Expend.
FY2015
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
$1,000
0.0%
$-
FY2011
Total K-12 Operating Expenditure
$1,400
Adj. Cash Balance as % of Operating Expenditure
$2,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Student Enrollment
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 173
of reserves significantly higher than the GFOA
recommended minimum (e.g., 15% - 25%).
Given the findings from the ACB analysis, A&M reviewed the cash balance best practices recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA). According to GFOA 5:
• School districts should establish a formal policy on
the level of unrestricted fund balance that should
be maintained in the general fund as a reserve to
hedge against risk. The policy should address, at a
minimum:
»» the target level of fund balance to maintain;
»» the appropriate uses of fund balance;
»» who can authorize the use of fund balance;
»» and guidance on how fund balance will be
replenished to target levels after it has been
used.
• With respect to the target level of fund balance to
maintain, the adequacy of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund should be assessed based
upon a district’s own specific circumstances. GFOA
recommends, at a minimum, that school districts,
maintain unrestricted fund balance in their general
fund of no less than 10 percent of regular general
fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures and operating transfers out (if
applicable). The choice of revenues or expenditures
as a basis for the reserve amount may be dictated
by what is more predictable in a district’s particular
circumstances.
• In determining the right level of unrestricted fund
balance for its precise circumstances, a district
should analyze the risks that it faces and establish
reserve levels commensurate with those risks 6:
»» Minimal risk to retain through reserves: Consider a target equal to the GFOA minimum
recommended reserve of 10% of revenues/expenditures.
»» Low to moderate level of risk to retain through
reserves: Consider adopting a reserve target
somewhat higher than the GFOA minimum
(e.g. 11%-15% of revenues/expenditures).
»» Moderate to high level of risk to retain through
reserves: Consider adopting a target amount
5
Source: GFOA Best Practices in School Budgeting, www.gfoa.org
6
Source: GFOA_PK12_GFReserveCalculationWorksheet
»» High level of risk to retain through reserves:
Consider adopting a much higher target than
the GFOA minimum (e.g., greater than 25%).
A&M also referenced the fund balance data from
Moody’s Investor Service that compares median fund
balances across a large sample of local government
sub-sectors (reference chart below)7. This data indicates:
• The median fund balance for school districts
ranges between 10% - 15%
• According to Moody’s, “While the median for
school districts is notably lower than that of cities
and counties, this is consistent with our observation
that school districts need less fund balance to operate consistently given generally more predictable
revenues and expenditures.”
The following tables summarize the aggregate ACB for
districts carrying an ACB below 10%, between 10%15%, between 15%-25%, and above 25%:
Districts with Cash Balance < 10%
District Group
7/1/2014
Cash Balance Under-funded
No. of Districts Adj. Cash Bal. at Ceiling Rate Cash Reserve
Group 1
47
$19,435,832
$40,715,996
$(7,708,165)
Group 2
17
$26,081,140
$54,294,765 $(10,115,370)
Group 3
4
$16,924,818
$30,438,598
Total
68
$62,441,790 $125,449,359 $(21,191,116)
$(3,367,581)
7
“2013 US Local Government Medians Demonstrate Stability of Sector,” Moody’s Investor Service,
August 21, 2014
174 | Department of Education
result in the need to maintain higher ACBs.
Districts with Cash Balance 10% - 15%
District Group
7/1/2014
Cash Balance
No. of Districts Adj. Cash Bal. at Ceiling Rate Excess Cash
Group 1
54
$33,501,401
$40,405,602
$-
Group 2
16
$37,243,540
$46,796,247
$-
Group 3
7
$115,457,971 $146,029,123
$-
Total
77
$186,202,912 $233,230,972
$-
• Low exposure for school districts to unexpected
spikes in expenditures (e.g. from extreme events,
law suits, etc.).
• No conflicting restrictions from credit rating
agencies to maintain a target level of general reserve fund.
Critical Steps to Implement
Districts with Cash Balance 15% - 25%
District Group
7/1/2014
Cash Balance
No. of Districts Adj. Cash Bal. at Ceiling Rate Excess Cash
Group 1
68
$72,899,791
$57,224,101
$15,675,690
Group 2
19
$70,198,131
$58,061,866
$12,136,265
Group 3
5
$174,472,529 $147,140,885
$27,331,644
Total
92
$317,570,451 $262,426,853
$55,143,598
Districts with Cash Balance > 25%
District Group
7/1/2014
Cash Balance
No. of Districts Adj. Cash Bal. at Ceiling Rate Excess Cash
Group 1
38
$64,980,905
$27,677,429
$37,303,476
Group 2
7
$61,459,739
$25,500,047
$35,959,692
Group 3
4
$139,573,085
$75,035,280
$64,537,805
Total
49
$266,013,729 $128,212,756 $137,800,973
School districts with ACB below 10% are potentially
under-funded and may require intervention and remediation by the State to maintain 10% minimum ACB.
School districts with ACB between 10%-15% are at
the appropriate level and do not require any change.
The excess cash carried over by all remaining school
districts ($193 million) could be used to offset future
education funding. This ACB drawdown can be accomplished evenly over a 5-year period to allow smoother
transition for districts to the adequate level of ACB.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$33,000
Key Assumptions
• Stability of funding for the school districts by the
state during the school fiscal year would be prerequisite to local school boards accepting the targeted ACB in the 10%-15% range. High level of
uncertainty in the level and timing of funding will
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the excess cash carryover reduction recommendation include:
• Development of a comprehensive policy on the
target level of ACB that should be maintained
by the school districts including: the appropriate
uses of cash balance; who can authorize the use
of cash balance; and guidance on how cash balance will be brought back to target levels if it falls
out of range.
• Establish quarterly reporting of cash balances for
each school district.
• Establish a committee made up of representatives from KSDE and school districts to review
quarterly cash balance reports and identify quarter-to-quarter material variations and underlying
reasons for such material change. The magnitude
of “material change” should be a subject of further study.
• At the end of each school fiscal year, compare
the lowest monthly cash balance for the four reported quarters with the annual expenditure for
each district. If the cash balance exceeds the target level, calculate the excess cash carried over
by the district.
• Estimate the adjustment in funding required for
districts with excess cash. Reduce the following
years funding by 20% of the excess cash balance
upon the committee’s approval, while taking any
exceptions into consideration.
The expected time to implement the recommendation
is six to nine months but could take longer if statutory
or regulatory changes are required.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 175
Recommendation #2 – Apply for Additional Funds from Public and Private
Sources
KSDE should centralize ownership and management
of applying for grant funds. Centralizing the grants
management process will improve access to additional funds by increasing internal capacity to develop
strong grant applications. It will also likely result in the
creation of strong portfolios of grants that are organized with clear goals and outcomes for education in
Kansas. Finally, centralizing grant management will
make it easier to ensure effective, efficient and compliant grants management practices:
• Review the list of identified federal grant programs for which KSDE is eligible to apply, to determine the degree to which these opportunities
advance KSDE’s educational goals and desired
outcomes and prepare applicable application(s) .
• Apply for new federal funds expected to be available this fiscal year and pursue discretionary
grant opportunities that align with KSDE’s policy
goals. Particular attention should be given to the
US Department of Education’s priority focus areas including:
»» A new Equity and Outcomes Pilot with Title
I Funds
»» $11.7 billion for the IDEA Grants to States
»» $750 million for the Preschool Development
Grants
»» $504 million for the IDEA Grants for Infants
and Families program
»» $2.3 billion for Improving Teacher Quality
State Grants
»» $1 billion in 2016 for Teaching for Tomorrow (TFT)
»» $350 million for Excellent Educators Grants
»» $200 million for improved Educational Technology State Grants
• Develop an outreach and communications strategy to create effective working relationships with
a prioritized set of foundations within Kansas,
who may be interested in providing fiscal support to advance KSDE’s programmatic goals.
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$299
$299
$299
$299
$299
Key Assumptions
• The estimated increase in federal funding levels
is based on the identification of four example
education related grants that peer states have received that Kansas did not receive.
• The estimated value for those grants was based
on the average award received for the peer states
that received funding, which totaled $3.3 million
in average awards.
• A probability of award of 10 percent was applied
to the grants to create a net potential value.
• One of the four grants identified required the negotiation of matching funds in the award, which
was assumed to require a 50 percent match to
obtain funds.
• The value of the priority focus areas have not
been estimated, and represent potential for increased federal funding above the current estimate provided
• Anticipated federal funding opportunities will
materialize.
• KSDE will have the resources necessary to prepare and submit high quality grant applications
that clearly express Kansas’ goals and desired
outcomes for public education.
• KSDE’s goals and objectives can be articulated in
such a way that policy goals can be easily aligned
with foundations’ interest areas.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the recommendation include:
• Develop a consolidated statement of KSDE’s education policy goals.
• Develop a strategy for using federal education
programs to advance KSDE’s strategic goals and
objectives.
• Align KSDE’s education policy and outcome goals
176 | Department of Education
with the goals of federal grant programs and interest areas among foundations with a focus on
public education.
• Identify qualified grant writers.
• Host a workshop with key grants management
personnel to discuss best practices and approaches utilized in other states. Maryland and
Minnesota have reorganized and centralized
grants management in recent years using this
type of workshop approach.
trict staff and partner users across more than 100
web-based applications.
• Descriptions of the roles and responsibilities for
different departments within the KSDE include
similar functions related to data collection and
reporting.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
Recommendation #3 – Pursue Cost Sav- Key Assumptions
ings Opportunities through Centraliza- • The custom-developed IT applications can be
combined or integrated so that all required data
tion and Shared Services Agreements
collection activities take place.
Centralizing IT functions can improve standardization,
improve internal communication, facilitate best practice sharing, and reduce duplication of effort. Development and implementation of a support system for
centralized IT personnel can help ensure that agencies
are able to access timely technical support. Coordinating similar functions across state agencies can also reduce duplication of effort and improve the quality and
efficiency of service provided to constituents. In addition, it can facilitate the creation of policies, programs
and guidelines that integrate the perspectives of both
agencies.
• Shift a portion of the IT positions currently housed
within the KSDE to a centralized IT Division.
• Identify additional opportunities where costs for
FTEs that focus on data collection can be shared
across state agencies.
Background and Findings
• The IT Department represents nearly 25% of KSDE’s personnel costs.
• Many of these positions are “split-funded” across
state and federal sources. Redeployment of resources should be done to maximize utility of
non-state funded sources.
• The KSDE IT staff created a series of customized
applications to collect program data and comply
with federal reporting requirements.
• KSDE IT staff supports internal KSDE employees
and approximately 40,000 external school dis-
Critical Steps to Implement
• Conduct in-depth analysis of the IT Department
functions as well as the roles and responsibilities
of each IT staff member and the applications they
manage.
• Explore alternative staffing models drawing on
practices used by other states.
• Explore alternative data collection applications
to consolidate the current data collection processes.
Recommendation #4 – K-12 Benefit
Program Consolidation
• Currently, K-12 school districts have the opportunity to participate in the State Employee Health
Plan (SEHP), though few of the 286 districts are
participating because of the current state contribution structure.
• Due to the current purchasing and administration structure, there is significant opportunity for
cost savings and efficiency through the development of a consolidated health insurance plan for
K-12 district employees and their dependents.
This consolidated program will provide greater
plan choice offerings and improved contribution structure for members, while reducing the
administrative cost and burden of providing
healthcare across the districts. The State Employ-
ee Health Plan currently covers approximately
44,000 members and their dependents. The K-12
employee base is significantly larger, with approximately 69,000 full-time employees.
• Statewide Health Program for K-12 School Districts – The State should consolidate the health
plans offered by K-12 school districts to reduce
costs, increase administrative efficiencies, and
standardize offerings to attract and retain Kansas State teachers. This program will offer participants a choice between multiple health plans
ranging in benefit levels. To achieve the greatest
savings, the consolidated program would leverage the current State Employee Health Plan contracts and organizational structure. Assuming
the districts’ current contribution structure, the
districts can save an estimated 20%-25% of total health care spend. Assuming the plan begins
January 1, 2017, savings for the last six months of
FY 2017 are estimated at $40 million.
Background and Findings
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 177
tions remain in separate risk pools, with health
plans and benefit levels reflecting the covered
group.
• Based on the premium information provided by
the sample size of approximately 15,500 employees, total district healthcare spending is estimated to be $300 million - $350 million annually.
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$40,000
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
Key Assumptions
• The sample census size appropriately reflects the
current population of K-12 full-time employees.
• The information collected from the sample districts is representative of current plan costs, designs and contribution structures.
• The K-12 school districts have the opportunity
to participate in the State Employee Health Plan,
though a relatively small number of districts currently participate.
• Estimates are determined assuming each district
continues with their current contribution structure. However, it is recommended the final program have a consistent contribution structure
across all districts.
• A strong deterrent from participating in the SEHP
is that the employer contribution requirements
do not align with the current contribution structure in many of the districts. Typically, the districts pay a significant portion for the employee
only coverage, but little for any dependents.
• All K-12 school districts are required to participate in the consolidated health program. Unless
local control on health insurance choice is legislatively abated, the capture of the estimated savings will vary significantly if local school districts
choose not to participate.
• Although a few districts participate in health trust
programs or associations, the school districts are
generally sourcing and managing health care individually—a very expensive and inefficient approach.
• Cost savings will be achieved by spreading the
health risk across the entire K-12 population.
• Many small districts are facing unsustainable,
large increases in cost each year.
• The SEHP would require 10-15 additional staff
members to administer the K-12 program, which
would be a cost of approximately $500,000 to
$750,000 per year.
• Based on the sample of collected data, most districts provide a choice of one to three plans for
employees.
• Based on the sample census files provided by
the K-12 districts, the active population has an
average age of 44 and is 77% female, while the
SEHP has an average age of 46 and is 52% female.
Therefore, it is recommended the two popula-
• The K-12 program can leverage all current SEHP
relationships.
• Fees for actuarial assistance with the program
design and implementation are estimated at approximately $500,000, annually.
Critical Steps to Implement
The estimated savings provided is based on broad,
conservative assumptions of the overall risk pool, cur-
178 | Department of Education
rent plan options and costs at the districts, indicating
that there is opportunity for savings through a consolidated program. In order to develop refined cost and
savings figures, the State must take a number of critical steps, including:
• Establish a project management team and healthcare committee (similar to SEHP) for detailed assessment of 286 districts in order to determine
actual recommended program with actual premiums for consolidated program.
• Expand current actuarial services contract scope
to conduct the assessment or issue a RFP for new
actuarial service provider for the detailed assessment of all 286 district programs.
• Collect complete health plan information from
each district including:
»» Detailed census data for all K-12 employees
and retirees
»» Current plan detail and plan design
»» Current and historical cost/contribution
»» Historical claims
»» Benefit eligibility and district administrative
structure
• Provide analysis for potential program designs
and cost impacts addressing plan options including, but not limited to:
»» Number of plan options and specific plan
designs
»» Cost and contribution structure
»»
Administrative structure (i.e district opt-in/
opt-out)
• Gain key stakeholder consensus and support to
encourage local district participation in this new
approach. Key stakeholders include: Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB), Kansas National
Education Association (KNEA), Kansas School Superintendents Association (KSSA), and the United
School Administrators of Kansas. This could be
achieved through participation in the proposed
healthcare committee.
• Establish health plan with current SEHP third
party administrator—Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Kansas.
• Increase SEHP staff by 10-15 employees to administer the K-12 program.
Assuming district participation, it is anticipated K-12
consolidation of health benefits can be completed for
a January 1, 2017 effective date. The implementation
will take significant time and manpower. In the event
the program does not utilize the current SEHP actuary or third party administrator and an RFP is needed,
the effective date of the program may be delayed. The
recommendation would require a change in statute
that would require all districts to purchase health insurance through the newly founded program.
Recommendation #5 – Collaboratively
Source Select Categories on a Statewide Basis
• The school districts should join the Department
of Administration (DOA) and strategically source
specific spend categories to drive greater cost
savings for the school districts.
Background and Findings
School districts execute their procurement activities
in a decentralized manner and independent of the
state’s Procurement and Contracts group. At their discretion, each school district can utilize state contracts
negotiated by the Procurement and Contracts group,
utilize cooperative agreements or negotiate contracts
individually. This level of autonomy makes it difficult
for the school districts to truly leverage their collective volumes fully with each other and the state, since
contracting phases are not synchronized, spend data
is not consolidated or analyzed and requirements are
not standardized.
Despite these challenges, there are some categories of
spend that are still suitable for collective sourcing with
the state. A&M analyzed FY15 expenditure data from
seven school districts (Blue Valley, Kansas City Kansas, Lawrence, Olathe, Shawnee Mission, Topeka and
Wichita). This expenditure data represents approximately $443 million or 30% of the overall addressable
school district spend. The evaluation identified seven
categories that should be included in the first three
waves of a statewide strategic sourcing event outlined
in Procurement Recommendation #1. In these cases,
either the school districts are utilizing the state’s con-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 179
tract or they are using some of the same suppliers that
the state agencies and universities currently utilize.
The sourcing of these categories collaboratively with
the Procurement and Contracts group could yield between $9 million - $23 million (includes federal and
state funds) in additional annual savings to school districts.
Recommendation #5 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$7,200
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
Key Assumptions
• The projected savings are dependent on combining the school district and state spend in the
strategic sourcing event outlined in Procurement
Recommendation #1.
• The procurement categories A&M recommends
for sourcing are as follows:
»» Maintenance, Repair & Operations
»» IT Equipment
»» IT Services
»» Food
»» Electricity (see Procurement Recommendation #9)
»» IT Software
»» Fuel
• The Procurement and Contracts group will lead
the strategic sourcing exercise.
• Key stakeholders representing the school districts will be available to provide information and
input as required.
• School districts can terminate existing contracts
for the target categories without penalty.
• The savings associated with some categories are
dependent on the state implementing procurement efficiency recommendations.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Identify and assign key stakeholders to assist with
the sourcing event.
• Finalize the target categories for the strategic
sourcing event.
• Execute strategic sourcing process steps with
DOA category management teams.
• Local districts must be willing to collaborate and
participate with this process in order to capture
the proposed savings.
Recommendation #6 – Expand participation of the K-12 Unified School
Districts (USDs) in Insurance Pool
Program(s)
Specifically, the Department of Education (KSDE)
should:
• Increase participation of K-12 Unified School Districts (USDs) in an existing group-purchased P&C
"pool" insurance program, designed for school
districts such as the currently established Kansas Education Risk Management Insurance Pool
(KERMIP) program administered by Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services Inc. (AJG), or
alternatively form new pool(s).
• Form a separate pool (“Large USD” pool program)
for six of the ten largest districts that have unique
risk profiles and fall outside the parameters of
a pool program designed for small to mid-size
USDs.
Background and Findings
• The purpose of a pool program is to share risk,
leverage purchasing power, and maximize insurance coverage terms for Kansas USDs.
• From inquiries to a representative 24 USDs and
to the KERMIP program administrator, AJG found
that only 10 of the total 286 Kansas USDs currently participate in a pool program. The first pool
program was approved in Kansas only about a
year ago, affording significant opportunity for
participation expansion.
• Ten USDs are estimated as eligible for a separate
“Large USD” pool program.
• A benchmarking interview was conducted with
pool program administrator and industry expert,
Arthur J. Gallagher, Risk Management Services
Inc. (AJGRMS) to evaluate the potential savings
to be achieved by K-12 USD pool program participation. Currently, ten K-12 USDs participate
180 | Department of Education
in the Kansas Educational Risk Management Insurance Pool (KERMIP) program administered by
AJGRMS. This program is non-assessable—meaning the pool program cannot assess additional
cost to its members in the event of adverse loss
experience. Furthermore, there is a potential for
surplus to be returned to members at the end of
the year if the program’s success continues. USDs
entering the program, received increased property and liability insurance coverage limits, while
decreasing their annual premium amounts. Of
the 10 USDs that are currently KERMIP members,
premium savings ranging from 15.47% to 49.53%
were achieved by moving from their traditional
property/casualty insurance programs to the
pool program. The average premium savings for
these 10 USDs was 25.85%.
Premium Cost
USD
Savings
by Pool Participation
District 1
-36%
District 2
-28%
District 3
-27%
District 4
-50%
District 5
-32%
District 6
-23%
District 7
-20%
District 8
-18%
District 9
-15%
District 10
-43%
Average
-26%
(excludes 10 largest districts) 8
• A separate pool program is recommended for
the 10 largest USDs due to their unique risk exposures and coverage terms that fall outside the
parameters of a pool program designed for small
to mid-size USDs. Based on its industry expertise, AJGRMS estimated that Large USDs could
achieve average premium savings of 10% by participation in a pool program.
8
Kansas Educational Risk Management Insurance
Pool (KERMIP) Property/Casualty District Savings - program administered by Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc.
Recommendation #6 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$75
$725
$1,375
$1,875
$2,375
$2,875
Key Assumptions
• KSDE and Attorney General approval of KERMIP
pool program expansion (anticipated by January
2016), allowing time for communication to USDs,
gathering of underwriting data, and enrollment
of the estimated number of USDs for FY16.
• Of the 286 USDs eligible for pool participation
(excluding the 10 largest USDs for which a separate pool program is recommended), ultimate total participation in a pool program is estimated at
about half, or 132-140 USDs, with the expectation
that participation will be phased in from FY16 initial implementation through to FY21.
• FY16 pool participation is estimated at 15 USDs,
in addition to the 10 already in the existing KERMIP program.
• Estimated 25 USDs will become pool members
during each of the next five years.
• Total participation in the recommended separate
”Large USD” pool program is estimated at six of
the ten largest USDs, phased in over three years.
• Premium cost savings for each pool participant
is conservatively estimated at 20% (or $20,000
annually) of an average annual $100,000 P&C
premium for the majority of USDs; and 10% of
an average annual $500,000 P&C premium for
each of the 10 largest USDs, based on the current
USD pool participation savings identified in the
benchmarking section below.
• A pool program should be "non-assessable" or
include aggregate stop loss protection to avoid
the potential for additional assessments being
charged to members in the event of adverse pool
loss experience.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of recommendation #6 include:
• KSDE and Attorney General approval of existing
insurance pool program participation by January
2016.
• Recommended new Office Risk Management (to
be established established in fourth quarter FY16)
works with USDs and pool market(s) to coordinate and facilitate an efficient communication,
underwriting, and program enrollment process.
• New pool program for the largest 10 USDs is created and enrollment commences in FY17.
• Local districts must be willing to collaborate and
participate with this process in order to capture
the proposed savings.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 181
182 | Medicaid and Health Services
Medicaid
and Health Services
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the insight, time and information provided by many people within the
Department of Health and Environment and Department for Aging and Disability Services. A&M is appreciative of the
time and effort that many took out of their schedules to meet with us and who provided the Medicaid and healthcare
team with information and reports, especially:
•
JerrSusan Mosier, MD, Secretary - KDHE
•
Kari Bruffett, Secretary - KDADS
•
Mike Randol, Director - Division of Health Care Finance - KDHE
•
Aaron Dunkel, Deputy Secretary Policy & Budget - KDHE
•
Brad Ridley, Commissioner - KDADS
•
Amy Penrod, Director of Finance and Budget - KDADS
Agency Overview
•
Rachel Sisson, Director of Family Health KDHE
•
Keith Bradshaw, Director - Fiscal and Asset
Management
•
Ben Cleeves, Budget/Fiscal Officer
and injury.
• Division of Environment:
Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE)
KDHE has three primary divisions: Public Health, Environment and Health Care Finance.
• Division of Public Health:
»» This division’s primary mission is to promote
healthy outcomes, provide a variety of community health services, and prevent disease
»» This division is responsible for the protection of the state’s public health and environment.
• Division of Health Care Finance:
»» This division is responsible for developing
and maintaining a coordinated health policy agenda that combines effective purchasing and administration of health care, with
health promotion oriented public health
strategies. This Division oversees the state’s
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 183
Medicaid program, the Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the State Employee
Health Plan (SEHP) and the State Self-Insurance Fund (SSIF) workers’ compensation
program.
• Department for Aging and Disability Services
(KDADS)
»» The mission of Kansas Department for Aging
and Disability Services (KDADS) is to foster
an environment that promotes security, dignity, and independence for all Kansans.
The combined agencies oversee KanCare—KDHE provides financial management and contract oversight
and KDADS administers the Medicaid waiver programs
for disability services, mental health and substance
abuse. Moreover, KDADS operates the state hospitals
and state institutions.
Due to the joint involvement and oversight of KanCare
and the state’s Medicaid program, this chapter reflects
the recommendations for both agencies.
Previous Efficiency Initiatives
Both agencies have undertaken various initiatives to
streamline operations, reduce operating costs and
slow down the rising cost of Medicaid, while also ensuring quality of care is provided to all Kansans in need
of services. Recent heath care initiatives include:
• Partnering with the Department for Children and
Families (KDCF) for the implementation of the
Kansas Eligibility Enforcement System (KEES),
which will simplify eligibility enrollment and improve the state’s Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM).
• Review of KDHE’s organizational structure and resource needs, to effectively administer Medicaid
in a managed care environment. KDHE contracted with Navigant Consulting in August 2015 to
conduct an operational review, in order to identify potential areas of coordination and intersec-
tion in the administration of KanCare. The results
are expected in early 2016.
• Encouraged process review through Continuous
Quality Improvement projects at all levels of the
agency.
• KDHE is currently in discussions with the state’s
three Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) to reduce drug costs by utilizing and leveraging their
respective national contracts for pharmacy, Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and dialysis.
• Implementing a plan to support the development of transitional housing options and other
community supports for individuals coming out
of the state hospitals.
• KDHE has a number of 1915(c) waiver programs
(ex: developmentally disabled, physically aged,
etc.) operating under Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS). For each specific waiver program, there are specific services that waiver
participants are entitled to. KDHE is seeking to
merge all possible waiver services for any participant based on their needs thereby increasing
more home based and community based services, with the goal of improving care and lowering
administrative costs associated with tracking and
reporting of each waiver.
In addition to the health care initiatives, the Division
of Environment of KDHE has also undertaken other
efficiency measures including, i) privatization of underground storage tanks, ii) reorganization of district
offices, iii) contracting of environmental lab services,
iv) outsourcing of the surface mining section, and v)
eliminating the waste tire grant program.
Baseline Budget
Outlined below: A summary of the 2014 actuals and
budget for 2015 - 2017 as published in the Governor’s
budget submission dated January 15, 2015.
Agency
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2016
FY 2017
(values in 000’s)
Actual
Gov. Estimate
Base Budget
Gov. Rec.
Gov. Rec.
KDADS
$1,399,068
$1,544,626
$1,477,313
$1,573,351
$1,578,155
KDHE – Health Only
$2,183,862
$2,378,713
$2,325,074
$2,493,414
$2,455,931
Total:
$3,582,930
$3,923,339
$3,802,387
$4,066,765
$4,034,086
184 | Medicaid and Health Services
Benchmark Comparisons
the nation, which is costing taxpayers hundreds
of millions of dollars. The implementation of the
Kansas Eligibility Enforcement System (KEES) and
scheduled transfer of KDCF responsibility of eligibility determination to KDHE effective January
1, 2016, are expected to reduce the PERM rate.
A&M recommends implementing stronger policies and procedures, and investing in training
For 2012 and 2013 (the most recent data available),
Kansas’ average expenditure per enrollee is on par
with its peer group and national averages. While the
effectiveness of each state’s program extends beyond
average enrollee expenditures and includes other factors such as health outcomes, eligibility requirements
and program structure, it is a proxy for comparison.
2012
Medicaid
Only ExpenDec. 2012
ditures
Enrollment
(values in millions)
Avg. Expenditure /
Enrollee
2013
Medicaid
Only Expendi- Dec. 2013
tures (values Enrollment
in millions)
Avg. Expenditure /
Enrollee
Kansas
$2,633
$343,200
$7,672
Kansas
$2,545
$350,300
$7,265
Missouri
$8,621
$805,600
$10,701
Missouri
$8,863
$775,700
$11,426
Nebraska
$1,676
$207,900
$8,062
Nebraska
$1,790
$201,200
$8,897
Iowa
$3,400
$463,200
$7,340
Iowa
$3,623
$461,800
$7,845
Oklahoma
$4,400
$668,900
$6,578
Oklahoma
$4,482
$679,700
$6,594
Utah
$1,871
$282,000
$6,634
Utah
$2,087
$283,400
$7,365
Arkansas
$4,100
$548,100
$7,480
Arkansas
$4,156
$553,900
$7,503
Nevada
$1,731
$305,700
$5,661
Nevada
$1,797
$331,300
$5,425
$3,281
$501,100
$6,547
New Mexico
$3,420
$510,200
$6,704
New Mexico
Idaho
$1,421
$228,800
$6,208
Idaho
$1,642
$234,600
$6,999
Peer Group
Average
$3,404
$446,711
$7,621
Peer Group
Average
$3,525
$446,967
$7,885
Peer Group
Median
$3,400
$463,200
$7,340
Peer Group
Median
$3,281
$461,800
$7,104
$433,100
$55,413,000
$7,816
National
Sources: Total Expenditure - CMS 64 Reports - Medicaid only,
Summary
Building on the positive momentum, initiated by the
leaderships of KDHE and KDADS, A&M took additional
steps in identifying operational improvements that
will benefit the agencies in the short and long-term.
Our work included meetings and discussions with
agency officials, review of internal documents, procedures and policies, and public documents approved
by CMS, Kansas and other states. Based on our review
and analyses, A&M recommends the following additional measures to improve the operational effectiveness and efficiency of how Medicaid and healthcare
are delivered throughout the state:
1. Reduction of the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) – Leadership of both agencies has
recognized that it has the highest PERM rate in
and tighter controls that will provide further improvements thereby reducing the PERM rate (to
be more in line with the national average), which
will provide significant savings to taxpayers.
2. Increased Oversight of Managed Care Organizations’ (MCOs) Program Integrity Units – A&M recommends the state implement tighter oversight
and control of the MCOs to improve the overall
effectiveness of their program integrity units. The
aim would focus on increasing recovery rates that
are more in line with its peer group and national
average and reducing Medicaid fraud, waste and
abuse.
3. Expansion of Federal Grants – A&M identified six
federal grants that KDHE and KDADS currently
do not participate in, that could potentially be
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 185
available to the state.
4. Reduction of CDDO Facilities – Based on recent
audit findings and projected census changes—
the general shift to larger populated cities and
counties—A&M recommends the state consider
eliminating seven Community Developmental
Disability Organizations thereby reducing administration costs.
5. Review opportunities to implement Healthy Birth
Outcome Initiatives – Through partnerships with
state health care providers, A&M recommends
the state implement healthy birth outcome initiatives, to improve women and child health care
outcomes and manage costs.
6. Centralize all Medicaid Support Functions within
KDHE – A&M recommends that state officials consider consolidating all Medicaid support services
with Health Care Finance, thereby improving
overall operating efficiency, and potentially reducing administrative costs.
Recommendations – state general fund savings / revenue
federal agencies to annually review programs they administer, and identify those that may be susceptible to
significant improper payments. They are expected to
then estimate the amount of improper payments, to
submit those estimates to Congress as well as a report
on actions the agency is taking to reduce the improper payments. The Federal Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has identified Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as programs at
risk for significant improper payments. As a result, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM)
program to comply with the IPIA and related guidance
issued by OMB.
The PERM program measures improper payments in
Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program
(CHIP) and produces error rates for each program. The
error rates are based on reviews of the Fee-For-Service (FFS), managed care, and eligibility components
of Medicaid and CHIP in the fiscal year under review.
CMS conducts PERM reviews in 3-year cycles consisting of 17 states (including the District of Columbia)
in each cycle. In the most recent 2012 review, Kansas’
PERM error rates were the highest in the country with
an overall error rate of 17.8 percent, which was 5.8
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2014 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
$-
$34,084
$34,084
$34,084
$34,084
$136,336
1
Reduction of PERM Rate
2
Increase Oversight of MCO
Program Integrity Units
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$20,000
3
Expansion of Federal Grants
$1,462
$1,462
$1,181
$1,091
$1,091
$6,287
4
Reduction of CDDO facilities
$1,011
$1,011
$1,011
$1,011
$1,011
$5,055
5
Implement Healthy Birth Outcome Initiatives
$2,052
$3,408
$4,748
$6,056
$6,521
$22,785
6
Centralize all Medicaid Support Functions within KDHE
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$8,525
$43,965
$45,024
$46,242
KDHE & KDADS Totals
Recommendation #1 – The agencies
should institute broad operational improvements to lower the state’s Medicaid eligibility error rate
The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002
(amended in 2010 by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act or IPERA) requires the heads of
$46,707 $190,463
percentage points, or 48 percent, higher than the next
highest state. Moreover, Kansas’ eligibility error rate of
12.8 percent was nearly four times the national average eligibility error rate of 3.3 percent. An eligibility error occurs when a potential beneficiary is not eligible
for the program or for a specific service and a payment
for the service, or a capitation payment covering the
date of the service, has been made.
186 | Medicaid and Health Services
The state’s 2012 error rates deteriorated when compared to the 2009 PERM report, which cited an overall error rate of 10.35 percent and an eligibility error
rate of 9.59 percent. At that time, the national overall
and eligibility averages were 8.98 percent and 7.60
percent, respectively, indicating a wider divide and
worsening between the state’s performance and the
national average.
The Governor and KDHE have recently taken several
important steps to improve the error rate especially
with respect to eligibility. The Governor issued Executive Reorganization Order (ERO) No. 43, which transfers oversight responsibility of Medicaid eligibility
from KDCF to KDHE effective January 1, 2016. The ERO,
when combined with KDHE’s implementation of the
Kansas Eligibility and Enforcement System (KEES), is
expected to reduce eligibility error rates and the overall PERM error rate by 2 percent in FY17. The 2 percent
reduction is budgeted to reduce KanCare costs by $59
million (based on 2 percent of total Medicaid spend of
$2.95B), including $26 million from the State General
Fund in FY17.
Kansas’ 2012 17.8% overall error rate by category as
measured by CMS follows:
Fee-For-Service: 7.7%
Managed Care: 0.0%
Eligibility: 12.8%
As Kansas has migrated to a managed care delivery
model, the eligibility error rate is the most concerning, since the managed care entities are potentially
being paid a monthly capitation rate for beneficiaries
that may not be eligible for Medicaid benefits. A&M’s
review of the 2012 PERM report found that of the 112
findings that resulted in payment errors (from a sample size of 972 active cases) the majority (73) involved
potential resources—Veteran Administration (VA)
benefits, income errors, application processing, excess
resources, program specific and general eligibility errors. While all eligibility errors could potentially result
in Medicaid waste that is funded by taxpayers, A&M
considers application errors to be clerical processing
mistakes that still would have resulted in a beneficiary
being eligible for Medicaid benefits. After accounting
for the application errors, the eligibility error rate was
reduced by a third to 8.3%—still significantly above
the national average.
It is KDHE’s position, that the VA benefit errors would
have still resulted in applicants being eligible for Medicaid. However, CMS specifically cited that “the agency
failed to require elderly and disabled applicants to apply for potential Veteran Administration (VA) benefits
as required by KEESM 2124-2124.2. This requirement
is a condition of eligibility in Kansas.” It is uncertain
whether potential applicants would have been eligible for Medicaid if VA benefits were considered, but
absent a detailed file review, KDHE’s position, while
considered, is not incorporated in our analysis. Moreover, as Medicaid is a payer of last resort, even if the
applicants were still eligible for Medicaid, certain VA
benefits would be applied towards medical care prior
to Medicaid. It is therefore incumbent upon the state
that under the current MCO structure, that the MCOs
aggressively pursue any potential VA benefits available to these enrollees.
While the 2.0 percent 2017 budgeted decrease in the
eligibility error rate will be beneficial to the state, it will
still result in Kansas’ adjusted (8.3% - 2.0%) eligibility
error rate being more than three percentage points
higher than the national average. Through more aggressive actions and commitment to driving down eligibility errors, the state can reduce the error rate by an
additional three percent beginning in FY18. Reducing
the eligibility error rate by three additional percentage
points (from 6.3 to 3.3 percent)—which is in line with
the national average—will result in approximately
$33.3 million in savings per year to the State General
Fund. Although the ERO and KEES initiatives will provide critical benefits to improve eligibility management, we recommend that the state consider taking
the following additional measures to improve eligibility accuracy:
• The state currently outsources certain eligibility
functions to PSI/Maximus who’s performance exceeds that of the state, based on the 2012 PERM
report. In order to improve controls associated
with payment error rates, consideration should
be given to outsourcing all eligibility responsibilities to a third-party vendor whose portion of
compensation is directly linked to improving the
PERM eligibility error rate.
• If the state elects not to outsource the eligibility
function, the state should review opportunities
to implement the following:
»» Maximize the use of state and federal databases to obtain eligibility verification with-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 187
out client contact.
»» Review and potentially enhance existing
workflows, case workloads and procedures
to increase edibility verification accuracy.
»» Review practices from other states with low
eligibility PERM rates, obtain best practices
and implement in Kansas.
»» Increase the state’s investment in training
to ensure accurate and timely completion of
eligibility forms.
»» Consider establishing career ladders for eligibility personnel, managers and examiners
based on performance.
»» Establish standardized performance protocols and internal controls for managers and
train managers to establish and use operating metrics to measure performance.
»» Exam communication mechanisms between
supervisors and staff to improve frequency
and clarity of communication.
»» Implement a standard supervisory control
for supervisory review of eligibility files prior
to approval.
»» Leverage existing agency or state audit
departments to conduct timely reviews of
eligibility files, records, policies and procedures.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$0
$34,084
$34,084
$34,084
$34,084
Recommendation #2 – Improved oversight and training of the MCO program
integrity (PI) units will increase fraud,
waste and abuse recoveries
According to the U.S. Government Accountability
Office, in federal fiscal year 2014, CMS reported an
estimated improper payment rate of 6.7 percent or
$17.5 billion of the federal government’s total Medicaid spend. As Medicaid spending at the state level is
partially funded by the federal government, Section
1936(d) of the Social Security Act directs the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to establish a comprehensive plan for ensuring the integrity of the Medicaid program by combatting Fraud, Waste and Abuse
(FW&A). All states are therefore required to maintain a
PI function and federal regulations further require that
managed care organizations (MCOs) have similar administrative and management arrangements and procedures that are designed to safeguard against FW&A.
Moreover, traditional PI efforts emphasized a “pay and
chase” model that required states to recover overpayments after the fact. Operational experience shows
that collecting funds that are incorrectly paid to providers is very difficult to recover. Further, with managed care approaches like KanCare, the state has little
or no relationship with the MCO provider network, further exacerbating PI efforts at the state level. CMS and
states have begun migrating to a PI model that emphasizes keeping unscrupulous providers out of Medicaid through the use of risk-based provider screening,
periodic revalidation of provider enrollment and temporary suspension of payments before FW&A occurs.
Moreover, PI efforts are increasingly relying on “cost
avoidance” techniques through the use of sophisticated data analysis models and software applications to
minimize FW&A.
In Kansas, the contracted MCOs are required to submit
quarterly reports on their FW&A efforts and attest to
the accuracy and completeness of the reports. Based
on a summary provided by KDHE personnel, the three
MCOs reported total FW&A recoveries of $0.2 million
and $1.7 million for FY14 and FY15, respectively. In
addition, the MCOs reported total costs avoided from
their prepayment review efforts (excluding Medicare
and third-party liability) of $1.2 million and $1.0 million for FY14 and FY15, respectively. For the two years
prior to the implementation of KanCare (2011 and
2012), KDHE’s Surveillance and Utilization Review
(SUR) unit within PI averaged $2.9 million per year in
FW&A recoveries.
To encourage the MCOs to improve overall recoveries,
A&M recommends that KDHE take the following measures to improve its oversight and effectiveness of the
MCO PI units:
• Develop reports with standardized Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure the effectiveness of the PI units.
• Perform periodic audits and reviews of the MCOs
to ensure compliance with state and federal
guidelines and the overall effectiveness of the PI
units.
188 | Medicaid and Health Services
2012
Total Expenditures PI Collections % Collected
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
Kansas
$2,667
$34
1%
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Missouri
$8,727
$106
1%
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
Nebraska
$1,722
$46
3%
Iowa
$3,478
$78
2%
Oklahoma
$4,644
$244
5%
Utah
$1,903
$33
2%
Arkansas
$4,155
$55
1%
Nevada
$1,739
$8
0%
New Mexico
$3,430
$10
0%
Idaho
$1,452
$31
2%
Peer Group
Average
$3,472
$68
2%
Peer Group
Median
$3,430
$46
1%
$416,898
$8,048
2%
National
2013
Total Expenditures PI Collections % Collected
Kansas
$2,578
$33
1%
Missouri
$8,951
$88
1%
Nebraska
$1,834
$43
2%
Iowa
$3,709
$86
2%
Oklahoma
$4,796
$314
7%
Utah
$2,130
$43
2%
Arkansas
$4,207
$50
1%
Nevada
$1,823
$26
1%
New Mexico
$3,295
$14
0%
Idaho
$1,672
$30
2%
Peer Group
Average
$3,602
$77
2%
Peer Group
Median
$3,295
$43
1%
$440,213
$7,103
2%
National
• Establish uniform measurements across all three
MCOs to quantify cost avoidance prepayment
efforts. One potential measure is reviewing provider claim submissions six months prior to the
MCOs putting providers on prepay review and
claim submissions one year after prepay review.
The difference, if any, would be considered cost
avoidance savings, that would be reported to the
state.
• Review the effectiveness of MCO data analytic
technologies and techniques for identifying and
mitigating improper claim payments.
• Require that the MCOs properly document fraud
recoveries in future rate setting determinations
to ensure that the state is properly credited for
such recoveries by the MCOs.
• Increase training of KDHE personnel in state-ofthe-art FW&A techniques and encourage active
participation in the National Association for Medicaid Program Integrity annual conference to obtain FW&A best practices of other states.
Benchmarking Comparison
A&M reviewed PI collection efforts of comparable
states and overall national efforts for FY12 and FY13
(the most recent public information available). The
collections outlined below, represent a broader swath
of recoveries and includes third-party liability recoveries from insurance carriers and Medicare A&B in addition to FW&A.
Based on our review, Kansas is lower than the peer
group average, peer group median and overall national collection rates. While the percentage point
differential is not material, when applied to total expenditures, the benefit to the state in dollar terms is
significant. Each additional 10 basis point (0.1 percent)
improvement in the collection rate, would result in
approximately $2.95 million in additional recoveries, which gets shared between the state and federal
government—assuming total Medicaid expenditures
of $2.95 billion per year. Increasing total collections to
the overall national average of 1.61 percent, the KanCare and State General Fund benefit would be in excess of $9 million and $4 million per year, respectively.
In addition, as Oklahoma has achieved significantly
higher recovery rates than the peer group in 2012 and
2013, the state should consult with Oklahoma officials
to gain an understanding of the practices the state
employs to achieve such high collection rates.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 189
Other Considerations for Oversight of MCOs
risk sharing purposes only. While the MLR helps
ensure that appropriate measures are enforced
for its MCO risk corridors, it does not impact excess profits that an MCO may make. CMS proposed to include a minimum MLR of 85 percent
in its proposed rules. Kansas should amend its
contracts to impose a minimum MLR. Doing so
would ensure that the Kansas MCOs continue to
provide appropriate services, and quality performance activities, at a level (85 percent) commensurate with what they are being paid. If an MCO
furnishes less than 85 percent of its payments for
services to its enrollees, the MCO would pay back
to the state and federal governments the difference between what it expended for services and
quality activities and the 85 percent level (based
Based on A&M’s review of the MCO contracts and discussions with KDHE personnel, A&M recommends the
state consider amending the existing contracts and/or
implementing the following oversight measures that
will derive additional benefits to the state:
• Program Integrity Recoveries – As outlined in
the above table, Kansas recovered $33.5 million
in PI collections in FY13. The contracts with the
MCOs stipulate that the MCO retains any recoveries, but adjusts the subsequent years’ capitation
rates based on the amounts collected. Kansas
should consider amending its MCO contracts so
that it has immediate access to the funds when
received. Based on our review of other state MCO
agreements, Tennessee has such a provision in its
MCO contract.
• State Audits of MCOs – In June 2015, citing
states’ increased use of MCOs—CMS proposed
that states audit their MCOs at least every three
years. Based on A&M’s discussions with Medicaid personnel, Kansas currently does not audit its
MCOs. A&M recommends that Kansas audit the
MCOs on a three-year rotating basis resulting in
one MCO being audited every year. Such audits
will ensure compliance of contract requirements,
federal and state statutes, and accuracy and completeness of the encounter and financial data
submitted to the state.
• Minimum Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) – Kansas’ current contract with the MCOs does not impose a
minimum MLR. Instead, Kansas uses an MLR for
CFDA Code
on its Medicaid premiums).
Recommendation #3 – The state should
pursue additional Medicaid and healthcare Federal grant funding that it could
be eligible for
The United States Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) is the largest grant-making agency in
the nation, with most grants being provided to states,
territories, and education and community organizations. Both KDHE and KDADS oversee various federal
grants that enhance the services that are provided to
Kansans. All federal grants are listed with the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), which contains financial and nonfinancial assistance programs
Program Title
# of Benchmark
States Receiving
Grant
Avg Grant
Awarded
Assume 30%
Probability of
Obtaining
93
Occupational Safety and Health Program
9
$1,511
$453
94
PPHF - Community Transfromation Grants and
National Dissemination and Support for Community
Transformation Grants
6
$1,357
$407
94
The Affordable Care Act - Medicaid Adult Quality
Grants
3
$939
$282
93
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Program
8
$537
$161
Sources: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 2013 and 2014 Kansas Single Audits
190 | Medicaid and Health Services
that are administered by departments and establishments of the federal government.
and reporting the Initial Core Set of Health Care
Quality Measures for Adults Enrolled in Medicaid to CMS. Additionally, the grant funding will
also support States’ efforts to use this data for
improving the quality of care for adults covered
by Medicaid.” Of the nine benchmark states reviewed, five receive this grant with the average
size award of $.94 million. This grant can only be
renewed for one year.
A&M reviewed the grants and awards provided by
the DHHS and determined that Kansas is potentially
eligible for certain awards that it currently does not
receive funding for. A&M also received confirmation
from both KDADS and KDHE personnel that the agencies have not applied for the grants.
A&M’s analysis was performed by comparing the
CFDA as outlined in Kansas’ 2013 and 2014 Single Audits, against the CFDAs of various benchmark states
(Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma and Utah). A&M then calculated the average size of each grant received by the
benchmark states. As there is no assurance that DHHS
will approve a grant when submitted and the size of
grants vary by state, A&M applied a conservative 30
percent probability factor to determine the potential
amount Kansas can receive. Based on our review, Kansas is potentially eligible to receive additional federal
grant funds (which do not have any state matching requirement) for the following six programs:
• Occupational and Health Program – The purpose of this grant is to increase worker safety
and health as well as to “help develop specialized professional and paraprofessional personnel
in the occupational safety and health field with
training in occupational medicine, occupational
health nursing, industrial hygiene, occupational
safety, and other priority training areas.” Of the
nine benchmark states reviewed, all nine receive
this grant with the average size award of $1.5 million.
• PPHF – Community Transformation Grants and
National Dissemination and Support for Community Transformation Grants – The purpose of
this grant is to “reduce death and disability from
the five leading causes of death through the prevention and control of the conditions and their
risk factors. Recipients will select from a menu
of interventions across the health and wellness
spectrum, each of which can prevent or control
chronic conditions.” Of the nine benchmark
states reviewed, six receive this grant with the average size award of $1.36 million.
• The Affordable Care Act – Medicaid Adult Quality
Grants – the purpose of this grant is to “support
State Medicaid agencies in testing, collecting,
• Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Program - the
purpose of this grant is to (1) replicate evidencebased teen pregnancy prevention program models that have been shown to be effective through
rigorous evaluation and (2) research and demonstration projects to develop and test additional
models and innovative strategies to prevent teen
pregnancy. Of the nine benchmark states reviewed, five receive this grant with the average
size award of $.54 million.
• Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities –
Prevention and Surveillance – the purpose of this
grant is to assist in “planning, implementing, coordinating or evaluating programs, research or
surveillance activities related to improved birth
outcomes, prevention of birth defects, and the
improvement of infant and child health and developmental outcomes.” Of the nine benchmark
states reviewed, six receive this grant with the average size award of $.23 million.
• Empowering Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities through Chronic Disease Self-Management Education Programs – the purpose of this
grant is to “help ensure that evidence-based selfmanagement education programs are embedded
into the nation’s health and long-term services
and supports systems.” Of the nine benchmark
states reviewed, four receive this grant with the
average size award of $.3 million. This grant can
only be renewed for two additional years.
The financial benefit for FY17 to FY21 is outlined below:
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,462
$1,462
$1,181
$1,091
$1,091
Recommendation #4 – KDADS should
move to consolidate operations of certain regions thereby reducing its field
footprint and operational costs
KDADS has a network of 27 CDDOs throughout the
state that are responsible for i) determining whether
an indivdual qualifies for services, ii) working with indivduals or families in choosing service options, and iii)
referring the potential beneficiary or family member
to other agencies, if necessary. CDDOs serve a critical role by providing a single point of entry, eligibility
determination, and referral for potential beneficiaries
and their families. Moreover, CDDOs provide a wide
aray of developmental disability services including
residential, employment, targeted case management,
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 191
and family supports for indivduals. For FY14, the 27
CDDO regions were projected to receive $360 million
in funding with a signficant portion being matched
with federal Medicaid funding.
In 2012, the Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research projected
population trends for the state. Based on the study,
A&M developed an analysis and visualization that
shows the expected population for 2025 and compared the results to current census data for each of
the 27 regions. Of the 27 CDDO regions, 15 are projected to have lower populations over the next ten
years with the reductions ranging from 1.6 percent
to 13.1 percent. The growth rates of the remaining 12 regions range from 0.2 percent to 21.6 percent. A map of the 27 regions and projected population change from 2014 to 2025 is outlined below:
192 | Medicaid and Health Services
The findings are consistent with national trends that
show similar urban population growth trends. Based
on A&M’s review, we recommend the state consider
consolidating the 27 facilities down to 20, thereby
reducing annual operating costs by $1.0 million per
year. The operating costs are based on cost allocations
provided by KDADS personnel. A&M recommends
the state consider closing the following seven facilities. which would be the least disruptive to potential
beneficaires by minimizing the increase in travel times
associated with the consolidation:
Region #
CDDO Facility
4
Brown County Developmental Services, Inc.
9
Cowley County Community Dev. Disability Organization in Cowley County
13
Future Unlimited, Inc
14
Helinger Developmental Services, Inc
23
Training & Evaluation Center of Hutchinson, Inc.
25
Tri-Valley Developmental Services, Inc.
26
Twin Valley Developmental Services, Inc.
• Quality measurements – error rates, complaints
to total services provided, staff turnover and customer satisfaction.
While development and utilization of operating reports will impact the timing of implementation, it
will allow the agency to make a more detailed and
informed decision.
Oversight of CDDOs
The state does not own the CDDOs. Instead, KDADS
contracts with the CDDOs, which are responsible for
gatekeeping functions and oversight of service providers. However, KDADS is ultimately responsbile for
adminstering the overall development disability system, so it is critical that KDADS have the staff, tools,
and controls in place to monitor the CDDOs. Based
on a March 2014 Legislative Division of Post Performance Audit, KDADS was cited for failure to provide
proper oversight in four distinct areas:
• Not reviewing or approving extraordinary funding requests from the CDDOs
Moreover, although three regions with the western
most facilities (Southwest Developmental Services,
Inc., Arrowhead West, Inc., and Developmental Services of Nothwest Kansas, Inc.) are projected to experience higher population declines, A&M does not
recommend consolidating the offices due to the large
territories the facilities already serve.
• Inconsistent peer review teams and a process to
follow up on deficincies
Our analysis relied solely on census data and population trends as operating metrics and key performance
indicators are not traacked or produced by KDADS. To
more accurately determine which regions to consolidate, A&M recommends that KDADS develop reports
and analyses that will track key operational metrics
and performance data of the 27 CDDOs. Utilizing performance and activity-based reports will augment
A&M’s analysis, thereby pinpointing which facilities to
potentially consolidate. Examples of operating metrics
to measure effectiveness and efficiency include:
The report further cited that KDADS’s oversight of the
CDDOs is hindered by a “cumbersome and ambiguous” contracting process whereby KDADS negotaites
individual contracts with each of the CDDOs each
year. This process stretches KDADS’s staff and adds
extra oversight and adminstration requirements. The
process is made worse by the fact that 50 to 70 representatives from the CDDOs and their respective
service providers, participate in contract negotiations
thereby making it impossible to reach a consensus
on oversight and monitoring controls. A&M recommends that the state consider consolidating all the
CDDOs under one master agreement with measurable operating and performance targets which will
provide clear, consistent controls across all regions.
• Staffing ratios – computing a ratio of staffing to
a particular function such as customer volume or
case workloads.
•
Response time – the amount of time to respond
to a request for service.
• Backlog – Measure the amount of time work is
waiting to be processed.
• Lack of a formal complaint tracking system
• The inability to verify whether an indivduals assessment of receving developmenmtal disability
services is accurate
Lastly, the CDDOs provide services to approximately
8,700 indivduals a year. The audit report also cites that
of the 8,700 indivduals, 1,750 were receiving some,
but not all of the services. and an additional 3,250
indivduals were not receiving any servcies. In com-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 193
parison, the state’s 11 Aging and Disability Resource
Centers provide assessment and eligibility services for
13,000 Kansans for the frail elderly, physical disability and traumatic brain injury waivers. While a direct
comparison of the two programs is difficult to measure, the fact that the ADRC’s adminster a larger population with less than half the number of facilities, further warrants the development and implementation
of operating metrics and key performance indicators
as outlined above to measure the efficacy of the CDTable 1
Kansas Live Birth Statistics CY 2013
CY 2014
CY 2015
YTD *
Table 3
Live Births and
Costs by Delivery
Type
CY 2013
CY 2014
CY 2015
YTD *
Medicaid C-Section
Delivery Counts
3,738
4,029
2,292
Medicaid C-Section
Delivery Costs
(000’s)
$20,098
$22,950
$12,905
Average Medicaid
C-Section Costs Per
Member
$5,377
$5,696
$5,630
Medicaid Vaginal
Delivery Counts
8,200
9,334
5,540
Medicaid Vaginal
Delivery Costs
(000’s)
$30,546
$36,889
$22,595
Average Medicaid
Vaginal Delivery
Costs
$3,725
$3,952
$4,079
All Kansas Live Births
38,805
39,193
NA
Medicaid Total Live Births
11,938
13,363
7,832
Percent of Medicaid Live
Births
31%
34%
NA
All Medicaid Delivery
Costs (000’s)
$50,670
$59,840
$35,500
Average Medicaid Delivery
Costs Per Member
$4,244
$4,478
$4,533
Medicaid Hospital Live
Births
11,791
13,154
7,711
31%
30%
29%
Medicaid Hospital Costs
(000’s)
Percent of C-Sections Deliveries
$50,546
$59,643
$35,371
69%
70%
71%
Average Medicaid Hospital
Costs per Member
Percent of C-Sections Deliveries
$4,287
$4,534
$4,587
Percent of Medicaid Hospital Births
Source: Kansas Department of Health & Environment - As of September
2015*
99%
98%
98%
Source: Kansas Department
of Health & Environment - as of
September 2015*
Table 4
CY 2014 Kansas - Weeks Gestation
Table 2
Kansas Live Birth
Total Births (2010):
Statistics
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa
Arkansas
Colorado
Oklahoma
National
Source: Kaiser
Foundation
40,439
76,718
25,916
38,514
38,224
66,349
51,798
4,018,554
% of Medicaid
Births (2010):
33%
42%
31%
41%
67%
37%
64%
45%
Method of
Delivery
Vaginal
39 &
over
< 36
36-38
1,013
7,486 19,009
C-Section, not
elective
186
936
2,583
C-Section, elective
893
2,420
4,652
-
-
1
Not Stated
Grand Total
2,092 10,842 26,245
Not Grand
Stated Total
13
27,521
1
3,706
-
7,965
14
1
39,193
Note: per definitions given by KDHE epidemiologists, Csections are considered elective if there if there was no trial
of labor residence data
194 | Medicaid and Health Services
DOs footprint. The combination of census projections
and operating performance will provide the state with
the necessary tools and data to determine the optimal
CDDO structure.
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,011
$1,011
$1,011
$1,011
$1,011
Recommendation #5 – Implement
healthy birth outcome initiatives to
improve women and child health care
outcomes and manage costs
Background and Findings
Together, maternal and newborn care represent the
largest single category of hospital expenditures for
Kansas Medicaid, and the hospitalization phase of
childbirth accounts for the vast majority of all maternal and newborn care costs. In 2014, Kansans spent
more than a half billion dollars in birth related costs
including more than $160 million in birth related
costs through Kansas Medicaid and state employee
healthcare.1
Percentage of Induced Deliveries or C-Sections Before 39
Weeks
National Average
Kansas
Oklahoma
Missouri
Iowa
Colorado
Arkansas
Mississippi
7%
28%
16%
5%
7%
2%
6%
34%
Our research also found that more than 25 percent of
Kansas births fewer than 39 weeks in gestation were
elective C-sections. (See Table 4).
Part I: Managing Early Birth Costs and Risks for
Pre-Term Births
In review of live births by delivery type, the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment reported the
statistics seen in Table 3.
The National Institute of Health states that “almost
one of every ten infants born in the United States are
premature, and a premature birth is defined as a baby
being born before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy
(a full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks).”4 Infants born
preterm are at greater risk than infants born at term
for mortality, health, and developmental problems,
therefore, a multitude of health complications can
arise. Complications can include “behavioral, socialemotional, health and growth problems (examples include: increased Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admissions, and increased ventilator support).”5 Additionally,
the “birth of a preterm infant brings economic costs to
families and has implications for public-sector services
(i.e. health insurance, education, and other social support systems).”6 Among the main recommendations
that the National Institute of Health offers to reduce
and improve preterm birth in the United States, is for
the study and informing of public policy.
1
The US preterm birth rate ranks among the worst in
In 2014, there were 39,193 births recorded in Kansas
for which Medicaid paid approximately 34 percent of
the birth costs (See Table 1). In comparison, based on
2010 data, 32.5 percent of the births in Kansas were
Medicaid funded compared to a national average of
44.9 percent.2 (See Table 2)
In Kansas, hospital and facility costs for a vaginal birth
is on average $11,180 per birth, and hospital and facility costs for cesarean births is on average $17,391
per birth (preterm birth rates are calculated as the
number of preterm births divided by the number of
live births with known gestational age multiplied by
100).3
Childbirth Connection. Average Facility Labor and Birth Change by Site and
Method of Birth, United States, 2009-2011. Retrieved from: transform.childbirthconnection.
Kaiser Foundation - http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/births-financed-
by-medicaid/
3
National Institute of Health. Retrieved from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/
5
Behrman RE, Butler AS. (2007). Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and
prematurebabies.html
org.
2
4
Prevention. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669423
Behrman RE, Butler AS. (2007). Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Pre-
vention. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669423
6
Behrman RE, Butler AS. (2007). Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and
Prevention. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669423
high-resource countries, ranking a “C” on the report
card assigned and distributed by the March of Dimes,
with a birth rate of 9.6 percent in 2014, according to
the National Center of Health Statistics (“C” rating is
preterm birth rate of 9.3 percent to 10.3 percent). The
state of Kansas earned a “B” in 2015.
According to the Institute of Medicine, the annual social economic burden and cost of premature births
nationally is $26.2 billion a year. The breakdown is as
follows:
• $16.9 billion in medical costs for the baby
»» $611 million for early intervention services,
birth to age three
»» $1.1 billion for special education services,
ages three to twenty one
»» $5.7 billion in lost work and pay for people
born prematurely
• NICU admissions—average payments for babies in NICU exceed average payments for all
newborns and both types of birth (vaginal and
cesarean)7
• Increased average payment levels for NICU care:
Medicaid paid $13,875 for newborns with vaginal
births and NICU care and $19,971 for newborns
with cesarean births and NICU care 8
According to the Medicare Economic Index (MEI),
“In 2015 commercial insurers are incurring costs of
$18,961 for vaginal births and $28,826 for cesarean
births, while Medicaid programs are paying $9,446
and $14,058 respectively.”9 To offer perspective—if
there were “472,000 fewer cesareans, Medicaid and
Commercial insurers would have saved nearly $3.5 billion in 2013.”10
A March 2014 study by the Commonwealth Fund and
7
Perelman, Nicole. Using Education, Collaboration, and Payment Reform to
Reduce Early Elective Deliveries: A Case Study of South Carolina’s Birth Outcomes Initiative.
Retrieved from: www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/reports/South_Carolina_Birth_Outcomes_Case_Study.pdf.
8
Childbirth Connection. Average Facility Labor and Birth Change by
Site and Method of Birth, United States, 2009-2011. Retrieved from: transform.
childbirthconnection.org.
9
7. American College of Nurse-Midwives (2015, November). The Midwifery
Model of Care-A Value Proposition [PowerPoint slides].
10
7. American College of Nurse-Midwives (2015, November). The Midwifery
Model of Care-A Value Proposition [PowerPoint slides].
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 195
Whynotthebest.org—an organization providing a
full spectrum of healthcare assessment and improvement services—reported that early scheduled deliveries could cause serious complications for newborn
babies. As shown below (study indicated 2013 data
reported), Kansas was one of the highest states with
early term deliveries for both private pay and state
Medicaid funded births.11
Many states across the US have implemented Healthy
Birth Outcome initiatives and formed partnerships
between the state hospital associations, the March of
Dimes, managed care providers, insurance companies
and stakeholders, in order to improve the health outcomes for newborns not only in the Medicaid program
but throughout the state’s population. One of the early
implementers of state Medicaid Early Birth Initiatives
has been the State of South Carolina.
South Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services (SCDHHS)
In July 2011, South Carolina Department of Health
and Human Services (SCDHHS) launched its partnership program called South Carolina Birth Outcomes
Initiative (SCBOI). The program had three interconnected
goals to work together in order to improve birth outcomes
throughout the state, including:
• Reducing the number of low birth weight babies
• Reducing NICU admissions
• Reducing racial disparities in birth outcomes
The members of the SCBOI worked to achieve the three
core objectives through various initiatives while serving on
a series of workgroups. Examples of initiatives include:
• Eliminating elective inductions for non-medically
indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks gestation.
• Reducing the number of admissions and the average length of stay in neonatal intensive care
units.
• Reducing health disparities.
• Making 17 Alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate
(17P)—a compound that helps prevent pre-term
births—available to all at-risk pregnant women
with a no “hassle factor.”
• Implementing a universal screening and referral
tools like, Screening, Brief Intervention, and ReWhyNotTheBest.org, March 2014
11
196 | Medicaid and Health Services
Non-Medically Indicated Births*, Gestational Ages 37-38
Weeks, Kansas Birth Certificates, Evidence from Kansas Vital
Statistics - 2009-2013
60.0
ETNMI (%)
ferral to Treatment (SBIRT)—an evidence-based
practice used to identify, reduce, and prevent
problematic use, abuse, and dependence on alcohol and illicit drugs. The SBIRT model was incited by an Institute of Medicine recommendation
that called for community-based screening for
health risk behaviors, including substance use.12
In SC, the physician’s office screens pregnant
women and 12 months post-delivery for tobacco
use, substance abuse, alcohol, depression, and
domestic violence.
The Catalyst Payment Reform Study entitled “Using
Education, Collaboration, and Payment Reform to Reduce Early Elective Deliveries: A Case Study of South
Carolina’s Birth Outcomes Initiative” reported in 2013
that the number of unwarranted early inductions in
the state had been cut by 50 percent and the number of babies in neonatal intensive care units had
dropped. Babies born before 39 weeks of pregnancy
generally have lower birth weights and higher rates of
infant mortality.14
Prior to the SCBOI program start, the state had the
fourth highest percentage of babies born prematurely
12
http://www.integration.samhsa.gov/clinical-practice/SBIRT (Note - Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is the agency within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services that leads public health efforts to advance the
behavioral health of the nation. SAMHSA's mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse
and mental illness on America's communities.
13
2013 Catalyst Payment Reform Study “Using Education, Collaboration, and
Payment Reform to Reduce Early Elective Deliveries: A Case Study of South Carolina’s Birth
Outcomes Initiative
14
2013 Catalyst Payment Reform Study “Using Education, Collaboration, and
40.8
38.2
36.0
20.0
30.0
-
• Promoting Baby Friendly Certified Hospitals and
Breast Feeding.
• The concept of this initiative is to reduce the number of elective early births. Babies born before 39
weeks of pregnancy have much higher rates of
low birth weight and infant mortality. SCHHS—
which administers Medicaid in the state—asked
South Carolina’s hospitals to reduce early induction births except for medical reasons. All of the
state’s hospitals complied and signed agreements to do so in 2011. HHS and BlueCross—
which together pay for nearly 85 percent of births
in the state—also stopped paying for voluntary
early births.13
40.0
2009
2010
2011
2013
Year
in the nation. Data gathered over several years show
that approximately one in every ten babies born in
South Carolina will be admitted to a NICU. South Carolina’s rate of early elective delivery was 9.62 percent or
more than annual 6,000 births. Researchers estimate
that eliminating the practice of early elective deliveries
in South Carolina will generate more than $1 million a
year in delivery costs and an additional $7 million in
reduced hospitalizations for babies. In the first quarter
of 2013, the SCDHHS reported saving over $6 million
through the initiative. This savings was attributed to
decreased NICU admissions and Average Length of
Stay (ALOS) in the NICU among babies born at 37 and
38 weeks to mothers with Medicaid coverage.15
Other states have voluntary programs, and some other state health agencies have stopped paying for nonemergency early deliveries but South Carolina is the
first Medicaid agency and its major insurer and hospitals have collaborated on this type of program. Governor Haley indicated that the “Birth Outcomes Initiative
is a wonderful example of leaders in the health community working together as a team in South Carolina’s
fight against premature birth.”16
SCDHHS has been able to significantly reduce these
non-medically necessary inductions over a two-year
period. With the mindset that infant mortality and low
birth weight babies are two of the state's most pressing health problems, SCDHHS, SC Hospital Association
and the South Carolina Chapter of the March of Dimes
joined with other community partners to create the
15
2013 Catalyst Payment Reform Study “Using Education, Collaboration, and
Payment Reform to Reduce Early Elective Deliveries: A Case Study of South Carolina’s Birth
Payment Reform to Reduce Early Elective Deliveries: A Case Study of South Carolina’s Birth
Outcomes Initiative
Outcomes Initiative
16
http://www.thestate.com/news/business/health-care/article13828319.html
now nationally recognized SCBOI.
In August 2011, SCBOI successfully secured a BOIsponsored commitment from all 43 birthing hospitals
in the state to end non-medically necessary inductions
by 39 weeks with a specific focus on preventing early
term births, delivered at 37 and 38 weeks. In 2013,
SCDHHS and BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina
(BCBSSC) strengthened the effort by stopping reimbursement to hospitals and physicians for elective inductions or non-medically indicated deliveries prior to
39 weeks gestational age.
In 2013, SCDHHS implemented Centering Pregnancy,
a group model of prenatal care shown to decrease
pre-term birth, and "Race to the Date," a program providing financial incentive payments to hospitals who
achieved the certification of "Baby Friendly" by September 2013.
As a second phase of the early elective delivery initiative, SCDHHS is also working with SCBOI
stakeholders to reduce the number of C-sections
performed on first-time, low risk moms in South Carolina through a signed commitment from all birthing hospitals in the state, simulation education training, webinars and provider education materials.17
The March of Dimes reports that progress in the US
preterm birth rate comes through the implementation
of programs and policies by state and local health departments, hospitals, and health care providers.
As shown in the below graph, the State of Kansas has
made progress over the past seven years to address
the importance of full term births for the mother and
newborn health and addressing early non-medically
induced births.18
Kansas Healthy Birth Outcome Initiatives19
KDHE Bureau of Family Health is responsible for administering the federally funded Title V Maternal and
Child Health (MCH) Services Block Grant for the State
of Kansas [Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB),
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),
U.S. Department of Human and Health Services (HHS)].
The Title V MCH Block Grant plays a key role in the pro-
17
18
www.scdhhs.gov/boi.
19
December 31, 2015 Briefing Report from KDHE Division of Public Health-Bureau
Kansas HealthCare Collaborative - American Hospital Association 2015 Quality
and Effectiveness Roadmap 2015 Quality and Equity Roadmap
of Family Health
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 197
vision of maternal and child health services in Kansas.
The State has implemented a number of family health
initiatives and activities underway for a comprehensive approach, focusing on the life course, crosscutting efforts (through collaboration), and service/systems integration. Some of the initiatives include:
• Baby Friendly Hospitals
»» KDHE reported that in July 2015, Wesley
Medical Center in Wichita achieved Baby
Friendly hospital status (6,300 or 14.7 percent of Kansas births are now served by a
Baby Friendly hospital). The Kansas Breastfeeding Coalition, Inc. (KBC) Continuity of
Care Project assisted Wesley in developing a resource list for breastfeeding follow
up assistance to distribute to mothers. The
Continuity of Care model is being used by
other communities to develop resources for
follow up care. A total of five Kansas hospitals are now involved in the CDC EmPower
project and are working on becoming Baby
Friendly by 2017.
• High 5 for Mom & Baby
»» KDHE has implemented a program called
“High 5 for Mom & Baby.” Under this initiative, hospital policies and procedures are
pivotal to mothers successfully initiating
breastfeeding and continuing to breastfeed after leaving the facility. The High
5 steps are based on the most crucial of
the 10 steps to successful breastfeeding
specified for the Baby Friendly Hospital
program. Since initiation of High 5 in 2012,
twenty hospitals have completed the required education and the policies necessary
to implement the five High 5 steps.
»» KDHE indicated that there were 69 eligible
hospitals/birthing facilities, excluding Wesley Medical Center—which is already designated as Baby Friendly—and 83 percent of
those are enrolled or recognized in the High
5 program. Based on 2013 statistics, High 5
impacts 96 percent of Kansas births (excluding Wesley’s 6,300 births).
• Communities Supporting Breastfeeding
»» KDHE in partnership with Kansas Breastfeeding Coalition (KBC), called the Communities Supporting Breastfeeding (CSB) project, is collectively improving breastfeeding
rates for infants at three and six months of
age in Kansas. The objective of this project
is to assist communities with achieving the
CSB designation by the Kansas Breastfeed-
198 | Medicaid and Health Services
ing Coalition (KBC) as defined by six criteria
needed to provide multifaceted breastfeeding support across several sectors. With support from KDHE and KBC, six communities
reached the CSB designation in 2015: Liberal, Winfield, Salina, Lawrence, Great Bend
and Hays. An additional five communities
are receiving support to achieve the CSB
designation in 2016: Wichita, Abilene, Emporia, Garden City and Gove County.
• Early Elective Delivery Programs
»» KDHE has indicated that they have worked
collectively with the March of Dimes in Kansas to address the reduction of early elective
delivery. In 2008, the March of Dimes introduced the 39-week toolkit and the issues
related to early elective deliveries as part of
the fall Prematurity Conference. More than
250 health care professionals received toolkits and participated in this professional development opportunity. Over the next two
years, hospitals in the bi-state Kansas City
area examined their policies and procedures
related to inductions and elective deliveries
and implemented a variety of internal programs to reduce the occurrence with varying results.
»» In 2011, the March of Dimes awarded a grant
to the seven hospitals in the Saint Luke's
Health System to pilot the 39-week toolkit
system in collaboration with their obstetric
providers and develop an evaluation system
for continuous quality improvement. This
pilot was expanded to include the Health
Corporation of America (HCA) and Shawnee
Mission Medical Center systems in 2012 with
the goal of sharing best practices and data.
Collectively, these three hospital systems
delivered the majority of babies in Kansas
City and represented the greatest opportunity to reduce the preterm birth and infant
mortality rates associated with early elective
deliveries.
»» March of Dimes is currently partnering with
the Kansas Hospital Association and the
Kansas Health Collaborative (KHC) to support their work launching a statewide EED
reduction initiative as part of the Health Engagement Network (HEN) funded through a
three-year grant from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
• Early Elective Delivery QI Collaborative (Kansas
Healthcare Collaborative)
»» KDHE indicated that in July 2012, the Kansas Healthcare Collaborative (KHC) initiated a quality improvement collaborative
in 49 birthing hospitals (later expanded to
52 birthing hospitals) with the goal of reducing early elective delivery (EED) to less
than 3 percent. Collaborative work included
measurement of clinical process interventions designed to reduce EED (standardized
scheduling tools, documentation of indication for EED and record review of scheduled
C-sections), and promotion of “hard stop”
policies in hospitals (a policy intervention
endorsed by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to administratively prevent early elective deliveries from
being scheduled).
»» After 18 months, the collaborative demonstrated widespread adoption of scheduling
and clinical review processes to reduce early
elective delivery. One hundred percent of
participating hospitals reported through
an online survey administered by KHC that
they had a “hard stop” policy in place—most
were adopted since the start of the project
in 2012. Along with these clinical process
and policy changes, participating hospitals
reported a 73 percent reduction in EED rates
from the baseline.
• Infant Mortality Collaborative Improvement & Innovation Network (CoIIN)
»» KDHE, along with several partners and organizations including the March of Dimes
(MOD), the Kansas Infant Death and SIDS
Network, and American Academy of Pediatrics, is actively engaged in the Infant Mortality Collaborative Improvement & Innovation
Network (CoIIN) initiative, launched by the
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in 2012 and expanded in 2014 to include
Kansas and other Region VII states. The National Institute for Children’s Health Quality
(NICHQ) is hosting the national project and
facilitating cross-state and region collaborative work involving learning networks/sessions for six identified CoIIN strategies.
Each participating state selected strategies to focus
on as part of the national platform. Kansas’ selections
include:
• Reducing pre and early term birth rates
through improved risk identification, increased
and appropriate utilization of progesterone, and
eliminating EED.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 199
• Reducing smoking rates before, during, and after
pregnancy. KDHE is approaching the CoIIN work
through a collaborative model bringing together providers, payers, and public health professionals. Evidence-based interventions, practice
change, data analysis, and quality improvement
are key components.
• Becoming a Mom/Comenzando bien® Program
»» In 2010, following the release of the Kansas
Blue Ribbon Panel on Infant Mortality recommendations, the March of Dimes Kansas
Chapter began the development of a community collaborative bringing prenatal education and clinical prenatal care together to
create the comprehensive Becoming a Mom
(BAM) program.
reduce Pre and Early Term Birth Plan including its Early
Elective Deliveries across the State. The strategies are
currently being piloted in a private Wichita OBGYN
clinic. Officials indicated that expansion is planned for
early 2016.
Part II: Enhance options for delivery venues of
low risk births
A&M found that the state has a shortage of current
practicing obstetrical physicians for women’s health
care services. The American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) reported that in 2014, 77 of
the 105 Kansas counties lacked an OB-GYN provider.20
Comparison of Kansas OB-GYN Providers and Hospital Maturity Centers
»» The program is components of the March
of Dimes Healthy Babies are Worth the Wait
model, which focuses on the 39 weeks initiative and eliminating EED. The Kansas BAM
program is targeted to communities with
demonstrated birth outcome and infant
mortality disparities, both racial/ethnic and
socioeconomic.
»» KDHE indicated that this model is driven by
private and public partnerships across the
state and local levels including: Title V MCH
(public health), Medicaid, private foundations, local health departments, federally
qualified health centers, clinical providers,
local hospitals, and community-based organizations. The community collaborative
model brings:
−− Permanent Maternal and Child Health infrastructure
−− Leveraged and shared resources
−− Change in the prenatal care delivery system
−− A vehicle to identify community needs
−− A standardized evaluation system
−− New funding opportunities for achieving community collective impact and improved birth outcomes
The work of KDHE and its health partners has been
successful in addressing the needs of woman and
children Healthily Birth outcomes. A&M recommends
that the State move forward with its planned efforts to
Kansas has portions of the state that currently do not
have available obstetric services or significant drive
times to hospitals with maturity centers. (See Table 1)
One solution to address the shortage of physicians is
to expand the use of certified nurse midwives to address the shortages of available trained birth professionals and alternatives to managing the cost of inhospital births.
Our research found that in Kansas only one percent of
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2014 ACOF Workforce Fact
20
Sheet: Kansas.
200 | Medicaid and Health Services
Table 1
Analysis Available OB-GYN
US Average
Physicians and Medicaid Costs:
Number of OB-GYN Physicians
Woman Population
Kansas
Iowa
Nebraska
Colorado
Missouri
Oklahoma
Arkansas
273
239
190
645
596
286
244
1,149,898
1,251,057
739,146
2,045,728
2,480,157
1,530,437
1,205,102
Physicians per 10,000 women
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
Physicians per 10,000 women
added 15 to 45
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
73%
67%
90%
50%
57%
62%
61%
4%
2%
3%
19%
9%
8%
13%
Number of Residency Programs
2
1
2
2
5
2
1
Number of Graduating OB-GYN
physicians per year
9
5
8
15
34
11
4
33%
40%
31%
37%
42%
64%
67%
% of Counties that do not have
OB-GYNS
% of Female Population to
Increase by 2030
Percent of Births Financed
through Medicaid
18%
45%
Source: The Amercian Congress of Obstetricians and Gunccologists 2014 Workforce Fact Sheets
Table 2
Kansas Medicaid Birthing Centers to Hospital Births
Medicaid Total Live Births
Percent of Medicaid Live Births
Average Medicaid Delivery Costs Per Member
Medicaid Hospital Live Births
Medicaid Hospital Costs
Average Medicaid Hospital Costs per Member
Percent of Medicaid Hospital Births
Medicaid Birthing Center Births
Medicaid Birthing Center Costs
Average Medicaid Birthing Center Costs Per Member
CY 2013
CY 2014
CY 2015 YTD *
11,938
31%
4,244
11,791
$50,545,596
$4,287
99%
147
$124,755
$849
13,363
34%
4,478
13,154
$59,642,794
$4,534
98%
209
$196,507
$940
7,832
NA
4,533
7,711
$35,371,010
$4,587
98%
121
$128,681
$1,063
*As of September 2015
the births took place in non-hospital settings in2012.
Of that amount, 65 percent occurred in home settings
and 28 percent occurred in licensed birth centers. The
cost for a low-risk birth at a birthing center ranges between $5,000 and $8,000 (including birth education
and risk screening) versus the average vaginal birth
cost of $11,180 per birth.
Our research found that slightly less than 2 percent of
Kansas births in 2012 were performed in non-hospital
settings, primarily for low risk births.
KDHE further reported that Medicaid costs for a hos-
pital birth totals $4,587 during the first nine months
in 2015 compared to birthing center Medicaid birth
costs of $1,063. (See Table 2)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National
Center for Health Statistics reported the following
birth in out-of-hospital settings in 2012:21
21
CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db144_table.pdf
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 201
Live Births by Place of Birth, Kansas Residents, 2012-2014
Place of
Birth
2012
Hospital
39,562
Free-standing Birthing
309
Center
Home Birth
421
Other
12
Grand Total 40,304
2013
2014
Grand Total
37,936
38,396
115,894
466
356
1,131
393
10
38,805
431
10
39,193
1,245
32
118,302
Source: Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa
2%
2%
1%
1%
Arkansas
Colorado
Oklahoma
National Average
1%
2%
1%
1%
Note: Out-of-hospital births include those occurring in a home, birthing center, clinic
or doctor's office, or other location.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) reported that in 2013 there were 3,932,181
births in the US of which 3,553,581 were Physician Assisted and 320,983 were Certified Nurse Midwife Assisted (8.8 percent). If you exclude the 1,284,339 births
that were performed through a C-Section, the percent
of Midwife vaginal assisted births increased to 12.1
percent due to Midwifes performing only vaginal deliveries. 22
The American College of Nurse Midwives reported
that in 2013, majority of CNM/CM-attended births occurred in hospitals (94.6 percent), while 2.8 percent occurred in freestanding birth centers, and 2.6 percent
occurred in homes.23
KDHE reported in the Annual Summary of Vital Statistics, there were 38,805 live births to residents of
Kansas. Vaginal delivery was the most common final
route of delivery for most Kansas resident live births
in 2013 (27,064 live births, or 69.8 percent of all live
births for which the final route of delivery was known).
22
National Vital Statistics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/
nvsr64_01.pdf
23
http://www.midwife.org/acnm/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000005464/CNM-
CMAttendedBirthStatisticsJune2015.pdf
“Most vaginal deliveries were ‘spontaneous,’ meaning
no mechanical procedures like forceps or vacuum extraction were required (25,804 deliveries, or 66.5% of
live births for which the final route was stated). Other
vaginal deliveries (forceps assisted or vacuum extraction) accounted for 1,260 live births (3.2 percent). Cesarean deliveries accounted for 11,735 live births (30.2
percent).” 24
The 2012 Kansas Journal of Medicine reported that in
2012 there were 63 licensed CNMs in Kansas. These
CNMs practice in a variety of settings including hospitals, freestanding birth centers, homes, and military
bases. CNM’s are able to prescribe medications, having obtained prescription writing privileges. It was reported that in 2009, CNMs attended 1,902 births, approximately 4.5 percent of all births in Kansas.25
In comparison, our research found that Georgia, midwives deliver about 18 percent of all vaginal births and
New Mexico has the county’s highest rate, at 24 percent or all births. 26
Approximately 11 percent of all spontaneous vaginal
births and 7 percent of all births are attended by certified nurse-midwives, according to the National Center
for Health Statistics, 2007. Approximately 97 percent
of CNM-attended births occur in hospitals, 2 percent
in freestanding birth centers and 1 percent at home
(ACNM, 2008).27
According to the American Association of Birth Center,
and the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Average Charge for varying births in
2011 for a birth center vaginal birth is $2,277, a hospital vaginal birth with no complications $10,657, a hospital vaginal birth with complications $13,749, a hospital cesarean birth with no complications $17,859,
and a hospital cesarean birth with complications was
24
25
http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/as/2013/AS_2013.pdf
26
http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/25/midwife-mania-more-u-s-babies-than-ever-
27
http://nursing.kumc.edu/nurse-midwifery-education-program.html
Kansas Journal on Medicine 2012. Midwifery in Kansas Astrid McDaniel, B.A. ,
Lynette R. Goldberg, Ph.D. , Nancy G. Powers, M.D.
are-delivered-by-midwives
202 | Medicaid and Health Services
$23,923.28
Washington State gives Medicaid clients the option
of receiving prenatal care from a CNM and delivering
at home or in a free-standing birth center. In a 20052006 analysis of over 1,000 women participating in
the Washington Medicaid home birth program, it was
found that even though 36 percent ended up delivering in a hospital, per-delivery costs were reduced by
an average of $1,341 (2014 dollars) over what they
would have been had hospital births been planned.29
One of the hurdles for enhanced use of Certified Nurse
Midwives to increase outcomes for Healthy Birth Outcomes is the current licensing requirement for a signed
physician collaborative agreement. Many States have
removed the requirement for a signed physician collaborative practice agreement as a condition of licensure. As shown below, many States have already
removed the requirement or are in process of removing requirements for a signed physician collaborative
practice agreement as a condition of licensure.30
Recommendation #6 - Kansas should review the opportunities to implement the
following measures to enhance its efforts
to achieve greater outcomes to manage
lower state-wide costs for Healthy Birth
Outcomes
Part I: Manage costs and risks for pre-term births
• Eliminate elective inductions for non-medically
indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks gestation.
• Reduce the number of admissions and the average length of stay in neonatal intensive care units
and number of low birth weight babies.
28
Childbirth Connection. Average Facility Labor and Birth Change by Site and
Method of Birth, United States, 2009-2011. Retrieved from: transform.childbirthconnection.
org.
29
Research using the state of Washington’s Medicaid database revealed that
providing maternity care to Medicaid patients through certified nurse midwives saved the
state $473,000 in averted C-sections and $3.1 million in overall maternity costs. Cost savings
from Medicaid fee for service for averted caesareans exceeded the cost of the program by 180
percent and savings to Washington state’s healthcare system overall exceeded the cost of the
program by over ten fold.
Midwifery Licensure and Discipline Program in Washington State: Economic Costs
and Benefits. Health Management Associates. October 31, 2007 http://www.
illinoismidwifery.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Washington-StateMidwifery_Cost_Study_10-31-07.pdf
30
American College of Nurse Midwives Presentation on Practice Environ-
ments for Certified Nurse-Midwives (June 2015)
• Implement a universal screening and referral tool
(SBIRT) in the physician’s office to screen pregnant women and 12 months post-delivery for tobacco use, substance abuse, alcohol, depression,
and domestic violence.
• Continue to promote Baby Friendly Certified
Hospitals and Breast Feeding.
Part II: Enhance options for delivery venues of low
risk births
A&M also recommends that the State improve the licensing and authorization legislation to allow for increased utilization of non-hospital settings for low
risk pregnancy births and address the shortage of OBGYNs. Receiving pre-natal care from Certified Nurse
Midwives (CNM) is a cost-effective option for low-risk
mothers that have been shown to produce birth outcomes at least as favorable as those of hospital delivery.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 203
FY 17
FY 18
FY 19
FY 20
FY 21
Total
$34,657
$34,657
$34,657
$34,657
$34,657
$173,284
% Medicaid Funded
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
Estimated Reduction in Payments
30%
50%
75%
90%
90%
Eliminate Medicaid Funded Elective Per 39
week Induced Births
Costs of Pre-39 Week Elective Induced Birth
Costs ($ 000’s)
Reduced Medicaid Payments for Level II to IV
NIC-B Births
$36,965
$36,965
$36,965
$36,965
$36,965
% Medicaid Funded
Level II- III- IV NIC-U Births (2014 Costs)
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
Estimated Savings from BOI
5%
10%
10%
15%
20%
Increase % of Out-of-Hospital Births
2%
3%
4%
5%
5%
CNM’s are Advance Practice Registered Nurses with
specialized training in normal pregnancy and childbirth that provides women’s health care through the
lifespans.
In July 2014, The American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists reported that "Ob-Gyns and CNMs
are experts in their respective fields of practice and are
educated, trained, and licensed, independent providers who may collaborate with each other based on the
needs of their patients...to provide highest quality and
seamless care, ob-gyns and CNMs should have access
to a system of care that fosters collaboration among
licensed, independent providers."31
Kansas should allow CNMs to provide a written plan
that describes how they collaborate, manage, refer,
and consult with local physicians in the community.
CNM’s already carry malpractice insurance as determined by the Health Care Stabilization Fund.
$184,824
both physical and legal, of a normal delivery by
a CNM.
Critical to the success of these initiatives is the continued partnership between KDHE and the health care
provider partners across the State.
Recommendation #6 - (dollars in 000’s)
Fund
Impact
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Part I
$1,751
$3,007
$4,246
$5,253
$5,518
Part II
$301
$401
$502
$803
$1,003
Total
$2,052
$3,408
$4,748
$6,056
$6,521
Key Assumptions
Part I: Manage costs and risks for pre-term births
Kansas can increase utilization alternative care to increase Healthy Birth Outcomes to lower cost birthing
options in Medicaid by:
• Cost savings initiative includes two cost components (a) reduced elective inductions for nonmedically indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks
gestation and (b) reduced neonatal costs from
reduced pre-gestation period births.
• Encouraging the expansion of use of Certified
Nurse Midwives in proliferation of all birthing
centers (both in and out of hospital settings).
• Gradual reduction in Medicaid paid elective nonmedically necessary induced births to 90 percent
by 2021.
• Conducting outreach and education to Medicaid
maternity care clients.
• All data is based on medical claims data. Medical
claims data uses national standardized coding to
describe a medical event. Therefore, newborns
are categorized as full term infants (gestational
age of 37 weeks and over) and premature infants
(less than 36 weeks of gestational age).
• Educating mothers about their birthing options
and dispelling misinformation about the risks,
31
Joint Statement of Practice Relations between Obstetrical Gynecologists
and Certified Nurse-Midwives
204 | Medicaid and Health Services
• Assumes 32.5 percent of claims are Medicaid
births.
• Kansas FMAP for Federal CMS funding at 56 percent compared to State General Fund costs of 44
percent.
• Assumes NIC-U Level II to Level IV birth costs.
• Gradual increase in reduced NIC-U days and related costs due to Healthy Birth Outcome Initiatives.
Part II: Enhance options for delivery venues of low
risk births
Part II of this recommendation promotes the enhanced
use of Certified Nurse Midwives including legislative
changes modifying the existing full practice requirement, public education, and partnerships with Kansas
health care community. The cost savings target over
the five years is based on the following assumptions:
• Annual growth in the number of non-hospital
settings from current 1.0 percent to 5.0 percent
by FY 2021. The growth is factored from the current number of Medicaid funded births of 13,142.
• Cost savings differential of $3,470 between the
current Medicaid In-Hospital costs of $4,533 to
the Birthing Center Medicaid cost of $1,063 or
an averaged $3,470 cost different per birth. We
noted however that the minimum Kansas Medicaid reimbursement for a birthing center facility
delivery is actually $1,295.
• Kansas FMAP for Federal CMS funding at 56 percent compared to State General Fund costs of 44
percent.
Critical Steps to Implement
Kansas should—like other states that have been successful in the implementation of healthy birth outcome initiatives—strategically develop an implementation plan that partners with key stakeholders to
lower measures and in turn lower state-wide costs.
Part I. Managing costs and risks for pre-term births
Critical steps in the implementation of Medicaid funding for early elective non-medically induced births
would include:
• Create costing structure and policy and procedures for early birth outcome initiative program
initiatives including the elimination of State Medicaid funding for elective, non-medically nonmedically indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks
gestation.
• Create incentives for evidence-based delivery of
health care, including labor and delivery services.
• Create costing structure and policy and procedures for early birth outcome initiative program
initiatives.
• Continued collaboration between all agencies
and stakeholders—Hospital Associations, March
of Dimes, Kansas Medicaid Managed Care Organizations, etc.
Part II. Enhance options for delivery venues of low
risk births
For Kansas to be effective in changing its maturity and
birth model, the state would have to adopt new regulatory policies and changes in statutes that modify the
licensing requirements for NMs. The state would also
need to expand the availability of mid-wives in Kansas with targeted attention and/or incentive to areas
where obstetric services are not being provided or
there are significant drive times to birthing locations.
Kansas should define the role of CNM’s and protect
public safety by defining the scope of midwifery while
recognizing and enabling full practice authority for
CNM’s. Kansas could allow CNMs to provide a written
plan that describes how they collaborate, manage, refer, and consult with local physicians in the community. Other implementation tasks should include:
• Adopt policies and statutes that would remove
barriers to CNMs indecently practicing within
their full scope.
• Encourage physicians and CNM to collaborate to
increase the provider workforce in the inner city
and rural health care shortage areas.
• Encourage more CNM centers to practice in Kansas with targeted incentives to obstetric-deserts
within the state.
• Create public education on opportunities for normal, low-risk births to be performed by licensed
CNM’s.
Recommendation #7 – Have all Medicaid support services under one unit to
improve operating efficiency and potentially reduce adminstrative costs
Since the beginning of 2013, Medicaid has primarily
been administered through KanCare to over 400,000
Kansans. Both KDHE and KDADS oversee KanCare with
KDHE providing financial management and contract
oversight and KDADS administering the Medicaid
waiver programs for disability services, mental health
and substance abuse. In addition, KDADS operates the
Larned State Hospital and Osawatomie State Hospital
and Parsons State Hospital and Training Center and
Kansas Neurological Institute for individuals with intellectual and learning disabilities.
The shift from a fee-for-service model to a managed
care structure has provided new opportunities and
challenges. Kansas, similar to other states that have
transitioned to a managed care structure, is faced with
retooling and redefining itself, just as private corporations do when entering new markets. This paradigm
shift has resulted in Kansas being a purchaser of health
care through the MCOs with an emphasis on enrolling
and educating beneficiaries, overseeing health plans,
and contract management. The shift also involves
moving from a provider-centric environment to one
that is beneficiary-centric and requires a staff with
contract management and strong analytical skills. For
KDHE and KDADS, the shift to a delivery model that’s
more than 95 percent provided by the MCOs, offers an
opportunity to consider combining all Medicaid support services and administration under one umbrella,
while combining Medicaid related functions under a
single budget structure.
A&M recommends combining the strengths and resources of both agencies to improve operational effectiveness and efficiency, eliminate redundancy and
promote cross-agency communication and cooperation. The existing dual structure is fragmented and
the ever-increasing—regulations, program changes,
reporting and compliance requirements—warrant
centralizing all Medicaid support services under one
agency. Moreover, as the Federal government continues its efforts of supporting and encouraging the use
of data analytics, quality measurement, performance
improvement, payment modeling and financial simulations, a greater emphasis is required to hire and train
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 205
employees with the requisite skills.
A&M recommends transferring all support functions
to Health Care Finance within KDHE. Having the core
support services such as finance, budgeting, data
analytics, legal, HR and IT under one umbrella will improve operating efficiency. This will eliminate certain
overlapping tasks (ex. budget and rate setting) while
strengthening areas that share common skill requirements (ex. Data, analytics, and legal).
To properly determine the optimal organizational
structure would require an in-depth review of process
flows, employee workloads, job descriptions, skill sets,
and interviews with staff. In August 2015, KDHE contracted with Navigant Consulting to perform a more
detailed review, in order to identify the organizational
structure and resource requirements in a managed
care environment. A&M views KDHE’s effort to perform
a detailed review as an important step in determining
the optimal organizational structure in the new MCO
environment.
In connection with centralizing support services, A&M
also recommends the state invest in a training program
that will allow for employees to meet the skill requirements associated with a managed care environment.
As transition to a managed care structure is primarily
driven by cost-containment and budgetary pressures,
allocating resources to a well-trained staff is not a priority. The typical outcome is that management staff
has extensive Medicaid experience, but relatively little
training in the skills necessary to oversee managed
care, namely; managing contracts or analyzing MCO
performance. Absent an investment in MCO training,
Kansas will have to import managed care specialists
with the contract oversight and analytic qualifications
to effectively manage the MCOs. Investing in a robust
training program will ensure that the combined Medicaid agency is adequately staffed to meet the necessary contract and analytical demands.
206 | Department of Revenue
of Revenue
Department
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the Kansas Department of Revenue. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor,
especially:
•
Nick Jordan, Secretary of Revenue
•
Steve Stotts, Director - Division of Tax Operations
•
George Gross, Special Assistant to the Secretary
Agency Overview
Previous Efficiency Initiatives
The Kansas Department of Revenue (DOR) is continually evaluating the agency to identify ways to reduce
cost and increase efficiency, in order to make the best
use of its resources. Recent initiatives include:
• Releasing a mobile app to allow for information,
web, and online capabilities to be delivered more
directly to Kansans. It also reduces load on many
of the phone information and support lines.
• Improving the collection dialer to allow KDOR to
make more outgoing calls more effectively.
• Implementing debt and payment matching with
the Bureau of Fiscal Service—matching their
non-tax payments with any eligible Kansas debts.
• Increasing and replacing the document scanners
in the Channel Management area to allow KDOR
to scan more documents using fewer employees
and process paper forms more efficiently.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 207
Baseline Budget
Revenue
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY2017
(All values in 000s)
Actual
Gov. Estimate
Base Budget
Gov. Rec.
$113,400
$124,567
$119,771
$101,245
Department of Revenue
Benchmark Comparisons
The benchmark comparisons section will provide a high level
overview of both tax rate and rate change comparisons of Kansas and surrounding states, that can be found in the
COST Report on state and local business taxes and the
Kansas Annual Report for FY15. Business taxes include
business property taxes, sales and excise taxes, paid
by businesses on their input purchases and capital expenditures, gross receipts taxes, corporate income and
franchise taxes, business and corporate license taxes,
unemployment insurance taxes, individual income
taxes paid by owners of non-corporate (pass-through)
businesses, and other state and local taxes that are the
statutory liability of business taxpayers.
A review of the general sales tax and individual income
tax rates for Kansas shows that sales taxes are higher
than peer states, while individual income tax rates are
in line with other peer state tax rates. Specifically, the
range of individual income tax rates show that Kansas’
lowest individual income tax rate of 3.5 percent compares to low end tax rates of between 0.5 percent and
4.63 percent for peer states. Similarly, Kansas’ highest
individual income tax rate of 6.45 percent compares
to peer state income tax rates of 4.63 percent to 8.98
percent.
Tax Rates
Change in state and local business taxes by state
State
FY2013-2014
General Sales Tax
(07/2013)
Individual Income Tax
(2012)
Kansas
6%
3.5%-6.45%
Colorado
3%
5%
Iowa
6%
0.36%-8.98%
Missouri
4%
1.5%-6%
Nebraska
6%
2.56%-6.84%
Oklahoma
5%
0.5%-5.25%
Texas
6%
N/A
4%
N/A
State
Kansas*
-0%
Arkansas
3%
Colorado
2%
Iowa
-1%
Missouri
2%
Nebraska
1%
New Mexico
6%
Oklahoma
1%
Wyoming
Texas**
7%
Wyoming
1%
A review of the state and local business taxes by type,
from 2014, shows that Kansas’ $5.9 billion in total tax
burden is in line with most other peer state tax burdens of between 2.7 billion and 11.3 billion. Furthermore, Kansas’ tax burden is even more closely comparable to states with closer estimated populations such
as Arkansas (4.5 billion), Iowa (6.8 billion), Nebraska
(4.2 billion), New Mexico (4.9 billion), and Oklahoma
(7.2 billion).
*Kansas enacted an exemption on the taxation of passthrough business income midway through FY2013, which is
reflected in its tax receipts.
Summary
208 | Department of Revenue
State and Local Business Taxes by Type, FY2014 ($ billions)
State
Corp Income
tax and indiUnemployvidual income ment insurtax on business
ance tax
income
Excise tax
License and
other taxes*
Property tax
Sales tax
Total
Kansas
250%
2
0
30%
0
0
590%
Arkansas
110%
150%
0
70%
40%
0
450%
Colorado
490%
3
1
130%
0
0
1130%
Iowa
290%
2
0
90%
0
0
680%
Missouri
330%
2
0
100%
0
0
870%
Nebraska
190%
1
0
70%
0
0
420%
A&M’s approach to DOR focused on enhancement of
current capabilities, cost reduction, and the creation of
new capabilities to enhance DOR’s ability to function
more effectively.
Recommendation #1 – Fill Audit Vacancies
• Short-term opportunities – There are three recommendations made by A&M designed to increase revenue starting in the current budget
cycle. These recommendations focus on resuming hiring and thus resolving the backlog of outstanding return reviews and cases.
The state should fill the 14 current vacancies in the Audit department, bringing the total number up to meet
the staffing profile of 37 full-time employees. Filling
these positions would allow Audit to process more
cases and thus generate additional revenue while enabling Audit to work efficiently moving forward. Specifically Kansas should:
• Medium-term opportunities – The creation of an
interdisciplinary Discovery Team will allow the
DOR to increase collaboration and communication, thereby enhancing DOR efficiency for the
coming years.
• Hire and train 14 new or recently retired revenue
agents.
• Create a central audit plan with industry or issue
focus.
• Set benchmark goals.
Recommendations
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Audit: Fill 14 Auditor Vacancies
$0
$9,600
$9,800
$9,800
$9,900
$10,000
$49,100
2
Collections: Hire 54 Officers
$7,800
$48,000
$50,200
$52,900
$55,500
$58,300
$272,700
3
Discovery
$-
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$50,000
4
Appeals
$10,000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$10,000
Division of Revenue total
$67,600
$70,000
$72,700
$75,400
$78,300
$364,000
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 209
• In the near-term, focus on areas there the auditors can complete audits most quickly (i.e., sales
and use tax) and train all auditors in these areas.
Background and Findings
open vacancies in this fiscal year and the remaining
vacancies in the next fiscal year.
• There are currently 23 full-time employees and
14 vacancies.
• The average Collection Officer currently produces
approximately $1 million in collections annually.
• To allow time for the new hires to enter the system and receive training, A&M assumes audit vacancies will not be filled until the last quarter of
FY 2016.
•
• The additional audits will not produce revenue
until FY 2017.
• If auditors cannot be recruited, outsourcing must
be considered.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$9,600
$9,800
$9,800
$9,900
$10,000
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Audit hiring recommendation include:
• Hire 14 new revenue agents
• Train the new agents
• Create a long term recruiting plan
• Set audit benchmarks goals
Recommendation #2 – Fill Collections
Vacancies
The state should fill the 54 current vacancies in the
Collections department, bringing the total number up
to meet the staffing profile of 262 full-time employees.
Due to attrition, retirement, and budget cuts, Collections staffing levels sank to an inefficient level. Filling
these positions will allow Collections to quickly generate additional revenue and to work efficiently moving
forward.
Background and Findings
The Collections department is focused and uses its
resources effectively. However, it is well understaffed.
The departments believe that it can fill about 20 of the
The collections rate is net of staff salaries.
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$48,000
$50,200
$52,900
$55,500
$58,300
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Collections Hiring recommendation
include:
• Hire 54 new or recently retired Collection Agents
• Train these agents
• Hire up to staffing profile
Recommendation #3 – Establish Discovery Team
The state should establish a cross-functional Discovery Team comprised of representatives from Business Intelligence, Customer Service, Audit, Collection,
General Counsel and Policy Research. The Discovery
Team will facilitate communication and collaboration
between departments. These members should meet
quarterly to develop and execute an integrated audit
plan that efficiently utilizes all departments’ resources
in pursuit of increased revenue and a more efficient
tax administration.
Specifically Kansas should:
• Launch a Discovery Team campaign, eliciting applicants or recommendations from each of the
six departments. Team members should be clear
communicators.
• Select one or two full-time employees from each
department to comprise the Discovery Team.
• Train Discovery Team members.
210 | Department of Revenue
• Implement quarterly meetings for the Discovery
Team.
• Set benchmark goals for the future of the Discovery Team as a whole and for contributions of each
department.
• Set results-focused goals that focus on enhancing efficiencies.
Background and Findings
rapidly generate additional revenue. This will decrease
the number of cases in future years and help prevent
future backlog. Specifically Kansas should:
• Implement a restructured evaluation and ranking
process based on the potential revenue to be received and ease of resolution.
• Dedicate resources to the process.
Background and Findings
• A&M assumes Discovery will not result in collections until FY 2017.
• A&M found that little communication currently
occurs between departments and that this lack
of communication results in redundancies and
inefficiencies throughout the process.
• In particular, Audit and Collections currently
overlap on collections cases.
• There is a backlog of appeals case estimated at
approximately $24 million.
• Due to resource constraints, there has not been a
focused effort to resolve these cases.
• A&M conservatively assumes $10 million can be
collected in FY16.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Since the departments will be moving into separate buildings in the near future, coordination
may become more difficult.
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the appeals backlog elimination recommendation include:
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
• Develop a restructured evaluation and ranking
process.
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Discovery Team recommendation
include:
• Establish a Discovery Team comprised of representatives from each of the six departments.
• Set results-focused goals.
• Establish a close loop audit process including a
reporting on audit findings.
Recommendation #4 – Eliminate Appeals Backlog
The state should seek to eliminate the current backlog of cases in appeals. Eliminating the backlog will
• Dedicate resources to resolve these cases.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 211
Transportation
and Turnpike
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the
Kansas Department of Transportation. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this
endeavor, especially:
•
Mike King, Secretary of Transportation
•
Jerry Younger, Deputy Secretary and State Transportation Engineer
•
Keith Bradshaw, Director Division of Fiscal and Asset Management
•
Ben Cleeves, Budget/Fiscal Officer
Agency Overview
Previous Efficiency Initiatives and Additional
Areas for Future Evaluation
The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) is
continually evaluating the agency to identify ways to
reduce cost and increase efficiency, in order to deliver
the best transportation system possible for the state of
Kansas. Recent initiatives include:
• Headcount Reduction – KDOT has reduced its
overall headcount by 18% since 2011, primarily
through eliminating positions once they become
open.
• KTA and KDOT Partnership – In 2013, the State
passed legislation to formalize a partnership between the Kansas Toll Authority (KTA) and the
Department of Transportation (KDOT). The legislation provides the opportunity to identify and
implement additional operational efficiencies
and cost reductions across the two systems. They
have already identified facilities that can be colocated with KTA locations in Emporia.
• Privatize District Parts Stores – The DOT began
working with a private company to manage the
vehicle and equipment parts stores in order to
gain efficiencies for shop employees and reduce costs for unneeded inventory. The pilot is
planned to begin in 2016.
• Design-Build Projects – KDOT has begun to use
212 | Transportation and Turnpike
design-build project methodology for large projects. The design-build approach combines the
engineering design and construction under a
single contract in order to encourage innovative
approaches to lower cost and shorten project
times. They are currently using this approach on
the Johnson County Gateway Project in the Kansas City Metro area.
• Public-Private Partnership Projects – KDOT supports enabling legislation for using Public-Private
Partnerships (PPP) that would enable the use of
arrangements with private sector developers to
help construct, finance and manage additional
projects where appropriate.
• Facility Consolidation – KDOT has begun to selectively consolidate locations across areas and subareas as well as with local municipalities including a shared location in Lawrence.
• Property and Equipment Disposal – In 2011, KDOT
went through an asset utilization evaluation and
disposed of excess property through the State
Surplus Office. They also utilize a central equipment management system to track vehicle utilization to identify excess equipment for surplus
on an ongoing basis.
• Local Road Transfer – KDOT has been systematically transferring ownership and maintenance of
local roads to city and county authorities. DOT
focuses on moving roads after state development is complete and other roads where local
management would be more effective.
• Economic Development – KDOT has an economic
development fund that sets aside $10 million a
year to support infrastructure needs for various
commercial projects accessing state roads.
• Federal Funds Management – KDOT is successfully
managing and using all their federal funds such
that they are eligible for redistribution of excess
federal funds at the end of the year.
• DOT is vacating the 12th floor of the Eisenhower
building on December 31st 2015, reducing its
rent expense by $138,414 for FY16 and $278,088
in FY 17.
There are additional areas that may promote greater
efficiency and effectiveness within the Department of
Transportation that should be explored further.
• Increase Contracting Flexibility – In addition to
financial budget constraints, the DOT is constrained by a headcount limitation. Leadership
should have the option to staff functions and
projects based only on what makes the most economic sense, even if that means hiring more staff.
• Materials Labs and Testing – KDOT should consider outsourcing some, or all, of this function
like other states—Florida has done this to reduce costs and assets. An attempt to quantify the
savings was made but further analysis by KDOT
should be done in order to validate the potential
of this opportunity. As a result of this review, discussions with Florida’s DOT have been initiated.
• Snow Removal Shifts – Rather than provide the
same level of service for all state roads based on
class of roads, Kansas should evaluate the snow
removal policy for 2nd and 3rd tier roads based on
traffic volume and time of day (such as reduced
coverage at night). Other states with similar
weather patterns limit snow removal coverage
for the least traveled roads.
• Project Partnerships – KDOT should partner with
KTA to introduce High Occupancy Toll (HOT)
lanes on congested interstates where appropriate in the future. KDOT should also partner with
KTA on any new expansion projects like the South
Lawrence Traffic way, Centennial Bridge, Wichita
NW Bypass, and other projects in the pipeline.
• Alignment with Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) – While already underway, DOT and DMV
should continue to work in a more coordinated
fashion to improve the accuracy and timeliness
of driver’s license data to support video tolling,
and to support driver safety programs across the
state. There may also be opportunities for colocation of offices, such as commercial driver’s
license (CDL) centers.
• Facility Sharing – DOT should explore where feasible co-locating field offices with existing city
and county road facility office locations.
• IT – DOT should continue to coordinate with the
state Office of Information Technology (OTIS)
to implement changes from the Excipio study.
These include exploring increasing IT outsourc-
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 213
ing and consolidating the state GIS group with
the DOT GIS team.
• Performance Bonuses – DOT should work with the
state on this statewide initiative to provide greater flexibility for departments to award incentive
compensation to staff for various reasons, such as
bringing new ideas that are adopted to improve
service or save money, reward dedicated service
or exceeded performance expectations.
Baseline Budget
Each year, significant funds are transferred out of the
State Highway Fund (SHF) to support other state priorities including transportation expenses for public and
special education students, and for the operation of
the DMV within the Department of Revenue. Moving
forward, KDOT and state budget officials should work
together to ensure no highway construction or preservation priorities are unduly delayed due to transfers
out of the SHF.
Department of Transportation
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2016
FY 2017
(All values in 000s)
Actual
Gov. Estimate
Base Budget
Gov. Rec.
Gov. Rec.
$1,663,871
$1,330,098
$1,612,625
$1,104,046
$1,537,010
Total
Benchmark Comparisons
Fiscal Benchmarks
KDOT benefits from strong gasoline fuel tax funding
the interstate highway system.1 Statewide, the total
number of bridges is 25,085, with 5,081 maintained by
the DOT.
Gasoline Fuel
Tax - Cents Per
Gallon[1]
% to DOT
Net Cents Per
Gallon to DOT
Arkansas
22%
63%
~13.5
Iowa
21%
47%
~9.8
Kansas
24%
66%
~16.0
Kansas ranks 5th in the nation for highway performance
and cost-effectiveness, according to the 2014 Annual
Highway Report by Reason Foundation. Kansas ranks
15th in deficient bridges, 1st in rural Interstate pavement
condition, 11th in urban Interstate pavement condition
and 3rd in urban Interstate congestion. On spending,
Kansas ranks 27th in total disbursements per mile and
17th in administrative disbursements per mile.
Kentucky
20%
66%
~12.9
Nebraska
23%
41%
~9.3
Kansas’s Complete Results
Nevada
25%
71%
1770%
New Mexico
19%
65%*
~12.0
Oklahoma
17%
59%
~10.0
Utah
25%
70%
~17.2
State
FHWA - Motor Fuel Data and the Highway
Trust Fund
[1]
compared to its peer states.
*Less $4.48 million to the Qualified Tribe Sharing
Agreement
Operational Benchmarks
The State of Kansas has more than 140,000 miles of
public roads and highways, which equates to 287,100
total lane miles. Of those miles, approximately 10,000
are maintained by the Department of Transportation,
which makes Kansas the 27th largest state system in
the nation, 238 by the Kansas Turnpike Authority, and
approximately 130,000 by local governments. Of the
miles of highways maintained by the state, 635 are on
Performance by Category in 2012
Ranking
Total Disbursements per Mile
27
Capital and Bridge Disbursements per Mile
27
Maintenance Disbursements per Mile
14
Administrative Disbursements per Mile
17
Rural Interstate Pavement Condition
1
Rural Arterial Pavement Condition
5
Urban Interstate Pavement Condition
11
Urban Interstate Congestion
3
Deficient Bridges
15
Fatality Rate
33
Narrow Rural Arterial Lanes
10
Source:
www.reason.org/news/show/21st-annualhighway-report-states#KS
1
Kansas Department of Transportation FY2017
Budget Book.
214 | Transportation and Turnpike
As the tables below show, Kansas has an extremely
high percentage of interstate highways in good condition as well as a high percentage of highway projects
on schedule.
State
Interstate Miles in Good
Condition
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
53%
98%
49%
88%
41%
94%
72%
84%
Source: Self reported performance measures on agency
websites: Kansas DOT, Kentucky DOT, Nebraska DOT, New
Mexico DOT, Oklahoma DOT, Utah DOT
State
Nebraska
Kansas
Iowa
Nevada
% of Projects on Schedule
91%
95%
85%
76%
Source: Self reported performance measures on agency
websites: Kansas DOT, Nebraska DOT, Nevada DOT, Utah
DOT
Efficiency Review Summary
The A&M team performed an evaluation across the
Department of Transportation, while keeping in mind
its mission “to provide a statewide transportation system to meet the needs of Kansas,” as well as their six
strategic goals.
1. Program Delivery - KDOT will successfully complete the 10-year, $8 billion Transportation Works
for Kansas Program (T-Works) on time and within
budget.
2. Organizational Improvement - KDOT will continually improve as an organization.
3. External Relationships - KDOT will build relationships with all of its nongovernmental external
customers and partners.
4. Workforce - KDOT will successfully maximize the
effectiveness of its workforce.
5. Technology - KDOT will optimize its use of technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the department's operations.
6. Intergovernmental Relationships - KDOT will
build on its relationships with all of its intergovernmental customers and partners.
Many of the recommendations that A&M developed
align with these goals—including program delivery,
organization improvement, workforce, and external
partnerships.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 215
Recommendations
Target Savings and Revenue Estimate
(All values in 2015 dollars, in 000s)
Rec #
Recommendation Name
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
Total
1
Maximize KTA and KDOT Partnership
$2,500
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$22,500
2
Eliminate area offices, moving administration
to Districts and operations to sub-area offices
$3,200
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$28,800
3
Replace use of some external contractors for
design engineering with in house staff
$500
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$7,500
4
Sell underutilized non-passenger equipment
$3,000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,000
5
Institute right of way, access permits, driveway
permit fees
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$7,500
6
Institute or increase sponsorship for rest stops,
traveler assist hotline, roadside logo sign program, and motorist assist program
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$8,500
7
Centralize DOT HR staff at HQ with DOA
$450
$900
$900
$900
$900
$4,050
8
Sell or lease state radio system operation
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$0
$12,850
$16,500
$17,500
$17,500
$17,500
$81,850
DOT Total
Recommendation #1 – The agencies
should move to more aggressively
consolidate operations and adopt best
practices where possible.
Specifically KDOT should:
• Utilize state and not Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) procurement practices for state
funded projects that are not on the National
Highway System.
• Co-locate or merge offices and dispatch centers
that are in the same vicinity.
• Consolidate engineering and project management staff given the responsibilities and experience required is essentially the same in both
agencies.
• Continually evaluate opportunities for further
savings and efficiencies, such as maintenance
crews, procurement, etc.
Background and Findings
• In 2012, the Legislature passed legislation HB
2234, which formalized the partnership between
KDOT and KTA.
• The KDOT budget was reduced by $15 million in
2014 and in 2015 for various partnership savings.
• DOT has already implemented co-location of facilities with KTA’s Emporia location.
• Other leading states have also moved to merge
toll and highway operations in order to achieve
savings:
»» Massachusetts integrated their tolling authority with their DOT in 2009 and saw over
$30 million in savings the first year.
»» North Carolina merged their turnpike authority and DOT in 2010.
• All projects on the National Highway System, regardless of funding source, must follow: FHWA
standards2 for Quality Based Selection (i.e. Brooks
Act), Davis Bacon prevailing wage considerations, specific design standards, environmental
standards, etc.
• State statute mandates that KDOT follow Brooks
and Davis Bacon Acts for all projects.
• Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Kentucky and Texas
2
FHWA – Design Standards https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/
qa.cfm#a03
216 | Transportation and Turnpike
are among the states that do not adhere to the
Brooks Act for state funded highway projects.
• Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Texas are examples of states that do not follow the Davis Bacon
regulation for state funded highway projects.
• States that do not use federal contract evaluation
methods would not be able to use federal funding for road construction.
• KDOT state funded project budget is $126 million
for FY2016 and approximately $340 million for
FY2017.
• KTA has a dispatch center for one troop—the rest
of the state uses the dispatch center in Salina that
is run by Highway Patrol.
»» KTA dispatch is located in KTA headquarters
in Wichita and has a staff of 13 people.
»» KTA handles dispatching requests for highway patrol, motorist assist, maintenance,
safety and wreckers.
• Kansas Highway Patrol Dispatch currently has the
capacity to handle the KTA call volume for highway patrol and motorist assist dispatch.
»» The capacity can handle Capital Police dispatch night shift.
• KTA currently employs 537 full and part time employees across 18 locations.
• KTA and KDOT facilities are located in El Dorado,
Wichita, Lawrence, Topeka and Bonner Springs.
»» The Topeka location is available for consolidation as part of the partnership.
• Engineering teams can be consolidated to provide greater project coordination and utilization
of available staff including:
»» Material testing
»» Bridge inspections
»» Traditional engineering design
»» Engineering project leadership
• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) teams
can also be consolidated by combining the KDOT
ITS team with the current KTA team. NOTE in one
or the other.
• As it is important to maintain separate financial
structures given the different sources of capital
for each agency, KTA and KDOT can continue to
cross-charge for services rendered to the other
agency.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$2,500
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Key Assumptions
• Based on estimates from KDOT staff, DOT can
save approximately 10% of total project cost by
using non-federal contract evaluation methods.
KDOT estimated that there are $50 million in addressable projects each year, equating to $5 million in annual savings.
• Consolidating the Topeka KDOT facility into KTA
facilities will have additional one-time and recurring savings that require additional quantification.
• Consolidating engineering and dispatch functions will provide additional savings that require
additional evaluation to value precisely.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the KTA Partnership recommendation
include:
• Implement changes to design standards as well
as procurement process and specifications in order to see savings in projects starting next year.
• Assign teams to evaluate additional facilities and
engineering. Dispatch team consolidations and
develop plans to implement as soon as possible.
• Given that the pay structure is different for each
agency, care should be taken in the organizational design to minimize disruption, using crosscharging for services whenever possible.
The expected time to implement this recommendation is 12 months—six months to relocate Topeka
KDOT crew to KTA facilities and 12 months to update
project design changes. Removing the Davis Bacon
and Brooks Act mandates, would likely require action
by the state legislature.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 217
Recommendation #2 – Eliminate area
offices, moving administration to Districts and maintenance to sub-area
offices
cient than several peer states, especially regarding DOT maintained lane miles per office.
• Based on high-level utilization analysis, it appears
the sub-areas have sufficient capacity available to
cover the area crew utilization.
There are opportunities to achieve efficiencies and
cost savings from the following:
• Consolidate area offices into existing sub-areas
and districts. Sub-areas would now report directly to the district engineer.
• Establish updated roles and responsibilities for
each bureau and level of field office to minimize
redundancy and promote cooperation.
• Proactively identify DOT facilities (buildings,
equipment and maintenance yards) that could
be co-located with existing state as well as local
city and county facilities.
State
• Removing the areas will, over time, reduce DOT
headcount by 87 people. This includes 25 area
engineers, 25 area maintenance engineers, and
37 area crew. Area crew would be reduced to
have equal size teams across all areas to assist
with winter storm coverage.
»» Salary savings are $3.9 million or $6.4 million
when 65% burden rate is included.
For facilities closed, DOT will see one-time revenue
for the sale of the property and recurring savings for
operating expenses. Further evaluation is needed to
quantify the value of the savings.
The team also reviewed a summary of the roles and
FTE Count
Total Lane
Miles
Lane Miles
Maintained by
DOT
DOT Maintained Lane
Miles/FTE
Field Offices
DOT Maintained Lane
Miles / Office
4,735
2,387
2,448
2,148
2,305
1,730
2,818
166,000
234,000
147,000
191,000
287,000
98,000
235,000
63,500
31,000
30,000
22,634
23,988
15,000
24,122
13
13
12
11
10
9
9
108
69
27
36
112
29
119
588
449
1,111
629
214
517
203
Kentucky
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Nebraska
Kansas
Utah
Iowa
Background and Findings
• Kansas is split into six districts and 25 areas within
the six districts.
responsibilities within the Operations division. Below
are the observations of possible redundancy and potential for consolidation:
• Under the 25 areas are 111 sub areas, one standalone construction office, and eight materials
labs maintained in 112 facility locations.
• Districts and the Bureau of Maintenance both list
creating policies and highway maintenance as
their responsibility.
• The Operations team is comprised of 1,840 total
filled positions, including 1,712 positions in the
district, area, and sub-area offices.
• Districts and the Bureau of Construction both list
maintaining construction programs as their responsibility.
• Operations has three bureaus at headquarters–
Construction, Maintenance and Research.
• Areas and sub-areas are both responsible for executing day-to-day operations.
• As shown on the table below, KDOT is less effi-
• Districts and the Bureau of Research both list di-
218 | Transportation and Turnpike
rect research activities.
• Facilities management is listed under the Bureau
of Maintenance as well as the Division of Partner
Relations.
Given the heavy usage of expensive outside contractors, the department should hire more in-house design engineers to reduce overall costs.
Specifically KDOT should:
• Bureau of Maintenance is responsible for procurement of all equipment instead of DOT procurement and State procurement.
• Hire approximately 20 Engineering Tech III level
engineers (in-house) and reduce consultant engineers.
• Bureau of Maintenance and IT in the Division of
Partner Relations, both list system administration
for Operations as their responsibility.
• Continually evaluate standard workload and
keep in-house engineering level high enough to
meet steady state needs. Use outside contractors
for peak demand and specialized needs.
Recommendation #2 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$3,200
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
Key Assumptions
• Sub-areas and Districts will have the capacity to
absorb remaining area staff for the four offices
consolidated.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Consolidation recommendation include:
• Plans need to be developed for the specific facilities affected and absorption of the area staff responsibilities into the districts and sub-areas and
associated timely headcount reductions.
Background and Findings
• In recent years, KDOT has reduced engineering
staff via attrition to help meet approved state
staffing levels.
• Based on input from the Director of the Division
of Engineering, the Engineering Tech III is the
greatest level needed for KDOT.
• Based on FY2015 consultant engineer costs,
KDOT paid enough for consultant engineers to
hire 99 Engineering Tech III FTEs.
Recommendation #3 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$500
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
Key Assumptions
The expected time to implement the recommendation is 18 months—12 months to reduce headcount
and relocate area teams and six months to sell the
consolidated locations. The recommendation is not
expected to require statutory or regulatory changes.
• Most consultant engineers are utilized for certain projects or specialties, and should not be
considered for bringing in-house. However, approximately 20% are assumed to be essentially
utilized full-time on core engineering that could
be performed by full-time employees.
Recommendation #3 – Replace some
outside design engineering contractors
with in-house staff
• KDOT will be able to hire 20 qualified engineers
with the costs and productivity assumed in the
table above (i.e. 25% of a full-time employee’s
time is associated with training, vacation and
other non-project hours).
Pre-Professional Consultant
In-house EIT Hire
Base Annual
Burden
Facility
Charge
Profit 15%
Contract
Admin 7%
Productive
Time 25%
Total Cost
per FTE
$70,000
$56,926
$114,828
$37,002
N/A
$6,703
$27,724
N/A
$12,938
N/A
N/A
$25,000
$225,490
$125,631
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 219
• KDOT will be able to hire 25% of the engineers
in year one, increase to 50% in year two and hire
and staff all 20 in year three.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Engineering Consultant recommendation include:
• Request approval to increase the in-house engineering headcount
• Begin recruiting engineers to fill open positions
The expected time to implement the recommendation is 18 months—four months to gain approvals,
and 14 months to recruit, hire, and onboard additional
engineers.
Recommendation #4 – Sell underutilized non-passenger equipment
Some non-passenger equipment is underutilized and
should be sold. Specifically KDOT should:
• Eliminate an estimated 185 pieces of equipment—Chippers, Crack Sealer, Compressors,
Derrick Truck, Core Drills, Asphalt Distribution,
Loaders, Graders, Pothole Patchers, Rollers, and
Sweepers.
Background and Findings
• KDOT has 2,802 pieces of equipment across 24
different categories ranging from fleet sedans to
graders.
• KDOT uses an equipment management system
to track miles and hours for every piece of equipment.
• The state must keep necessary snow and ice removal equipment to meet the needs of the winter storm season.
• Based on input from DOT leadership, the following guidelines were used for utilization:
cracks are at their widest. Any piece that has
relatively small usage during those months
(November-April) would be a candidate.
»» Air compressor: These are easy to rent. At
the very least, they should have one for each
district to share. Any unit with <50hrs is a
candidate to surplus.
»» Derrick Truck: Could reduce to two per district.
»» Core Drill: Reduce to 10 units and share if
needed.
»» Asphalt Distributor: Could reduce to three
and share amongst districts.
»» Loaders: This group includes a wide spectrum from skid steers to large track loaders.
Selectively reduce this number by 25%.
»» Motor graders: Listing includes a number
that were procured with a “buyback” contract. All the other units have some age on
them. DOT should remove them from service (and either share, lease or rent) when
their maintenance becomes cost prohibitive.
»» Pothole patchers: Those with <100hrs
would be candidates to reduce the number
and share. Patchers are specialized pieces of
equipment, with no rental option available.
»» Roller: Includes different types of rollers
used for different purposes. Based on hours,
could reduce numbers by 25%.
»» Sweepers: Roller brush sweepers could be
reduced by 25%.
• Based on this criteria, DOT should eliminate 185
pieces of equipment with sale proceeds estimated at $3 million.
Recommendation #4 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Key Assumptions
»» Chippers: For each full 8-hour day of cutting
brush, the actual run time on the chipper is
probably 2-4 hours. Equipment with usage
less than 40-50 hours is a candidate for selling. Chippers are widely available for rental.
• There is a sufficient market for the identified
items to realize the estimated savings.
»» Crack sealers: Most DOT crack sealing will be
done during the colder months when the
• Center Stripper and Rock Cutter will reduce with
natural attrition.
• The utilization guidelines used by DOT are appropriate.
220 | Transportation and Turnpike
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Equipment recommendation include:
• Finalize list of equipment to surplus
• Conduct sale through State Surplus
The expected time to implement the recommendation is six months—one month to identify and prepare
specific equipment, five months to sell through State
Surplus. The recommendation is not expected to require statutory or regulatory changes.
Recommendation #5 – Institute rightof-way, access permits, driveway permit fees
The department should implement fee collection for
their right-of-way and access permit activities. Specifically KDOT should:
• Based on other state access permit costs Kansas
should institute access permits fees of:
»» Type 1 - $75
»» Type 2 - $200
»» Type 3 - $300
»» Type 4 - $400
»» Type 5 - $500
»» Type 6 - $750
• KDOT should add a fee of $800 for right-of-way
permits.
Background and Findings
• State benchmarking shows that most states do
charge for access permits.
• KDOT issued 204 access permits across the six
types and 1,774 right-of-way permits in FY2015.
gency facility
»» Type IV: LOW VOLUME Commercial: Farm or
Home-Based Business
»» Type V: MEDIUM VOLUME: 50-499 VPD (Industrial, Commercial, Local Road)
»» Type VI: HIGH VOLUME: 500 VPD and over
(Industrial, Commercial, Local Road)
Recommendation #5 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
Key Assumptions
• The infrastructure used to collect other fees will
be able to be used to collect access and right-ofway fees.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Permit Fee recommendation include:
• Request legislative approval to charge permit
fees
• Communicate change to field offices and general
public
• Institute procedures for collecting fees
The expected time to implement the recommendation is eight months—four months for legislature approval and four months to communicate and put the
change in place.
Recommendation #6 – Institute or increase sponsorship for rest stops, traveler assist hotline, roadside logo sign
program, and motorist assist program
• Operations team estimate is $732.51 per permit
for a total of $1.44 million a year.
The department should implement sponsorship programs for traveler assist hotline, motorist assist program, and rest stops.
• Access Permit Types
Background and Findings
»» Type I: Non-commercial: Residential, field,
Duplex, or small apartment complex
»» Type II: Special-use: Treatment plant, microwave station, utility stations and dike roads
»» Type III: Fire-station and/or Paramedic emer-
• Many states sell sponsorship rights to private
companies for many items including traveler assist hotline, roadside logo sign program, motorist
assist program, and rest stops.
• KTA is already utilizing sponsorship for their
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 221
motorist assist program—State Farm pays KTA
$73,800 per year to cover the contractually stipulated costs. KTA recently signed a three-year
extension to their contract with State Farm and
Traveler's Marketing (which administers the
sponsorship).
• Customers frequently complete surveys and KTA
receives 100% positive feedback from customers
assisted by State Farm Safety Assist patrol drivers.
• Eleven states have State Farm sponsorship for
their roadside assistance program with an average of $262,519 a year.
• FHWA rules and State of Kansas regulations have
been reviewed by DOT staff and determined that
it is possible to institute sponsorships from reputable companies.
• KDOT paid $288,504 in state funds and $1,154,018
in federal funds for FY2016 to the Kansas Highway Patrol for the Motorist Assist Program.
• KDOT has 37 rest stops that cost approximately
$2 million a year to maintain.
• Seven states currently have rest area sponsorships with an average income of $28,570 per stop.
• The 511 program costs $181,000 a year for the telephony charges.
• At least five states have sponsorship for their
511 program. There are multiple sponsor levels
including 511 sign advertising, phone ads, website ads and phone app ads. Example sign rate
is $160,000 for 100 signs, or ad package rate is
$68,000 for three months.
• Kansas collects $1.5 million a year for the logo sign
program, however KDOT receives only $25,000 of
that total amount. The remaining amount going
to the Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. Average expenditures historically averaged
approximately $250,000 and the same is budgeted for FY16 and FY17.
Key Assumptions
• Kansas will be able to generate sponsorships
that will generate income on average with other
states.
• Will receive approval to retain expenditure costs
for logo sign program.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Sponsorship recommendation include:
• Release an RFP for sponsorship opportunities
• Request expense coverage for logo signs
• The expected time to implement the recommendation is eight months—five months for the
RFP process to final selection and three months
to begin the contracts. This recommendation is
not expected to require statutory or regulatory
changes.
Recommendation #7 – Centralize DOT
HR staff at HQ with DOA
The department should complete the centralization
of HQ HR staff, effectively reducing staff supporting
DOA by 12 FTE.
Background and Findings
• HR was centralized to DOA statewide
• DOT has 20 staff in the HR organization located in
DOT HQ offices
»» These roles include benefits, recruiting, data
research budget, compensation, FMLA and
drug screening, and training and development
• DOT has eight HR resources in the district offices
responsible for hiring and other personnel administration
• HR staff has an average salary of $45,524 and burden rate of 65%
• State average is 211 staff per HR resource
Recommendation #6 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
»» DOT has 104 staff per HR resource
»» Average does not include 30 other state
organizations that do not have any HR resources
222 | Transportation and Turnpike
Recommendation #7 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$450
$900
$900
$900
$900
Key Assumptions
• DOT will have access to HR team as needed
• Retain five training and development staff in DOT
• Retain three HR staff at DOT HQ and reduce by 12
HR positions to align with state agency average
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the HR recommendation include:
• Identify standard work to transition to DOA team
• Transition ownership to DOA
• Institute mutually agreeable service level agreement (SLA) to ensure ongoing performance expectations are met and monitored.
The expected time to implement the recommendation is five months—two months to identify work to
transition and three months to transition and reduce
headcount. This recommendation is not expected to
require statutory or regulatory changes.
Recommendation #8 – Sell or lease
state radio system
The department should look at options to sell or lease
it to commercial users. Specifically KDOT should:
• Outsource the management of the radio to another company and allow them to lease the extra
bandwidth.
• Further evaluate the potential value and annual
savings for the arrangement based on actual proposals from the private sector.
Background and Findings
• 800 MHz wireless communications systems with
multiple towers.
• Cost $100 million to build.
• DOT has six people on staff to maintain the system and a budget of $7 million annually.
• State is required by federal law to have use of the
radio system.
• DOT and highway patrol use is estimated at 60%70% of the radio resources.
• Possible bandwidth available to lease out to other companies is up to 30%.
• The state is required to provide the radio service
to other city and county agencies. The state does
not know how much bandwidth they use.
Key Assumptions
• Kansas will be able to setup a partnership to
maintain the system and lower the state’s cost to
use it.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Radio recommendation include:
• Conduct an in-depth review of current assets and
evaluate the potential market value based on actual proposals from the private sector via an RFP
process.
• Evaluate the use of the radio to determine available bandwidth for lease.
The expected time to implement the recommendation is seven months—one month to determine available bandwidth, three months to perform the RFP
process, and three months to fully implement. This
recommendation is not expected to require statutory
or regulatory changes.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 223
General Government
Review
224| Lottery
Lottery
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge, time, and advice of many individuals within the Kansas Lottery. Alvarez & Marsal would like to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor, especially:
•
Sherriene L. Jones-Sontag, Deputy Executive Director
Implement ITVM
Recommendation #1 – Allow the Lottery to use Instant Ticket Vending Machines in Kansas
The state should allow the Lottery to invest in and use
electronic product dispensers.
Background and Findings
• The Kansas Lottery sales exceeded $250 million
and transferred more than $75 million to the
state in FY15.
• The Kansas Lottery has approximately 1,800 vendors across the state.
• Forty four states have a lottery, and 38 of those
states use self-service electronic ticket dispensers.
• The State of Washington has two vendors that
provide 1,494 machines, which generate $2,642
to $2,645 in sales per machine per week.
• Higher traffic locations such as grocery stores
generate $3,390 to $4,191 in sales per machine
per week.
• The primary objection has been related to concerns about minors purchasing scratch off lottery
tickets without supervision.
• The proposal is to use limited implementation
in higher performing stores, using highly visible
locations where store managers and clerks can
monitor the machines.
Recommendation #1 - (dollars in 000’s)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
$6,147
$9,554
$9,554
$9,554
$9,554
Key Assumptions
• There is an estimated increase of $30 million in
annual lottery sales as a result of the ITVMs
• There is an estimated increase from $8 million to
$9 million in annual funds that would transfer to
the general fund.
• The retailer profits would increase from $1.3 to
$1.5 million.
• Corporate Income tax rates of 0.3 percent were
applied to net profit.
• Lottery retailers who have locations in other
states, where electronic dispensers are available
report their sales increased from 30% to 50% and
have cut their lottery labor costs in half.
• Kansas is assumed to be able to achieve 50 percent of Washington State’s point of sale efficiency in 2017 and 75 percent of Washington State’s
point of sale efficiency in 2018.
• The lottery is assumed to be able to transfer 25
percent to 30 percent of the increased lottery
ticket sales to the state.
• The administration of the program would be
minimal.
Critical Steps to Implement
The critical steps necessary to complete the implementation of the Lottery recommendation include:
• Revise state statues to allow for the use of ITVMs.
• Install dispensers in 325 top performing higher
traffic retailers .
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 225
226 | National Guard
National Guard
NATIONAL GUARD OVERVIEW
• Physical Security and Vault Security
• Environmental
The Office of the Adjutant General is the central authority for the Kansas National Guard. It administers
the federal-state Master Cooperative Agreements that
includes the Kansas Army and Air National Guard. Its
mission is to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Kansas by providing a ready military, emergency management and homeland security capability for
the state and the nation.
Approximately 7,500 Guardsmen currently serve the
state of Kansas. Military equipment for the Kansas
National Guard is provided by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) through the National
Guard Bureau (NGB). There is federal and state control
over military strength and mobilization of the Kansas
Guard. The federal and state governments provide
funding—federal funding flows through the NGB to
the United States Property and Fiscal Officer (USPFO)
of Kansas, who has the financial management responsibility to control federal funds of the Master Cooperative Agreements.
Since 2013, the Office of the Adjutant General has
made progress cutting costs and implementing efficiencies. Although they may be able to increase their
federal funding, without a commensurate increase in
state funding, the federal funds are lost. The ratio of
federal and state funds varies by Army and Air National Guard as well as by program. For example, the federal government contributes 100% of allowable costs
for operating and maintaining the:
• Air National Guard Fire Protection and Security
• Regional Training Sites, Logistical Sites and Ranges
• STARBASE Program (National Guard Youth Programs) & Distance Learning
The commensurate state contribution is:
• 50% Local Armories
• 25% Facilities Operation & Maintenance Activities costs for Air National Guard
• 25% Armed Forces Readiness Centers
Background of Recommendations
Alvarez & Marsal (A&M) conducted an analysis of the
DoD and State National Guard regulations utilizing
information gained through documents provided by
the Office of the Adjutant General. These recommendations were also discussed with officials from the
Office of the Adjutant General. The review identified
several recommendations to improve the accuracy of
funding requests, increase the amount of federal funding, and establish partnerships with other state and
local public and private offices to cut costs, increase
funding, and improve readiness.
Recommendation #1 - Facilities
The state should conduct a thorough review of state
owned properties and facilities utilized by the Kansas
National Guard to look for opportunities to implement
additional surplus asset sales, and consolidate and
reduce their footprint—this will require the Adjutant
General’s approval. The review should include a cost/
benefit analysis to identify the lowest cost option that
meets mission requirements.
• Validate each facility’s designation/title in order
to receive the maximum allowable federal funds.
• Seek opportunities to establish Public/Private
Ventures or Public/Private Partnerships with local law enforcement or security organizations for
ranges and range facilities.
• Compare the cost of state employed versus externally contracted security guards.
Findings and Rationale
The A&M team compiled a list of potentially surplus
state properties. The consolidation or sale of any of
these properties will result in income from the sale,
reduced maintenance costs, and a reduced footprint.
Additionally:
• The Facilities Inventory Support Plan (FISP) identifies the level of Federal reimbursement authorized. Since federal and state funding varies by
installation, it is important to ensure that these
facilities have the proper designation/title to receive the maximum (up to 100%) of allowable/
authorized Federal funds.
• By collaborating with local law enforcement or
security organizations, the Kansas Adjutant General’s Department could receive program funds
that would offset federal or state funding and reduce costs. They could also share information and
resources as well as train together—which would
increase readiness in the event of an emergency.
• An examination of the costs of federal, state or
privately contracted security guards could yield
cost savings by determining the best value for
the requirement.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Identify review objectives
• Identify and assign key stakeholders (federal,
state and local) to the team
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 227
Recommendation #2 – contracting
The Office of the Adjutant General should actively participate in the state’s strategic sourcing exercise recommended by A&M. In addition to the statewide effort to implement strategic sourcing, the Office of the
Adjutant General should pursue if additional savings
are available through review of federal contracting:
• Examine the use of federal (DoD) contracts to
save money with lower unit costs and contract
use fees
• Determine if supply/service contract consolidation would reduce costs
• Maximize federal in-kind support
Findings/Rationale
Government offices tend to develop individual contracts for their unique procurement requirements. As
a result, the same item may be purchased by different
agencies at different prices. Aggregating purchases
will likely reduce unit costs and contract fees, and
increase delivery speed. Strategic sourcing results in
preferred vendors and lower prices. Specific opportunities should be explored to gain the best value for
contracted goods and services through the following
opportunities:
• The federal government (DoD specifically) makes
large volume purchases with lower unit costs.
DoD is not likely to charge the Kansas National
Guard a fee for leveraging its contracts. Thus,
there may be opportunities where DoD contracts
save the Guard both state and federal funds.
• There are likely to be volume discounts and lower
unit costs when supply and service contracts are
consolidated.
• The NGB provides many in-kind services for the
National Guard. With consideration for required
state matching funds, federal in-kind support
could save state funds.
• Conduct the review
• Implement the recommendations
• Track the metrics to determine success
Critical Steps to Implement
Review current purchasing in coordination with efforts with the Department of Administration and review if there are federal contracting options to meet
contracting requirements.
228 | National Guard
RECOMMENDATION #3 – General and Administrative
The Office of the Adjutant General should continue to
look for cost savings:
• Seek federal fund increases that do not require
matching state funds.
• Review the 7115 Real Property Inventory Detail
List records to ensure they reflect current mission
and required workers.
• Find less expensive equipment repair services.
• Conduct regular audits of National Guard facilities funding.
• Team with educational institutions to share distance-learning resources.
• Team with local educational institutions to manage and conduct the StarBase program.
Findings and Rationale
Although the Office of the Adjutant General has made
good progress in reducing costs, there are always opportunities to reduce further. Shifting priorities and
different requirements mandate constant attention to
cost reduction. Funding increases and the federal and
state level are also important, but must be examined
on a case-by-case basis due to the shared funding arrangement for the National Guard.
• There are provisions in the National Guard Regulations, specifically, ANG Appendix 1021F (Forbes
Air Base), and ANG Appendix 1021M (McConnell AFB), that state, “The NGB may increase or
decrease the Financial Plan total with no State
match required on a case-by-case basis.” The Office of the Adjutant General should aggressively
seek out and request all NBG increases that do
not require matching state funds.
• ANG Appendix 1021F, Section 2108, states,
“FOMA manpower authorizations are determined
by the NBG and issued, at a minimum, every 4
years based on the 7115 Real Property Inventory
Detail List records. FOMA manpower authorizations may be adjusted by the NGB upon justification or due to a permanent mission change.”
If state and federal National Guard requirements
change more often than at 4-year intervals, man-
power should be adjusted accordingly. Since
manpower costs are 25% State and 75% Federal,
the state should work to shift more of the staff
cost burden to the federal government.
• A minimum of two studies should be conducted
to evaluate cost reduction of depot-level equipment repairs:
»» Evaluate the cost of outsourcing repair
work to active duty military depots. Their
throughput is higher than a National Guard
facility. Therefore, their costs are likely lower. This decision must consider the results of
a cost/benefit analysis that considers state
and federal costs, as well as manpower and
job impacts.
»» Consider selling Kansas National Guard
equipment repair services to DoD components, state and local government organizations. This would generate program funds to
offset federal or state costs.
• The National Guard funding process is complex.
Regular compliance reviews can drive needed
funding and workforce increases and modifications. It is possible to increase the workforce by
justifying more Federal employees, for example.
The State should try to shift staff labor costs to
the Federal government.
• Many colleges and universities have made recent investments in distance learning to appeal
to a mobile, full-time employed, student body.
Kansas University and Kansas State University
are two examples. The Kansas National Guard
should partner with post-secondary institutions
to utilize their state-of-the-art distance learning
capabilities. Utilizing university distance learning
facilities will likely reduce costs to the National
Guard and improve training delivery, frequency
and quality.
• StarBase 2.0 is an afterschool, middle and high
school mentoring initiative conducted in partnership with local school districts that combines
STEM activities with a relationship-rich, schoolbased environment to help youth transition from
elementary to middle school, and middle school
to high school. Members of the National Guard
are great role models and mentors. Since many
local colleges and universities actively recruit students, particularly STEM candidates, they may be
interested in participating in StarBase. A distance
learning agreement can be modified to include
a StarBase partnership. This type of partnership
may increase student interest in the National
Guard.
Critical Steps to Implement
• Identify and prioritize each additional study
• Set clear objectives, milestones and completion
dates
• Identify all stakeholders and form teams
• Conduct the studies
• Implement the recommendations
• Track the metrics to determine success
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 229
230 | Boards and Commissions
Boards
Agency Overview
Boards and commissions are governmental authorities tasked with the regulation and support of various
industries and their member professionals throughout the state. Kansas employs 141 boards and commissions. Their breadth of influence spans from broad
financial regulation to focused industry groups—such
as those themed solely in nursing or cosmetology.
These boards and commissions are led by gubernatorial and senatorial appointed professionals within
a relevant field. According to the Office of Appointments within the Office of the Governor, the governor
will appoint over 1,000 individuals.1 Appointments occur on an as-needed basis all year long and are subject
to public disclosure. Additionally, boards and commissions routinely meet quarterly and service is generally
voluntary.
and Commissions
These organizations average 6.83 full-time employees
per executive director and/or management level employees. Additionally, boards and commissions average 8.2 board members per organization.
As it stands, these disparate organizations lack significant strategic shared resources or consolidated
leadership and budgetary oversight. There are precedents in other states—such as Utah, Iowa and Virginia—that align boards and commissions thematically,
in order to optimize resources and prevent needless
redundancies in services. In particular, Virginia’s State
Corporation Commission and Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation are separately
responsible for those boards and commissions related
to financial institutions and professional industries, respectively. This industry-specific oversight allows for
strategic planning and shared resources between various boards.
In addition to appointed leadership and board members, these organizations are staffed with a cadre of
professionals. The budgets and organizational structures of nineteen sample boards and commissions
focusing on public health, financial institutions and
technical professions were analyzed. This particular
group was chosen for their subject matter similarities.2
1
Office of the Governor. https://governor.ks.gov/serving-kansans/office-of-appointments
2
Sample boards and commissions:
Abstracters Board of Examiners, Board of Accountancy, State Banking Board, Board of Barbering, Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board,
Board of Cosmetology, Credit Union Council,
Dental Board, State Board of Healing Arts,
Board of Examiners in Fitting and Dispensing
of Hearing Instruments, State Board of Mortuary Arts, State Board of Nursing, Board of
Examiners in Optometry, Board of Pharmacy,
Pooled Money Investment Board, Real Estate
Appraisal Board, Real Estate Commission,
Board of Technical Professions
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 231
Recommendation
Establish separate general industry,
public health and financial industry
umbrella structures to leverage shared
resources, labor capabilities and mission alignment.
whose responsibilities include:
»» Evaluate qualitatively the strategic missions
of each disparate board and commission
and determine where potential alignment
may occur, if/how market forces and industry trends are taken into account and how
shared resources may be leveraged
»» Evaluate quantitatively how budgets and financial resources may be shared across thematically similar boards and commissions
The table below shows the sample group of boards
and commissions, sorted by total FTE:
»» Issue recommendations to the Office of the
Governor and Legislature on possible reform
Board and Commissions Budget Distributionss
(sample sorted by FTE, high to low)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Non-Exec Salary % of Tot.
Financial Regulatory Boards: State Banking Board, Credit Union Council,
Pooled Money Investment Board; Public Health Boards: Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board, Dental Board, State Board of Healing Arts, Board
of Examiners in Fitting and Dispensing of Hearing Instruments, State Board
of Nursing, Board of Pharmacy; Technical Professions Boards: Abstracters Board of Examiners, Board of Accountancy, Board of Barbering, Board of
Cosmetology, State Board of Mortuary Arts, Real Estate Appraisal Board, Real
Estate Commission, Board of Technical Professions
These boards dedicate up to over 80% of their budgets on non-executive FTE salaries, yet share many
thematic and strategic missions. This recommendation states that:
• Three separate committees should be established:
»» Financial Services Regulation Committee
»» Public Health Services Regulation Committee
»» Technical Professions Regulation Committee
• The committees will serve as small task forces
Exec. % of Tot.
Over. % of Tot.
• The task forces will be led by one representative
chosen by the Governor and one representative
chosen by the Legislature, from the pool of member boards and commissions
• They will be funded by a fixed percentage of each
member boards’ budget
Critical Steps to Implement
• Conduct an expanded, objective study of all 141
boards and commissions across the state to determine possible inclusion under the new committees
• Employ lean staffing strategy to ensure committee budgets are not overly burdensome with no/
limited permanent FTE staffing
232 | Budget Process and Review
Budget
Process and Review
Acknowledgements
This budget process review was researched and authored by the Governornment Finance Officers Associate
in conjunction with Alvarez & Marsal and key support from the State of Kansas, especially:
•
Shawn Sullivan, Budget Director
•
Julie Thomas, Deputy Director
•
JG Scott, Assistant Director for Fiscal Affairs
•
Dylan Dear, Managing Fiscal Analyst
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 233
State of Kansas Budget Process Review
Summary of Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 6
Recommendations........................................................................................................................................ 6
Part I:
Budget Stability Smart Practices................................................................................................ 7
Recommendation 1. Establish a Risk-based Reserve Fund Policy.................................................................. 7
Recommendation 2: Develop a Structurally Balanced Budget Policy............................................................... 9
Recommendation 3: Improve Accuracy and Adaptability of Revenue Forecasts............................................. 10
Recommendation 4: Deploy a Long-Term Financial Plan............................................................................... 12
Recommendation 5: Develop User Fee Policies......................................................................................... 15
Recommendation 6: Adopted Debt Management Policy................................................................................. 16
Recommendation 7: Adopt Policy for Addressing Pension Liabilities................................................................ 17
Recommendation 8: Develop Policy for Funding of Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Obligations.........19
Part II.
Improved Accountability.............................................................................................................. 20
Recommendation 9: Conduct a Program/Service Inventory......................................................................... 20
Recommendation 10: Develop Goals to Guide Budget Decision-Making....................................................... 23
Recommendation 11. Include Evidence of Program Effectiveness in Budget Decisions.................................. 24
Recommendation 12. Implement Performance Budgeting........................................................................... 27
Part III.
Budget Transparency.................................................................................................................. 34
Recommendation 13: Provide Online Access to Budget Documents and Supplemental Data............................34
Recommendation 14: Optimize Transparency and Accessibility of the Budget Document................................36
Recommendation 15: Be Transparent about the Roles of Transfers in the Budget............................................ 37
Appendix 1A - State of Wisconsin Program Inventory..................................................................................... 39
Appendix 1-E1
Create a Reader’s Guide................................................................................................. 40
Appendix 1-E2
Include both Summary by Fund and Program Budget Summaries....................................... 42
Appendix 1-E3
Provide Links to Supplemental Documents, Websites and Supplemental Data......................44
Appendix 1-G User Fee Factors................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix 2-H Kansas Department of Corrections Results First Example.......................................................... 46
Appendix 2-L1 Nebraska Online Access to Supplemental Data and Tools Example........................................... 47
References.................................................................................................................................................... 48
234 | Budget Process and Review
Summary of Recommendations
As part of the Statewide Efficiency Study undertaken by the Legislature, Alvarez & Marsal (A&M), in conjunction with the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), evaluated Kansas’ current budget practices
against other state budget practices with a particular focus on:
• Fiscal Stability
• Improved Accountability
• Budget Transparency
Kansas’ financial and budgetary issues have been reflected in its bond rating. At AA, with a negative outlook,
Kansas’ bond rating is one of the least favorable for state governments in the United States. As the State continues to address its fiscal issues, budgetary practices should also receive priority.
The chapter identifies 15 “smart practices” that will help to improve its budgetary processes and execution.
Implementing these recommendations will result in improved financial and operating outcomes and, ultimately, better and more reliable long-term fiscal health.
They fall into three areas: Fiscal Stability, Improved Accountability and Transparency.
Part I: Fiscal Stability Smart Practices
(Basic & Long Term Financial Health)
Smart Practice
Rationale
Establish a Risk-Based Reserve Fund
Ensure Kansas can withstand the next economic downturn
Policy
Develop a Structurally Balanced Budget
Encourage a budget that contributes to long-term financial health
Policy
Improve Accuracy and Adaptiveness of
Provide better revenue information and cost/economic drivers for
Revenue Forecasts
budget decision-makers
Develop Long Term Financial Plans
Develop a long term financial plan that addresses the multi-year fiscal
impact of operating and capital improvement spending requirements
Develop User Fee Policy
Develop Debt Management Policies
Adopt Policy for Addressing Pension Liabilities
Ensure those who use public services pay the appropriate costs to
use services
Adopt policies to govern the use of debt and the amount of debt
Kansas will incur
Pension policies define the state’s intent to fully fund its pension obligations and follow other practices necessary to maintaining a health
position in its pension funds.
The State of Kansas currently succeeds with keeping OPEB risk low,
and should adopt policies to build on this success
Maintain a Policy for Funding of Other
Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Obligations
Part II: Improved Accountability Smart Practices
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 235
Smart Practice
Conduct a Program / Service Inventory
Assessment
Develop Goals to Guide Budget DecisionMaking
Include Evidence of Program Effectiveness in Budget Decisions
Implement Performance Budgeting
Rationale
Help decision-makers understand the services the budget funds
detail
Goals provide a basis for making resource allocation decisions during
the budget process
Kansas receives the highest return for its dollars when program effectiveness is embedded in budget decisions
Create a statewide approach to introducing into the budget process
consideration of the results a given program or service will achieve
with the money it receives
Part III: Budget Transparency Smart Practices
Smart Practice
Rationale
Provide Online Access to Budget DocuHelp decision-makers understand the services the budget funds in
ments and Supplemental Data
detail
Optimize transparency and accessibility
Use the best techniques from the GFOA Distinguished Budget Preof the budget document
sentation Award program to improve transparency
Improved transparency can help lead to improved decision-making
Be Transparent About the Role of Transfers in the Budget.
about transfers
These are essential measures that the state should take on in the next several years. Below is a recommended
timeline for implementation that aligns to the critical implementation steps discussed with each recommendation.
Short-Term (1-2 years)
Medium-Term (2-3 years)
Long-Term (3 years +)
Risk-based reserve policy
Budget Stability
Structurally balanced budget policy
Improve forecasting process
Start long-term planning (eg. Forecast)
Enhance long-term planning
User fee policy
Debt policy
Pension Policy
OPEB Funding Policy
Improved
Accountability
Conduct a program inventory
Develop agency goals
Use evidence of program effectiveness in budget decisions
Develop meaures of goals
Research & adopt performance budgeting law
Transparency
Design and implement performance budgeting system
Enhance budget document presentation
Provide one-line budget information
Improve transparency of transfers
236 | Budget Process and Review
The Legislative Budget Committee and the governor’s cabinet agencies should provide input into the specific
design choices of the budget reforms so that they strike the right balance between—flexibility for policy-makers to develop a budget that satisfies their needs, and accountability for long-term financial health that the
reforms intend to promote. The Legislative Budget Committee likely will provide guidance on how the State
should report on its compliance with the goals they set.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 237
Introduction
Smart practices are based on the work of GFOA and other advocates of state budget reform including the Pew
Charitable Trusts, the National Association of State Budget Officers, the National Advisory Council on State and
Local Budgeting, the Volcker Alliance and various university researchers who focus on this issue.1 The diagram
below shows GFOA’s 12-Step Process to Financial Recovery. On the left-hand side, a government is in a state of
decline and distress, moving to the right, financial condition improves. In order to move to the right, a government must complete the steps on the chart. This report is part of a diagnosis and recovery plan, as shown in
steps 6 and 7, and the recommendations fit in the later steps.
Recommendations
Part I:Fiscal Stability Smart Practices
Budget stability smart practices address basic and long term financial health and policy needs of the state to
assess financial stability
The budget stability smart practices could help Kansas initiate a move towards healthier and more resilient
budgets immediately. For example, a rainy day fund could be used to buffer the state against shocks, while
a structurally balanced budget policy would encourage budget decisions that put Kansas on the track to a
healthier financial position. These smart practices might not have the immediate impact of those in the basic
financial health category, but are important for the state to ultimately reach a condition of financial health and
resiliency. For example, creating transparency around the status of non-current liabilities—like pensions and
infrastructure maintenance—would provide insight into the state’s long-term financial position.
Recommendation 1.
Establish a Risk-based Reserve Fund Policy
State government revenues, like income, sales and severance taxes, often have a strong cyclical character—
they increase when the economy goes up, and decrease when the economy goes down. However, unlike a
private firm, the demand for service from states is counter-cyclical—demand goes up when the economy
1
The recommended “smart practices” are a set of practices that use advocates of state budget practices and the GFOA official “Best Practices”
that provide more general guidance on good budgeting methods for state and local governments and schools in the US and Canada, and are tailored to
provide guidance for state budgeting practices. Additionally, the determination on whether a practice is “best” can vary with the specific conditions faced
by a given unit of government, and as such, our work has been tailored for the needs of Kansas.
238 | Budget Process and Review
goes down and vice versa. As a result, it is prudent to establish a policy that calls for a reserve fund that can
be built up when the economy is expanding and used temporarily to close budget gaps when the economy is
contracting.
Kansas is one of only four states that do not have a rainy day fund,2 and the state general fund balance has decreased from a beginning balance of $709 million to an ending balance of $87.7 million in FY16. Furthermore,
in a recent analysis by Standard and Poor’s, the low general fund balances were characterized as an offsetting
factor against a state’s financial strengths.3 Many of the states that have rainy day funds place caps on the size
of the rainy day fund equaling 5 percent to 10 percent of appropriations or revenues.4 However, the National
Conference of State Legislatures has recognized that arbitrary standards for the maximum size of a reserve are
often not applicable to the circumstances faced by individual states.5 Taking the aforementioned facts into
consideration, Kansas should adopt risk-based reserve practices, where the size of the reserve is calibrated
specifically to the magnitude of the risks Kansas faces.6 This practice makes the reserve more technically sound
and helps citizens and lawmakers better understand the reasons for reserves.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.Determine the target level of reserves. The state needs to determine the level of risk it faces due to the potential volatility
of its revenue portfolio. This is often done by looking at the sharpest declines in revenue that have been experienced during
past recessions and multiplying that by 1.5 to determine how much of a buffer might be necessary in the future.
For example, the largest single year declines in general fund revenue for Kansas occurred in 2002 and 2010, and both
were around 7 percent.7 This suggests a reserve should be around 10 percent to 11 percent of revenues, which is equal to
about 1.5 times the largest single annual decline.
2.Account for potential to make orderly cuts in the budget. It would be entirely unrealistic for a state to maintain a reserve
large enough to provide a dollar-for-dollar replacement for lost revenue during a recession. Rather, the role of a reserve
is essentially to “soften the blow” and allow the state government to make an orderly transition for a new cost structure
that is affordable under the then-current financial realities. For example, during a long term downturn when the state’s
revenues decline by 10 percent, the state would presumably start cutting back its budget so the state government becomes
more economical and would, therefore, not use the entire reserve. Ideally, an agency-by-agency plan for responding to a
financial crisis would be used to determine a state government’s ability to cut back, but rougher approximations could also
be used.
xx
Determine acceptable use of reserves and authority to use reserves. The state should establish a policy for reserve
use including the legislative authorization for its use. The policy should state that reserves cannot be used to fund
recurring expenditures, unless the reserves are being used in the context of a plan to respond to financial emergency
and transition to a new, more affordable cost structure. This means rainy day funds should not be used to cover
funding gaps created by routine over-projections of revenue. For example, Missouri requires a two-thirds majority
of each house in its legislature in order to use the reserve.
2
The State of Kansas does have a statute that requires fund balances equal to 7.5% of expenditures, but this is not considered a “rainy day fund”
because the fund does not change in response to changing economic conditions. See: “Building State Rainy Day Funds: Policies to Harness Revenue Volatility, Stabilize Budgets, and Strengthen Reserves.” Pew Charitable Trusts. July 2014.
3
4
“Kansas Development Finance Authority; Appropriations; General Obligation.” Standard and Poor’s Rating Service. August 3, 2015.
Daniel Thatcher, “State Budget Stabilization Funds,” National Conference of State Legislatures (September 2008), http://www.ncsl.org/research/
fiscal-policy/state-budget-stabilization-funds-spring-2008.aspx.
5
National Conference of State Legislatures, “NCSL Fiscal Brief: State Balanced Budget Provisions” (October 2010), 7, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/statebalancedbudgetprovisions2010.pdf.
6
“Building State Rainy Day Funds: Policies to Harness Revenue Volatility, Stabilize Budgets, and Strengthen Reserves.” Pew Charitable Trusts. July
7
Note that this percentage has not been adjusted for any changes in tax rates. It is provided just as an illustrative example.
2014.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 239
3.Determine processes for reaching the reserve levels. A policy should provide guidance on how the state will reach its
desired level of reserves. Further, the policy should link deposits to financial conditions such that the state makes deposits into the rainy day funds when there is financial stability so that the resources are available when there is a downturn.
Twelve states have a policy of this sort.8
4.Adopt and document a policy. A rainy day fund should be formalized as a state policy.9 Since Kansas’ current requirements for maintaining a minimum level of fund balance exists as a statutory provision, the existing statute needs to be
strengthened.
Recommendation 2:
Develop a Structurally Balanced Budget Policy
A truly structurally balanced budget is one that supports financial health for multiple years into the future,
defines what it means to achieve structural balance and allows the decision-makers and the public to judge
the financial health of the state’s budget decisions.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.Define recurring expenditures and recurring revenue. Balancing recurring revenue with recurring expenditures is the foundation of a structurally balanced budget.
2.Define the relationship between recurring revenues and recurring expenditures. The next step is to define the acceptable
relationship between recurring revenues and expenditures. The strongest interpretation of structural balance would
require recurring revenues to equal recurring expenditures. A weaker definition might allow for some use of non-recurring
revenues to fund recurring expenditures, as long as the state reserves (i.e., rainy day fund) remain within targeted ranges.
3.Report on policy compliance. To improve transparency, the state should develop a mechanism to self-report compliance with the policy. For example, the state budget document could address how structural balance has or has not been
achieved.
Recommendation 3:
Improve Accuracy and Adaptability of Revenue Forecasts
The budget is built on projections of revenue. A review of Kansas’ actual revenues compared to the original
forecast suggests that Kansas’ historic forecasts have generally been reasonably accurate, but the most recent
two years have shown deviations from the historic level of accuracy at a time when room for error has been
constrained. The state’s history of making mid-year adjustments in response to changing conditions was characterized as one of Kansas’ notable strengths by Standard in Poor’s in a recent rating analysis.10 Still, there may
be room for improvement.
Critical Implementation Steps:
Most of the concern identified with the state’s revenue forecasts revolved around the adaptability of the state’s
forecasts to changing conditions.
1.
Establish reserves to absorb normal variation from forecasts. As noted in the section above, Kansas should actively
build a reserve fund.
2.
Continue to use short-term forecasts to adjust. Kansas was recognized by S&P for its effective use of short-term
forecasts to adjust its budget and can continue this practice.11
8
9
2015.
10
11
“Building State Rainy Day Funds.” Pew. 2014.
See “Best Practice: Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund,” Government Finance Officers Association. September
“Kansas Development Finance Authority; Appropriations; General Obligation” Standard and Poor’s Rating Service. August 3, 2015.
“Kansas Development Finance Authority; Appropriations; General Obligation” Standard and Poor’s Rating Service. August 3, 2015.
240 | Budget Process and Review
3.
Identify items in the budget that can easily be deferred if revenues don’t come in as expected.
4.
Better track and report on revenue volatility. Kansas should establish processes to better track and maintain a data-
base on actual revenues by discrete revenue categories and key factors of revenue growth. In addition to the tracking, the state
should analyze and report on the volatility overall and by revenue class to help inform the revenue estimating process.
Improve consensus revenue estimating process. Consensus revenue forecasting is a best practice for states. Kansas
5.
should improve its current consensus revenue estimating process (suggestions include formalizing some practices that have been
part of
•
•
•
•
Kansas’ process at points in the past).
Develop a new structure for the reports on the major tax revenues. Analogous to the way airplane pilots go through a
detailed checklist before flying the plane, Kansas’ revenue process should describe the list of the factors that are thought
to be indicative of state revenue performance. An explicit model helps reveal any differences in assumptions between the
forecasters. Secondly, the overall economic outlook should provide for an improved correlation of the impact of the
major sectors, like aviation, oil and gas, etc. have on the total Kansas economy and what percentage they represent of the
overall revenue mix.
Reach consensus through “Delphi” method or by averaging. Currently, the state’s forecasters come to a consensus
through group deliberation. There is some evidence that group deliberation leads to sub-optimal forecasting results
because groups have a hard time making objective decisions about highly uncertain issues. Evidence suggests that better
results can be obtained in one of two ways:The Delphi method, which has forecasters exchange their estimates and give
feedback anonymously using a structured method of communication (e.g., like a special form or closed survey).12
Take the simple average of all of the forecasts from the participants in the process.13
Contract for external, independent expertise to supplement the existing process. Kansas should contract with external
experts in revenue forecasting that have experience forecasting state government revenues to provide added insights into
•
the forecasting process.
Conduct formal analysis of the economy. In the past, the state produced detailed studies of the economic and demographic environment, but these studies were de-funded a number of years ago. This kind of analysis is essential to good forecasting because knowledge of economic environment is necessary for building strong quantitative forecasting models and for
exercising informed judgment about what future revenues will be.
Recommendation 4: Deploy a Long-Term Financial Plan
The Kansas current annual budget does not fully demonstrate long-term impacts of the decisions made today.
The primary focus is on the biennial budgeting process, and the state does not generate and manage to a five
year strategic plan and budget forecast. There is always an incentive, not only in Kansas, for public officials
to solve today’s fiscal problems by pushing costs into the future. Examples of long-term obligations that are
either difficult or impossible to locate in an annual budget include: the obligations associated with building
and maintaining capital assets, the effect of tax expenditures, and shifting revenues from local governments to
the state’s coffers.
Kansas’ has had issues with the pension funding since the early 1990’s. This historic lack of long-term planning
on its pension funding has led up to the state’s current challenges with pensions.14 The state has begun to take
action to address its pension challenges, but it will be a long road to recovery. The state should continue to
focus on long-term strategies to address this and other challenges.
12
The Delphi method is a well-known technique in forecasting science and, for the sake of brevity, has not been described in great detail here.
Many publications exist that describe the details of a strong Delphi process.
13
Taking the simple average of multiple forecasts is also a well-known technique for improving accuracy and many researchers have written on
how to conduct averages of forecasts.
14
S&P described the states “significant” unfunded pension liabilities as an offset against the States financial strengths. See: “Kansas Development
Finance Authority; Appropriations; General Obligation” Standard and Poor’s Rating Service. August 3, 2015.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 241
Other than just avoiding future financial challenges, long-term planning offers the following benefits:15
•
•
•
•
Facilitates decision-making over a more relevant time-horizon. Impacts of decisions made about public services and finances are rarely realized within a single year.
Promotes better financial health. A program staffed by junior employees will grow in cost over time as wages and benefit
costs increase. In an annual budget, the program may be affordable, but the financial outlook might be less rosy when
looking out over multiple years.
Encourages officials to set priorities. When presented with information on the long-term affordability of programs and
services, officials will be in a better position to set longer-term priorities.
Allows for course corrections. Long-term financial planning provides advanced warning of future budget challenges—
this allows officials to make gradual adjustments to avoid future crises. Improved stability should also help improve the
public’s perception of the government’s financial management acumen.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.
Prepare long-term revenue forecasts. Long-term forecasts provide insight into the resources that will be available to
Currently, 11 states forecast four or more years beyond the upcoming fiscal year and 11 additional states
forecast three years beyond the upcoming fiscal years.16
2. Prepare long-term expenditure forecasts for existing services. Long term financial forecasting includes both revenues
and expenditure estimates although expenditure forecasts are less common than revenue forecasts: only six states forecast at
least three years in the future.17 Long-term revenue forecasts and long-term expenditure forecasts can be used together to
predict long-term structural imbalances.18
fund expenditures.
Prepare fiscal notes with multi-year projections. In many cases, the financial impact of a given piece of legislation is minimal at
first, with the real impacts being felt only years later. A fiscal note provides an official estimate of the financial impact of proposed legislation. Kansas currently prepares multi-year fiscal notes only for legislative proposals with tax or spending implications. Twelve states have a well-developed process for preparing multi-year fiscal notes.
3.
Disclose the impact of state fiscal actions on local governments.19 Kansas should show the fiscal impact of state
policy decisions on units of local government. Since local governments are “entities of the state,” the financial problems of
local government will ultimately impact state government. More transparency in how the state government and local governments share the tax base would help everyone understand the full burden that governments are placing on citizens, and how
changes in policy shift tax burden. The State of Minnesota has a price of government report that shows the cost to citizens of
all state and local governments, including changes in annual revenues collected by local government versus changes in aid
they get from the state.20
4.
Prepare a list of funded and unfunded capital projects. The state should have a capital improvement plan that
describes the capital projects it will undertake five or more years into the future. Importantly, this capital improvement plan
should differentiate between projects that have a confirmed funding source and those that do not. This type of plan would allow the state to conduct a forward-looking analysis of the affordability of likely future debt.
5.
Prepare financial estimates of long-term maintenance costs of physical assets. Kansas should prepare an inventory of
its assets, identify the minimum acceptable condition of those assets, and then prepare multi-year cost estimates for keeping those
assets at that condition. This inventory would show any backlog of deferred maintenance on assets. The state follow the smart
15
Adapted from: Elizabeth C. McNichol, Vincent Palacios, Nicholas Johnson. “Budgeting for the Future:
Fiscal Planning Tools Can Show the Way.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. February 2014.
16
Elizabeth McNichol, Iris Lav, and Michael Leachman. “Better State Budget Planning Can Help Build Healthier Economies.” Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities. October 2015.
17
18
19
20
McNichol, et al. “Better State Budget Planning Can Help Build Healthier Economies” 2015.
“Beyond the Basics: Best Practices in State Budget Transparency.” The Volcker Alliance. December 2015.
“Beyond the Basics: Best Practices in State Budget Transparency.” The Volcker Alliance. December 2015.
“Beyond the Basics: Best Practices in State Budget Transparency.” The Volcker Alliance. December 2015.
242 | Budget Process and Review
practice of
California and their approach to disclosing the cost of deferred maintenance in a five year infrastructure plan,
2016 budget.21
which was part of the governor’s proposed
Recommendation 5:
Develop User Fee Policies
User fees are for services where specific entities or individuals benefit from a public service more than the
general public, for example in the granting of licenses, permits and rights-of-way. Without these fees, these
businesses and individuals are being subsidized by the rest of the public. While such fees are a relatively small
percent of Kansas’ total revenue budget, making sure these fees are aligned with the cost of providing the
service are an important part of an overall system of good financial management.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.
Identify the factors that suggest a higher or lower level of cost recovery. Not every service that charges a user fee
should charge the full cost of the service. For example, a service that creates a substantial benefit for the general public, in addition to the benefit provided to the recipient of the service, might be deserving of subsidization.
of factors that the state should consider.
Appendix 1-G provides examples
2.
Define the cost basis. The state must define what it means to recover some portion of the “cost” of a service. GFOA
recommends using “full cost” as the basis for cost recovery. Full cost includes both the direct cost of providing the service,
plus indirect costs like administrative overhead.
3.
Provide for regular review and update of fees. In order to ensure that fee levels remain consistent with the cost of
An annual comprehensive review of the cost of
service versus the fee levels may be too burdensome, so a longer cycle (e.g., every three years) should be considered.
providing the service, fees should be reviewed and updated on a regular cycle.
Recommendation 6: Adopted Debt Management Policy
Debt is an essential tool of public finance for making long-term investments in infrastructure. However, debt
can become a burden if a government takes on more than it can afford. The State of Kansas has an amount
of debt that is described as “moderate” by Standard and Poor’s, and a credit rating of AA/Negative. This is the
lowest of the states in Kansas’ comparable group (see bond rating comparison chart located to the side).22 It is
important that Kansas maintain this rating, as the negative outlook implies there is a risk of the rating slipping.
Bond Rating Comparisons Arkansas
AA/Stable
Idaho
AA+/Stable
Iowa
AAA/Stable
Kansas
AA/Negative
Missouri
AAA/Stable
Nebraska
AAA/Stable
Nevada
AA/Stable
New Mexico
AA+/Negative
Oklahoma
AA+/Stable
Utah
AAA/Stable
21
22
“Beyond the Basics: Best Practices in State Budget Transparency.” The Volcker Alliance. December 2015.
Ratings taken from: “US State Ratings and Outlooks: Current List” Standard and Poor’s. October 22, 2015. AAA is the best rating. Negative or
Positive means S&P believes there is a one-third or greater likelihood that the rating will move up or down within the one-to-two year timeframe. Stable
means that S&P believes the likelihood the rating will stay the same for the upcoming one-to-two years is at least two-thirds.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 243
It would benefit the state to adopt a policy to govern the use of debt and the amount of debt it will take on. In
fact, the state already has such a limit in place for Kansas of Department of Transportation (KDOT) debt financings. KDOT has the authority to issue additional bonds provided that at the time of issuance the projected
debt service on State Highway Fund (SHF) debt in the current or any future year is estimated to not exceed 18
percent of the expected SHF revenues in any future year. Kansas can build upon the sort of provisions it has in
place for KDOT by adopting a similar debt policy that is applicable to the entire state.
Steps to develop a Debt Management Policy
1.Review the fundamentals. A debt policy should always address certain fundamental points about how debt should be used.
Kansas should design its policies to make sure the following points are clear:
a. Debt should not be used to fund operations.
b. The life of a debt should not exceed the useful life of the asset the debt was used to purchase.
c. Avoid back-loaded repayment schedules.
2.Define “debt.” Kansas has not issued general obligation bonds since 1919.23 Rather, appropriation debt, capital leases,
and highway revenue bonds, make up the majority of tax supported debt. Hence, when making a policy that describes how
the state will use debt and how much debt will Kansas will incur, Kansas should be sure to have a broad definition that
includes not just debt that it is legally obligated to repay (like a general obligation debt), but also debt that it is morally
obligated to be repaid, like appropriation debt.
3.Define how debt affordability will be measured. There are two important perspectives on the affordability of debt. First is
the burden on the taxpayers, and second is the burden on the state’s budget. To measure the burden on taxpayers, the best
measure is total debt as a percent of personal income as this combines both the total population with the economic capacity
of the population. To measure burden on the state’s budget, the best measure is debt service as a percent of total govern-
mental fund expenditures. This ratio is helpful because it encompasses any debt service expenditures that are made across all
funds. The ratio could also be expressed as debt service as a percent of revenues.
4.Define ceilings on indebtedness. Using the ratios described above, Kansas should set a ceiling on the total amount of
debt it is willing to incur. The exact ceiling for Kansas should be a product of benchmark studies with comparable states,
consideration of the State of Kansas’s own economic capacity and service-provision responsibilities, and political negotiation. Generally, for states that have adopted ceilings, the ceilings for debt-to-personal income range from 2.5 percent to 6
percent and from 5 percent to 8 percent for debt service-to-revenue ceilings.24
5.Document the policy. The state should adopt and document statutes or non-binding guidelines to allow for more flexible provisions that give future generations of elected officials the ability to change the guidelines in light of then-current
conditions, while still maintaining transparency on the standards definitions. It should be noted that a debt policy does not
necessarily have to be a one-size-fits-all proposition for state agencies. For example, the state’s two largest issuers, perhaps
the Department of Transportation, and the Development Finance Authority, require different guidelines underneath an
overarching statewide debt limit.
6.Conduct periodic debt affordability studies. The state should publish periodic reports on the debt limits, detailing if the
state’s tax base and economic conditions can support existing and likely future debt levels, and if the existing limits are still
appropriate given the analysis of the tax base and economic conditions.For example, the State of Maryland publishes an annual report through a committee that is composed of members from across the state government. Georgia publishes reports
that compare debt service against its self-imposed indebtedness caps across a ten-year period of time, including projections
23
24
According to Standard and Poor’s.
Jennifer Weiner. “Assessing the Affordability of State Debt.” New England Public Policy Center. 2013.
244 | Budget Process and Review
two years in the future.25
Recommendation 7: Adopt Policy for Addressing Pension Liabilities
The State of Kansas still has significant state unfunded pension liabilities, even after the most recent issuance
of pension bonds. Contributions are projected to remain below the actuarial Annual Required Contribution
(ARC) until 2020, adding to Kansas' moderate tax-supported debt burden—in fact, these pension challenges
were cited by Standard and Poor’s as a counterweight to Kansas’ financial strengths.26 It must be recognized
that reaching a healthy funding level is a long-term proposition, which will take multiple years of consistent
effort. Hence, the items contained in this section are oriented primarily towards putting in place the enablers
of a long-term approach.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.Adopt a funding policy targeting a 100 percent funded ratio (full funding). Discuss the funding and amortization
methods with an actuary, and select the one that most closely aligns with the funding policy. A 100 percent funding ratio
means that a government pays fully for the employee compensation costs that it incurs each year. The policy should establish the strategic intent to eventually reach a 100 percent funded level.
2.Commit to fund the full amount of ARC for each period. Every government employer that offers defined benefit pensions
should make a commitment to fund the full amount of the ARC each period. For some government employers, a reasonable
transition period will be necessary before this objective can be accomplished.27
3.Perform and disclose stress test analysis. Policymakers and the public need to understand the inherent uncertainty in
actuarial and investment return assumptions and help plan for funding pensions under different economic conditions.
Employers with well-funded pension plans take a long-term approach to estimating investment returns, adjust their demographic and other assumptions as needed, and consistently pay their annual required contribution in full.28
Memorializing these commitments in a policy will signal the intent to participants in the budget process
that paying down accumulated pension liabilities is a priority for the state.
Recommendation 8: Maintain Policy for Funding of Other Postemployment
Benefits (OPEB) Obligations
The State of Kansas currently is keeping OPEB risk low. Standard and Poor’s view the state's OPEB risk to be
‘low’ since the state has comparatively “limited benefits provided, Kansas' discretion to change benefits, and
an ARC that is relatively low in relation to the state budget, compared with that of other states.”29 The plans
that are provided by the state include a death and disability plan administered by the State of Kansas Retirement System for Public Employees (KPERS), and a postemployment health insurance benefit plan administered by Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA). The UAAL for the health care plan was $249.5 million, or about
$86 per capita as of June 30, 2012—the last valuation date. Health insurance is funded on a pay-as-you-go
basis. The state funded about 68 percent of its OPEB ARC in 2014.30
25
26
2015.
“Beyond the Basics: Best Practices in State Budget Transparency.” The Volcker Alliance. December 2015.
See: “Kansas Development Finance Authority; Appropriations; General Obligation” Standard and Poor’s Rating Service. August 3,
27
With the deference to short-term obligations over long-term obligations in funding patters, best practice would identify the need to formalize
funding targets. http://www.gfoa.org/funding-defined-benefit-pensions
28
Long-term investment return approaches are necessary when combined with adjustments to underlying assumptions. See: http://www.naco.
org/sites/default/files/documents/PensionFundingGuide.pdf
29
30
“Kansas Development Finance Authority; Appropriations; General Obligation” Standard and Poor’s Rating Service. August 3, 2015.
Ibid.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 245
Since Kansas is already managing its OPEB obligations, offered is the following adaptation from the California
Actuarial Advisory Panel with the objective of helping governing bodies in determining a funding policy.31
Kansas should consider developing its own formal policy to ensure that its strong OPEB funding practices
continue into the future.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.Recognize cost of benefits as they are earned. Employers are required to recognize the cost of pension benefits as employees
earn them, according to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).32 Future contributions should include
the cost of current service plus a series of amortization payments or credits to fully fund or recognize any funding discrepancies from past service costs.
2.Develop an actuarial funding policy with the goal of providing benefits to all members. State pension funds are always prefunded, which means that the government puts money into the plans before the money is needed in order to pay the retiree
(even if states don’t always put enough money into the plan to fully cover the liability). Conversely, many states fund OPEB
using a pay-as-you-go strategy, which means that the state only pays for the health care services used by retirees when they
use them (i.e., after they have retired from public service). Ideally, similar to pensions, a state would fund OPEB costs as it
incurs the liability (i.e., when the employee is still active in the public service). Elements of a funding policy include the following:
• An actuarial cost method allocates the total present value of future benefits to each year including all past years. In
other words, amount contributed to fund OPEB liabilities should be sufficient to pay for the actual cost of the benefit
when the bill comes due.
• An asset smoothing method reduces the effect of short term market volatility while still tracking the overall movement
of the market value of plan assets. Market volatility should not cause the state to experience large, short-term swings in
its contribution.
• An amortization policy determines the length of time and the structure of the change in required annual contributions.
The length of time the state allows itself to pay down liabilities will have a big impact on the budget, so there should be an
explicit policy on how this issue will be handled.
3.Consider governance issues with policy implementation.
During implementation of the policy, there is a need for consistent budgeting commitment from policy-makers. The form of the policy needs to be authoritative enough to encourage compliance as well as transparent
enough to determine if Kansas maintains compliance with its own policy.
Part II.
Improved Accountability
Improved Accountability smart practices focus on improving the value Kansas’s taxpayers get for their money
and the processes used to evaluate how funds are spent.
Recommendation 9:
Conduct a Program/Service Inventory
A program or service inventory is a catalogue of all of the existing services that a given agency or department
provides. Currently, the state budget is organized around functional units (e.g., departments and divisions)
and objects of expenditure, which makes it difficult for stakeholders (legislators, governor’s budget office, and
special interest groups) to understand the services that the budget is funding. The major benefits of a program
inventory:
•
Address gaps in services. An inventory reveals the breadth of services an agency provides in the pursuit of its mission.
This enables state officials to better compare the needs of the agency’s clientele against the services that are being provided.
•
Identify and eliminate duplication. An inventory makes it easier to see where services are being duplicated within an
31
“California has a framework to provide for Pension and OPEB funding policy development. See: Actuarial Funding Policies and Practices for
Public Pension and OPEB Plans and Level Cost Allocation Model, California Actuarial Advisory Panel. 2013. http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/BudLeg/CAAP_
Funding_Policies_w_letter.pdf
32
See GASB Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions.
246 | Budget Process and Review
agency or across agencies.
•
•
•
•
Verify “mandates” that are used to justify spending. An inventory can be used to identify and verify the mandates that are
often used to justify expenditures. Any program that is thought to be mandated can be indicated as such, and the mandate
then investigated to see if the letter of the law calls for the level of activity the program provides.
Create true transparency in spending. An inventory puts state spending in a language, which citizens can understand without “insider” knowledge of state government.
Basis for evidence-based policy making. After the development of an inventory, performance measures can be associated
with programs in order to help determine if the state is receiving an acceptable return on its investment for that program.
Basis for more advanced budgeting methods. A strong programmatic structure is a prerequisite to forms of budgeting like
priority budgeting, zero-based budgeting, and performance budgeting. This is because these budgeting methods are used to
compare the relative value of different services—a program inventory reveals the services that are under consideration.
Our experience has shown that the outcomes of a service inventory sometimes lead to potential changes in
how services are provided as well as their costs. It also results in:
•
•
•
•
Challenging agencies to think in terms of financial, operational, economic cost drivers, and strategic priorities.
Comparing current services to activities needed to support the department’s core mission and priorities.
Validating all current programs, services, and activities, and related “service” spending requirements.
Allowing for new funding proposals to be made based on the necessity of a service.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.
Establish commitment. Thinking programmatically is a significant shift from only considering traditional objects of
expenditures when developing a budget. The highest levels of state government should signal their support for developing program inventories in the agencies.
2.
Identify coordinating authority. An authority, like the executive budget office, should be established to coordinate
the development of inventories. The authority should develop templates to guide the agencies as they construct the inventory,
ensure consistent data collection standards, and manage schedules and deadlines.
3.
Establish goals for the inventory. Before starting an inventory, the state should decide which of the aforementioned
benefits of a program inventory it wishes to focus on obtaining. This will set the expectations of the agencies and will inform the
design of the inventory.
4.
Establish definitions. There are a wide range of definitions for “program” in public budgeting. Some initial guidelines to
assist in defining the programs include:
a.Size.
Any program that costs more than 5 percent of an agency budget is likely too big and should be divided into
Any program that costs less than $10,000 is likely too small and should be consolidated with
other programs.
b.Visibility. If a service is advertised on the agency’s website, brochures, or other materials it should be considered a
program.
c.Mandated. If an activity is mandated it should be distinguishable as a program. Departments should identify the
legislative authority that makes the service or program mandated.
d.Has supporting revenue source. If a service is supported by grant money or user fees, it should be listed as a
program.
e.Targeted clientele. If a service is provided to specific constituency (e.g., residents, businesses, visitors) or population (e.g., youth, adults, seniors, non-residents) it should be listed as a program.
f.Non-traditional services. For services where there are clear options for providing services through non-traditional means (e.g., public-private partnerships, outsourcing, etc.) the service should be listed as a program so
better conversations can occur about these options.
smaller programs.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 247
g.Include the maintenance of capital assets.
Maintaining capital assets is an important activity, but is often tempt-
ing to put it into overly broad categories like “infrastructure repair” or “fleet maintenance.” A program inventory
should be more specific about the types of asset being maintained.
h.Prevention vs. remediation. It can often be useful to differentiate between services that are intended to prevent a
problem from occurring and services that respond to and remediate a problem after it has occurred.
The inventory should include other data elements that help users of the inventory understand what the
program does. These elements should be defined before starting the inventory. Examples of information
commonly included in an inventory are: program goals, a brief description of the service provided, desired
outcomes, target populations, capacity, number of clients served (often including the duration and frequency
of client interactions),33 and the cost of the program.
Appendix 1-A provides an example of a preliminary program inventory from the Results First initiative for the
State of Wisconsin in order to illustrate what a program inventory might look like.34
Recommendation 10: Develop Goals to Guide Budget Decision-Making
Goals provide a basis for making resource allocation decisions during the budget process. For example, after
an agency’s programs have been identified, the goals could be used to prioritize the programs. In this way,
Kansas can begin to shift the fundamental question of budgeting from “how much do we spend,” to “how can
we spend the money we have in the most effective way?” Making this shift enables the state to move beyond
incremental budgeting to the strategic allocation of resources to the most cost effective programs.
Critical Implementation Steps:
Goals should be set for the entire state and agency goals would then link to the statewide goals. This is more
easily said than done as it requires aligning the many parts of state government. For this reason, we will focus
on goal setting for agencies only.
Agency Goal Setting
1.
Decide on the participants. Agency goals should be set by a wider circle than just the executive management of the
agency. The goal setting process should include agency staff with a direct connection to front-line service provision as well as
other stakeholders outside of the agency whose support will be needed to achieve the goal.
2.
Define the characteristics of a good goal. In the public sector, there is a strong pressure to make goals vague because
However, vague goals are not helpful for managing
the direction of the agency. The proposed goal framework provides a set of goal characteristics for which agencies can strive.
• Specific. The goal should precisely describe the outcome or result the agency wishes to achieve.
• Measurable. The goal should be measurable, verifiable and, ideally, quantifiable.
• Achievable. The goal should be rooted in an understanding of the agency’s current strategic environment, including factors such as current performance, capacity of the agency’s staff, and other relevant factors.
• Relevant. The goal should focus on results or outcomes that matter most to the lives of constituents, rather than the
efficiency of the agency, the number of people it serves, or how quickly it provides services.
• Time-bound. The goal should identify a time period for achieving the goal as well as interim milestones where incremental
progress will occur.
• Ambitious. The goal reaches for significant, ambitious improvement for the lives of constituents.
• Resourced. The state government has the capacity to achieve its goals and has aligned and coordinated resources accordingly. This is where goals ultimately connect to the budget process.
this makes it easier to arrive at a set of goals on which everyone can agree.
Recommendation 11. Include Evidence of Program Effectiveness in Budget Decisions
33
34
Based on Results First program’s experience in working with other states.
Provided courtesy of the Results First initiative.
248 | Budget Process and Review
A state can demonstrate it gets the highest return for its available dollars when program effectiveness is embedded in budget decisions. Funding can be directed to those programs proven to work and away from those
that do not.
According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, only five states currently have a budget process
where program performance is the primary determinant of spending.35 However, the situation is changing.
For example, the Pew Trust identified over 100 state laws across 42 states passed between 2004 and 2014 that
support the use of evidence-based programs and practices. Pew also found that the number of states using
evidence of program effectiveness to inform budget decisions has increased by 48 percent between 2008 and
2011, so that 29 states now use evidence in some fashion, even if program performance is not the primary
determinant of all state spending.36
Kansas has already started going down this road in a small way. The Department of Corrections has started
a Results First program under its own initiative. Results First is a program that is sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trust and MacArthur Foundation and is working with 21 states to build capacity for evidence based
decision-making.37
Results First may not be systematic performance budgeting method that applies to every program in the state.
Kansas should look at an evidence-based program evaluation method as a sort of “stepping stone” to a wider
system of performance budgeting.
Critical Implementation Steps:
The following steps are adapted from the Results First Initiative.38
1. Identify a sponsor for evidence-based decision-making. Results First has found states that are successful with evidence-based policy making need a clear sponsor and coordinating authority that has direct
access to the policy-making and budget process. Results First has found there must be joint sponsorship by both branches, even if day-to-day coordination happens in the executive branch.
2. Categorize programs by their evidence of effectiveness. The long-term goal is to use the budget process to decrease the use of programs with little or no program effectiveness and increase spending on
programs with proven effectiveness.
The state can initially phase in results across a limited number of agencies, enabling sponsors in the executive and legislative
branches to keep up with the pace of change, catalogue lessons-learned from each agency’s implementation and transfer that
knowledge to other agencies. Their existing database of research on program effectiveness already includes the following areas:
criminal and juvenile justice, child welfare, mental health, substance abuse, public health and pre-K through 12th-grade education. The state should begin with agencies within these policy areas.
3. Identify a program’s potential return on investment. Once the state has a program inventory, it can
build on that inventory by analyzing the cost-benefit of programs. A return on investment (ROI) calcu-
35
According to NASBO, most states have an incremental budget process. However, many states do take program performance into account during
the budget process, even if it is not the primary determinant of spending. See: “Budget Processes in the States.” National Association of State Budget Officers. Spring 2015.
36
37
38
“Evidence-based Policymaking: A Guide for Effective Government.” Pew Charitable Trusts.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/pew-macarthur-results-first-initiative
Compiled through a series of personal conversations with Results First staff and through publicly available documents from Results First.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 249
lation is made by comparing a given unit of benefit to the cost required to produce that benefit.
It is important to note here that the benchmark data on effect size is not generated directly by the agency. Instead, it is taken
from a database of rigorously conducted studies of the effectiveness of programs of that type (such as databases maintained by
Results First).
4. Present information to policymakers in user-friendly formats that facilitate decision-making. An accessible format should increase the likelihood of performance information being inducted into decisionmaking. Appendix 2-H provides an example of a prototype of such a presentation from the Kansas
Department of Corrections through its work with Results First.
5. Include relevant studies in budget hearings and committee meetings. Performance information
should be included in forums where budget decisions are made, such as before Legislative committees.
Establish incentives for implementing evidence-based programs and practices. The budget process should include a formal
system for encouraging the use of evidence. For example, grants made to local governments could be weighted towards applicants that can demonstrate the use of evidence-based programs. It might be possible to also incentivize state agencies though a
reinvestment or share-in-savings approach, wherein agencies can keep some portion of the savings they generate by going to more
cost effective interventions.
Recommendation 12. Implement Performance Budgeting
Traditionally, in the public sector, the overriding determinant of an agency’s budget for the next year is what
it received last year, with some adjustments made at the margin based to how much more (or less) revenue
is available. The premise of performance budgeting is to change the way elected officials and state agencies
request and allocate resources by introducing consideration of the results that a given program or service will
achieve with the money it receives.
Forty states have adopted laws that support performance budgeting as of 2012.39 In addition to asking about
what was spent last year or how much a program costs, policy makers can use performance information to ask
questions like:40
•
•
•
Is your agency/program meeting performance targets?
How does performance compare to national and other state performance?
How does agency performance and strategic plan inform your budget request?
Key for performance based budgeting is the alignment of programs and services to state and department
goals and strategic priorities. This should align with performance measures. The development of useful measures takes time and resources, so implementation of performance budgeting will take time to provide benefits up to its full potential.41
The GFOA did explore other budgeting methods, but came to the conclusion that Kansas should consider performance budgeting over such other methods as priority budgeting and zero-based budgeting approaches.
Major factors include:
•
39
Zero Based Budgeting’s benefits are uncertain. Research has shown the theoretical promise of ZBB has largely gone
ter 2012
40
41
Yi Lu and Katherine Willoughby. “Performance Budgeting in the States: An Assessment.” IBM Center for the Business of Government. Fall/WinQuestions are from: “Legislating for Results” a whitepaper from the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee
Both points in this paragraph are from: Yilin Hou, Robin S. Lunsford, Katy C. Sides, and Kelsey A. Jones. State Performance-Based Budgeting in
Boom and Bust Years: An Analytical Framework and Survey of the States. Public Administration Review. May/June 2011
250 | Budget Process and Review
unrealized.
Although a number of states use ZBB derivations and ZBB-like tools on a limited basis, the efforts of past
Kansas Government Efficiency Review measure will likely duplicate many,
if not most, of the benefits that a detailed review of agency budgets under a ZBB-like method would produce.
government efficiency efforts and the proposed
•
Performance budgeting moves the focus off of line-items and inputs. One of the primary attractions of ZBB is that it
moves the focus of budgeting to service levels, while priority budgeting’s attraction is a shift in focus to the results produced by government services. Both of these represent a change from the traditional budget’s focus on inputs. Performance budgeting also moves the emphasis away from inputs towards measures of service performance, but without the need
for as radical a change to the budget process.
•
Performance budgeting lends itself to an incremental approach. Governments often fare better with incremental change
than with large-scale, sudden change. Performance budgeting can be implemented incrementally and does not ask that the
state comprehensively reconsider all of its resource allocation precedents, unlike ZBB and priority budgeting.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.Adopt legislation supporting performance budgeting. Research shows that when there is a law supporting performance
budgeting, there is stronger support and smoother implementation. Such legislation should include:
• State agencies are directed to develop strategic plans for their agency.
• Agency strategic plans should be included in the budget process. For example, the strategic plan should describe an
agency’s goals and how proposed resource allocations contribute to the accomplishment of those goals.
• The agency strategic plans are linked with performance measures that provide insight into the performance of the agency
relative to its strategic goals.
• Guidance should be provided on the types of measures that should be produced ensuring that measures address outcomes,
or the difference made in the lives of constituents as result of government service, as opposed to only addressing the level
of effort made by the agency or the efficiency of the agency.
• Responsibility is assigned for developing the measures. Laws almost always give a primary role to agencies in developing
measures, but might also assign a role to the executive budget office (e.g., provide technical assistance to the agencies).
• The frequency with which the measures will be updated is specified. Typically, laws call for updates at least annually.
• Responsibility for evaluation or audit of performance measurement or results is defined. Laws almost always define a
clear role of the legislative branch, but might also define a role for the executive budget office.
It does not appear any single state has an ideally constructed law, but different states do have certain
strengths that could serve as a statutory model for Kansas. Iowa and Oregon are particularly strong on
how they address coordination between state and agency strategic plans. Iowa and New Mexico’s laws
are strong regarding oversight and checks-and-balances, including use of performance information to
evaluate agencies and taking citizen input. Louisiana and Oklahoma’s laws efficiently address the types of
measures that should be used and frequency of performance reporting.42
1.Develop stakeholder support for performance budgeting. Stakeholder support for performance budgeting from the executive leadership, legislative branch and professional management of the state government is important for it to succeed.43
The State should explore methods for building support, such as providing training and education to participants on how to
develop and use performance information.
2.Deploy department and agency performance measures. The quality of the measures produced have an important impact on
whether performance budgeting works.44 If the state develops a program inventory, it can begin to develop measures for its
42
Lu, Y., Willoughby, K., and Arnett, S. (2011). “Performance Budgeting in the American States: What’s Law Got to Do With It?” State and Local
Government Review, 43(2), 79–94.
43
From meta-study conducted by: Elaine Yi Lu, Zachary Mohr, and Alfred Tat-Kei Ho. “Taking Stock: Assessing and Improving Performance Budgeting Theory and Practice.” Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 426–458, 2015.
44
From meta-study conducted by: Elaine Yi Lu, Zachary Mohr, and Alfred Tat-Kei Ho. “Taking Stock: Assessing and Improving Performance Budgeting Theory and Practice.” Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 426–458, 2015.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 251
programs.
An executive order could be used to define a measurement system needed to support a performance budgeting
approach while the state takes the time to develop a thorough and thoughtful law supporting performance budgeting.
3.Develop implementation plan for performance budgeting system. The legislative statute shouldn’t define the precise details
of a performance budgeting process, so those details will need to be designed by administrators. The development of a
performance measurement statute will help define some of the features that Kansas budget process should incorporate, and
the points above provide guidelines on the major steps what would need to be addressed.
4.Consider developing statewide goals and priorities. It is more practical to set goals and plans for each agency than it is
for the state government as a whole. However, the absence of statewide goals limits the potential benefit of a performance
budgeting system. This is because if there are no statewide goals, there is no context to judge the relative merit of one program versus another across state agencies. Very few states have a strong set of statewide goals because of the difficulty of
coordinating the interests of the many stakeholders of a state government. There is a danger in setting goals so broad that
they do not provide meaningful guidance. Kansas should prioritize efforts to set statewide goals due to the complexity of
the issue. Mississippi is an example of a state that has recently done work to develop joint legislative and executive vision for
the state’s service priorities.
Part III.Budget Transparency
The final set of smart practices involves transparency. These smart practices optimize the transparency and accessibility of the budget document and provide on-line access to budget information. The budget document
should communicate key fiscal and policy decisions, issues, and tradeoffs. The materials should be prepared
in a format that is clear and comprehensible, and be structured in such a way it can be comparable between
fiscal years.
Recommendation 13: Provide Online Access to Budget Documents and Supplemental Data
Most states, including Kansas, post the budget document online for citizens and other observers to see.
However, the typical government budget document is not sufficient to give laypersons a good understanding of government spending and revenue generation. Providing hyperlinks to information is a good start, but
in today’s world citizens demand more transparency to financial information of governments. The next step
after making the budget available online is disseminating the information within the document in an accessible way and providing open access to data, allowing citizens and stakeholders to create their own reports to
simplify complex financial data.
Critical Implementation Steps:
1.All supplemental data should be provided in one place. Information should be furnished on a website with items that are
readily available—such as budget instructions, reader’s guides, introductory letters, and any other information that may
not be included in the main budget document. Kansas has a good deal of information on line, which is great start. However,
it is not necessarily obvious to the layperson how to access it all and which documents might present the most relevant
information for their particular needs. For example
similar to
Utah has transparent.utah.gov. Some of the features of this site are
Kansas’s Kanview, but Kansas might be able to build upon the work it has already done to make its financial
information even more accessible.
2.Provide a reader’s guide to all available resources outside of the budget document. Give an overview of supplemental
reports supporting the main budget document and provide links to citizen portals, budget dashboards, performance reports,
and other supplemental resources along with general user instructions to aid in resource retrieval. Kansas’s budget site
has a large amount of information available, though it could be restructured to help the layperson determine the best
place to start. For example, the most citizen-friendly portion of the budget is probably the budget overview that appears
in volume one of the governor’s budget report, but it is not readily apparent that a high level summary is available in this
document.
252 | Budget Process and Review
3.Highlight major points in a budget-in-brief. There should be high level overviews of programs and spending located in the
budget document. A budget-in-brief can be presented for elected officials and citizens that highlight major points from the
budget document. Governments frequently use budget-in-briefs as a supplement to the main budget document and provide
a roadmap to some of the more technical elements of the budget document. The overview of the budget in volume 1 of the
governor’s budget report addresses many of these points, but as discussed above, it might not be easy for the layperson to
find.
4.Include reference points for achieving financial goals. The state should disclose where it stands relative to financial goals,
such as its target level of rainy day funds. Tools like a citizen portal on a web page can allow a user to search reports and
analyze government data in an interactive manner to aid in understanding.45 The State of Michigan has an online dashboard that gives various measures of financial health, including reserve levels.
5.Limit the amount of supplemental data. Discretion should be given to the importance of included information to be sure it
is relevant and communicated in a way easily discernible to the average citizen. Applicable supplemental data can be directly
linked to the report.46 A link to archived material can allow for access to historical documents without overwhelming the
reader.
Recommendation 14: Optimize Transparency and Accessibility of the Budget
Document
We found the state has maintained a consistent presentation, though some functions occasionally move due
to routine reorganizations. Kansas currently provides fund structure and descriptions, basis of budgeting,
budget process, and capital budget presentations. While the state does provide financial policies, the state
should also work to provide summaries by fund and the next evolution in Kansas’ budgeting processes should
be to develop program based budgeting process and report on the program level budgeting. The state should
consider the guidelines of the GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award program to produce a budget
document that excels in explaining the policy, financial, and operational choices. 47 Currently, only five or six
states receive the award annually.
Critical Implementation Steps:
The GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award program sets forth a comprehensive set of criteria for
how to present a budget document. Appendix 1-E provides illustrative examples of effective presentation
methods from budget documents in other states.
Recommendation 15: Be Transparent about the Roles of Transfers in the Budget
Transfers are often an important part of a state government’s budget. Kansas, like many states, uses transfers
between funds to balance the budget. In some cases, there are quite legitimate reasons to make such transfers, however, in other cases transfers can contribute to long-term financial challenges. For example, a transfer
made to cover recurring expenditures is not maintainable if the transfer comes from a fund that will not be
able to replenish the money taken. The budget process and reader documents should make it easy for users of
the budget to understand the purpose of any revenue transfers.
Critical Implementation Steps:
Kansas should publish charts in its budget document that show transfers in and out of the general fund and
other special revenues funds.
45
46
47
See “Presenting Official Financial Documents on Your Government's Website,” Government Finance Officers Association. February 2009.
See “Making the Budget Document Easier to Understand,” Government Finance Officers Association. February 2014.
It is important to note that the GFOA budget award does not address the quality of the budget decisions made or the process used to make
them. It only addresses how the adopted budget is presented to public.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 253
Kansas currently has practices in place in its Kansas Budget Comparison Report to show transfers in and out of
the general fund. However, we recommend Kansas improve its sources and uses of fund transfers to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Include the chart as part of an improved budget presentation. The disclosure should be conspicuous and easy for nonexperts to find and understand.
Categorize transfers according to whether they are expected to be one-time or on-going.
Show trends and projections for transfers in both categories. This would show any reliance on transfers that were
expected to be temporary. It would also show if the amounts of on-going transfers are changing over time.
Briefly describe the use of each transfer so the reader can put the numbers in context.
Briefly describe the source of each transfer. For example, sweeping idle cash from other funds might be an entirely justified action. However, diverting money that is needed to meet the purpose of another fund might not be.
Kansas should also make the role of transfers in balancing the budget more transparent. Kansas does report net transfers. However, reporting net transfers alone does not give a true picture of the level of transfer activity. As an alternative, state budget reports could take the following form
xx Starting balance (the accumulated result of surpluses and deficits over the years)
xx Resources going into a fund
-- Taxes, fees, grants, etc. generated by that fund in that fiscal year
-- Transfers into the fund from other State of Kansas accounting funds in that fiscal year
xx Uses of resources by that fund
-- Expenditures for state staff, contractors, etc. organized by relevant units of decision (agencies, divisions, etc.) in
that fiscal year
-- Transfers to other State of Kansas accounting funds (in that fiscal year)
xx Ending balance
Besides making the role of transfers transparent, this form clearly differentiates the role of starting and end
balance from current revenues and current expenditures.
254 | Budget Process and Review
Appendix 1A - State of Wisconsin Program Inventory
Below is an excerpt from a prototype inventory compiled for the Wisconsin adult criminal justice programs.
The full document is available on the Pew-MacArthur Results First Website.
Appendix 1-E1 Create a Reader’s Guide
Within the reader’s guide, several practices aid in guiding the reader in utilizing their document:
•
Document Navigation. The more technical sections are broken down using labels and arrows to describe elements like
the Fund structure to help stakeholders in understanding what they are reading.
•
Graphics. Graphics are used to illustrate a complex process.
•
Short page lengths. Each topic should be covered in a succinct manner confined to a page.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 255
256 | Budget Process and Review
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 257
Appendix 1-E2 Include both Summary by Fund and Program Budget Summaries
Including both Program and Fund summaries allows stakeholders different views of how the government
spends taxpayer funds. The Fund perspective shows how an agency spends money for different categories,
such as Services or Operations. The Program Summary shows how much money is spent on any given program and the sources of the funds, such as state or Federal funds, and can provide a description of the program itself as an overview of the activities and agencies involved in the implementation of the program.
258 | Budget Process and Review
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 259
Appendix 1-E3 Provide Links to Supplemental Documents, Websites and Supplemental Data.
The budget document for the State of Oregon provides hyperlinks to other reports that may be of interest,
such as economic and revenue forecast, tax expenditures, different websites for the budget office, economic
analysis, and more. Several states include the hyperlinks to different agencies operating in the state.
260 | Budget Process and Review
Appendix 1-G User Fee Factors
Below are factors that suggest a program should recover a higher proportion of its cost through fees:
•
The service is similar to services available in the private sector or through another agency. Government should probBesides displacing private economic activity, this kind of subsidization
could create unrealistically high demand on the service as consumers opt for the cheaper government-provided service.
•
There is a strong nexus between the amount paid and benefit received. In this case, equity concerns would often demand those receiving the benefit pay the costs. Many types of recreation services and utilities fall into this category.
•
The goal is to discourage use of a service or at least limit demand. For example, alarm fees are used to discourage
police calls for false alarms.
•
The service is regulatory and can be monitored by government. Those engaging in the regulated activity are causing the
government to incur costs. Examples of this are building permits and plan checks.
Below are factors that suggest a program should recover a lower proportion of its cost through fees:
ably not subsidize a service the private sector also provides.
•
•
•
There is a community-wide benefit to the service.
For example, bus service reduces traffic for everyone, suggesting that full-cost recovery from fees is not appropriate.
The fee will discourage compliance with regulatory requirements. If the fee is too high, people may decide it is better to
skirt the regulation. This is especially germane where the jurisdiction relies primarily on self-reporting for regulation, as is the
case with smaller licenses and fees. In another example, excessive fees for certain types of garbage collection might motivate
some residents to dispose of waste illegally.
•
There a weak nexus between the amount paid and benefit received. In some cases (like social services), a fee might be
intended to govern demand rather than recover the cost of the program.
•
Collecting the fee is not cost effective.
•
An emergency service whose need customers do not anticipate in advance, yet might depend upon with virtually no
notice. Many types of public safety services fall into this category.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 261
Appendix 2-H Kansas Department of Corrections Results First Example
Overview
Kansas is one of 14 states taking part in
the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, a project of The Pew Charitable
Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation.
Results First works with states to
implement an innovative cost-benefit
analysis approach that helps policymakers identify policies and programs
that rigorous research has proven to
work. States have used their Results
First models to identify and eliminate
ineffective programs and target funds
to alternatives that produce high longterm returns on the investment of tax
dollars.
Cost of Recidivism in Kansas
• Kansas’ citizens incur high costs when
offenders commit new crimes and return
to prison, due to both criminal justice
system expenses and the costs suffered
by crime victims.
• Currently, 97% of Kansas’ incarcerated
offenders will be released back into the
community; of that number,
return to prison within
35.1% will
36 months.
• At current recidivism rates, the offenders returned in CY 2015 will cost
taxpayers an estimated $16,494,431.87
in corrections costs during the given
year.
• Investing in programs that are effective can result in long-term cost
avoidance.
EXHIBIT 1: Kansas Correctional Program Consumer Report Analysis
FY14 ACTUAL BUDGET
Cost per Par- Benefits per Cost-Benefit
PROGRAM
ticipant
Participant
Ratio
Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy
$768
$9,806
$13.77
Drug Treatment (Prison)
$3,111
$13,657
$5.39
Sex Offender Treatment
Program (Prison)
$2,795
$11,001
$4.94
• The information contained in the “consumer report” analysis can be used by decision
makers as investment advice to compare programs on a dollar-for-dollar basis for
return on investment.
• While other key policy aspects such as population served and societal needs should
be considered, incorporating information related to return on investment into the
decision making process will help leaders make more fiscally prudent decisions.
Preventing Reconviction
• The Kansas Results First model predicts the cost of recidivism, which
includes both the direct cost associated with prosecuting and housing
offenders, and the indirect impact on victims and other societal costs.
• Avoiding each recidivating event averts $95,861.86 in costs, which
includes:
o$17,146.27 in direct costs avoided by taxpayers; and
o$78,716.66 in avoided victimization costs.
Effective Programs are Key
• Cost beneficial programs that reduce recidivism are a key to a fiscally
prudent and socially responsible corrections system.
• Exhibit 1 provides a “consumer reports” style analysis of
programs that are currently in the Kansas Results First model.
This list will be expanded over time as we work with the model.
262 | Budget Process and Review
Appendix 2-L1 Nebraska Online Access to Supplemental Data and Tools Example
The detail and diversity of data offered by the State of Pennsylvania helps reader’s find exactly the level of
detail for which they are searching. If a reader wants an overview of the budget, they can view the charts and
graphs that provide a summary. States can provide different level of details and reporting to their citizens from
drilling down budget data to the agency or program level, and other data such as government performance
reports, economic forecasts, and workforce statistics. Providing citizens with multiple modes of data and
analyses highlight a commitment to transparency and accountability.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 263
Appendix 3-GFOA Review of other Common Approaches to Budgeting
GFOA looked at other common approaches in budgeting including Incremental, Zero-base, and Priority-based
Budgeting applications.
Incremental Budgeting. This approach is a traditional method of budgeting where the prior year’s budget is
the starting point for next year’s budget planning and changes to agency budgets change incrementally according to changes in available revenue. For example, if a state has a three percent rise in revenues, most if not
all of its component agencies get around a three percent increase in their budget. If revenues decline three
percent, typically all agencies are asked to cut their budgets by three percent, across the board. The traditional
budget also is built around objects of expenditures like salaries, benefit costs, commodities, and contractual
service, which then aggregate up to functional units like divisions and departments.
As of 2014, 32 states described their primary budget approach as incremental/traditional. An additional 14
states indicated that incremental budgeting was a secondary consideration in how they budget.
The weaknesses of incremental or traditional budget include:
• Incremental character of allocations means that historical decisions are perpetuated indefinitely into
the future—perhaps past the point where those decisions are still relevant or affordable under current
conditions.
• Fragmented decisions because decision-makers are focused on individual line-items and functional
units, rather than big-picture policy questions.
• Traditional budget focuses decision-makers on the inputs that agencies consume and away from the
outcomes that the agencies produce.
Zero-Based Budgeting
Zero-base budgeting (ZBB) was introduced to the common tool in public budgeting in the 1970s when U.S.
President Jimmy Carter proposed its use to balance the federal budget in his first term as president. Under the
ZBB, an agency’s budget requests would be evaluated from a base of zero—historical precedent is not a justification. Each agency must start budgeting with a blank sheet of paper and build a budget from the ground up.
Key attribute to ZBB is the use of “decision-packages” that present different levels of service.
As of 2014, only the State of Oregon identified ZBB as its primary method of budgeting. However, a review of
Oregon’s budget instructions for 2015 reveal the state is not actually using ZBB—rather its budgeting method
uses a few devices derived from ZBB, but appears to be largely incremental. Since Zero Base Budgeting communicates that the government is holding the line on spending, ZBB lives on mostly in name only, where the
label of “Zero-Based Budgeting” is applied to budgeting techniques that might borrow some techniques from
264 | Budget Process and Review
ZBB, but do not represent a true zero-based budgeting process.
For example, California, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming all report using some elements of ZBB as secondary considerations in their
budget process. In many of these cases, the states have reviews that follow a modified version of ZBB process
focusing on specific agencies on a cyclical or as needed basis. For example, Oregon appears to use a derivation of ZBB that is referred to as “target-based budgeting” in budgeting theory, where agencies are granted a
certain baseline of spending that is largely consistent with their allocation in the last budget (instead of a base
of zero) and then must submit decision-packages for spending above that baseline.
There are a number of common criticisms of ZBB:Excessive amount of administrative work required to perform
ZBB, especially with departments needing to submit multiple decision packages for increased spending.
• Reluctance of agencies to reveal the level of spending that is the bare minimum necessary for them to
survive.
•
Decision-packages presented under ZBB are driven by managerial decisions.
Priority-based Budgeting
Priority-based budgeting is a generic term for budgeting methods known by various labels such as “budgeting for results” or “budgeting for outcomes,” where the government first determines how much revenue it has
available, then identifies the its most important service priorities and allocates out to services based on how
closely those services align with the priorities. Priority budgeting typically includes six broad steps:
1.Identify available resources. This determines how much revenue is available this year to help the government achieve its priorities. Putting a focus on available revenues is intended to take the focus away
from how money was spent last year.
2.Identify priorities for state government. The state government identifies a limited number of priorities
for the state government to achieve. The State of Washington is the leading example of a state-level
implementation of priority budgeting Some of the priorities Washington has articulated in the past
include: improve health and support of Washingtonians, provide for public safety, and protect natural
resources and cultural/recreational opportunities. It is important to define how progress towards these
priorities will be measured. For example, Washington’s public safety priority includes measures such
as: incidence of property and violent crimes per 1,000 people and highway fatalities per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled.
3.Evaluate programs and projects. Programs and services are then compared against these priorities to
determine which ones would best help the state achieve its goals. For example, Washington would be
looking for programs that would help reduce crime or highway fatalities.
4.Compare Scores Between Programs. Programs and services are compared against each other with an
eye towards determining which programs will be most effective.
5.Allocate resources. Based on the relative effectiveness of the programs for achieving the goals, resources are allocated to the programs.
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 265
6.Create Accountability for Results. Since resources are allocated based on a program’s promise to
achieve a certain result, it is important to have follow-up after the budget process to ensure the promised results were achieved.
Our research found that four states have used priority budgeting in the past or currently are as part of their
budget process—Washington, Illinois, Nevada and Iowa. The State of Washington was one of the first states
to implement priority based budgeting, using as their primary budget process a number of years ago. Today,
Washington uses it in a scaled-back form, where it is a secondary consideration in the budget process. Washington reports that, as of 2014, the incremental method is its primary budgeting technique and the State of
Washington’s website states that its “priorities of government” assessment (today’s derivation of budgeting for
outcomes) is “considered in the development of the Governor's budget recommendation.
Illinois has been working on developing their priority budgeting system for the last five years. According to
the Illinois’ official site for this initiative, it appears that Illinois has made progress in building the infrastructure
for priority budgeting (e.g., defines priorities and measures for the state, identify the programs within agencies). However, it does not appear that Illinois has fully connected this infrastructure with actual resource
allocation decision-making yet
266 | Budget Process and Review
References
A variety of resources were used to identify the smart practices in state budgeting for Kansas. This section
describes those resources. Please note that an organization’s appearance in this section does not necessarily represent an endorsement of any of the conclusions reached in this review. In addition to the documents
shown here, A&M and GFOA conducted a number of personal interviews with the experts that were involved
with the publication of many of these documents and other expert observers of state budgeting practices.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aaron Wildavsky. “A Budget for All Seasons? Why the Traditional Budget Lasts” Public Administration Review. 1978
“Advisory: Pension Obligation Bonds.” January 2015. www.gfoa.org.
“Best Practice: Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund,” Government Finance Officers Association. September 2015.
“Beyond the Basics: Best Practices in State Budget Transparency.” The Volcker Alliance. December 2015.
“Budget Processes in the States.” National Association of State Budget Officers. Spring 2015.
“Building State Rainy Day Funds: Policies to Harness Revenue Volatility, Stabilize Budgets, and Strengthen Reserves”.
Pew Charitable Trusts. July 2014.
Chris Fabian, Jon Johnson, and Shayne Kavanagh. “The Challenges and Promise of Program Budgeting.” Government
Finance Review. October 2015.
Daniel Thatcher, “State Budget Stabilization Funds,” National Conference of State Legislatures (September 2008), http://
www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-budget-stabilization-funds-spring-2008.aspx.
Elaine Yi Lu, Zachary Mohr, and Alfred Tat-Kei Ho. “Taking Stock: Assessing and Improving Performance Budgeting
Theory and Practice.” Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 426–458, 2015.
Elizabeth McNichol, Iris Lav, and Michael Leachman. “Better State Budget Planning Can Help Build Healthier Economies.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. October 2015.
Elizabeth C. McNichol, Vincent Palacios, Nicholas Johnson. “Budgeting for the Future:
Fiscal Planning Tools Can Show the Way.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. February 2014.
“Evidence-based Policymaking: A Guide for Effective Government.” Pew Charitable Trusts.
“Kansas Development Finance Authority; Appropriations; General Obligation.” Standard and Poor’s Rating Service.
August 3, 2015.
National Conference of State Legislatures, “NCSL Fiscal Brief: State Balanced Budget Provisions” (October 2010)
“NCSL Fiscal Brief: State Balanced Budget Provisions” (October 2010), 7, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/statebalancedbudgetprovisions2010.pdf.
“Recommended Budget Practices: A Framework for Improved State and Local Government Budgeting”. National Advisory
Council on State and Local Budgeting. 1998.
Shayne Kavanagh. “Zero-Base Budgeting: Modern Experiences and Current Perspectives.” A research report from the
Government Finance Officers Association. 2011.
Shayne C. Kavanagh, Jon Johnson, and Chris Fabian. “The Anatomy of a Priority-Driven Budget Process.” A research
report from the Government Finance Officers Association. 2011.
“Truth and Integrity in State Budgeting: Lessons from the States.” The Volcker Alliance. 2015.
Yi Lu and Katherine Willoughby. “Performance Budgeting in the States: An Assessment.” IBM Center for the Business of
Government. Fall/Winter 2012.
Yi Lu, Willoughby, K., and Arnett, S. (2011). “Performance Budgeting in the American States: What’s Law Got to Do
With It?” State and Local Government Review, 43(2), 79–94
Yi Lu., Willoughby, K., and Arnett, S. (2009). “Legislating Results: Examining the Legal Foundations of PBB Systems in
the States.” Public Performance and Management Review, 33(2), 266–287.
Yilin Hou. “Budget Stabilization Fund: Structural Features of the Enabling Legislation and Balance Levels.” Public Budgeting & Finance. Fall 2004.
Yilin Hou, Daniel L. Smith. “Do state balanced budget requirements matter? Testing two explanatory frameworks.” Public
Choice (2010) 145: 57–79.
Yilin Hou, Robin S. Lunsford, Katy C. Sides, and Kelsey A. Jones. State Performance-Based Budgeting in Boom and Bust
KANSAS STATEWIDE EFFICIENCY REVIEW | 267
Next Steps
Next Steps
After delivery of the Phase I draft report, it will be presented to members of the Legislative Coordinating
Council, multiple legislative committees, including
but limited to, Ways and Means and Appropriations,
and review with the Division of Budget and the involved agencies. A&M will then work with state and
agency leaders to review the developed business cases and make a final recommendation on the initiatives
to pursue. With decisions made, A&M will update its
fiscal impact model and begin developing a realistic,
achievable implementation roadmap. In developing
the implementation roadmap, A&M personnel will
be cognizant of the impact on ongoing operations
and will work closely with agency staff to ensure that
changes are properly integrated to minimize day-today impact. The developed roadmap will include the
following key elements:
• Established metrics to measure the success
of each initiative—these metrics will be displayed in a project metrics dashboard during
implementation.A Project work plan in Microsoft Project that details the Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS) tasks for each initiative, including dependences, dates, task owners, and current
status.
• Estimated project budgets and resource management plans that highlight the impact to
agency costs, projected savings as well as the resources required to complete each initiative.
At the conclusion of this Phase, A&M will deliver the
Phase 2 final report, which will include detailed roadmaps for the implementation of identified opportunities. These roadmaps will identify required activities,
statutory and regulatory changes, an estimate of the
financial and personnel resources required, and an estimate of the time frame for implementation.
• At the conclusion of the project, A&M will deliver the final Phase 2 report to the State of Kansas and will conduct presentations as necessary
to LCC leadership, legislative committees, and
other state personnel. These final presentations
will cover the work completed to date and reveal
more prioritized recommendations for the state
to implement beyond the conclusion of the initial
contract period.
• We will have tracked the cost savings of any
quick-win improvements that have already been
implemented and will provide the state a cumulative cost savings estimate. Prior to delivering
the report, draft versions of the recommendations in the report will have been reviewed and
developed alongside leadership and staff.
• Our goal is not only to help Kansas identify and
enact the efficiency opportunities but also to set
up the structure for sustaining future change. We
will strive for the final report and the complete repository of recommendations to be a living document—one that begins a conversation with the
general public and serves as a blueprint for the
state to continue aligning priorities with limited
268 | Next Steps
resources. By improving the performance of existing programs, the state can enhance and spur
innovation by freeing up funding sources to be
used for other priorities or new programs.
Implementation of Efficiency Recommendations
A&M will convert accepted recommendations and
solutions into long-term sustainable processes for a
state or agency to operate and maintain internally. The
recommendations identified in the Phase 1 report are
wide reaching across multiple agencies and many are
interdependent. Thus, successful implementation is
contingent upon a coordinated effort focused on driving change in a highly accountable and transparent
manner. A&M’s Phase 2 efforts will establish the baseline structure for an executive project management
(EPMO) office that will provide the necessary resources
to drive the implementation of recommendations in
the immediate term with short and long-range efficiency impacts. Given the realization of these recommendations will require statutory and policy changes,
systems updates, staffing changes and interactions
with vendors and other vendors, the EPMO will need
to deal with a multidisciplinary environment and very
complex efforts. A&M will design the EPMO function
as part of the Phase 2 report and will review the concept with the LCC.
January 19, 2016
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement