N/A

The Kansas State Fire Marshal's Office (KSFM) is responsible for creating and enforcing regulations related to fire safety. KSFM's regulations adopt the 2006 edition of the International Code Council's International Fire Code, the 2006 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, and other similar standards. KSFM inspects residential facilities, including nursing homes and assisted living facilities, for compliance with the Life Safety Code. KSFM inspects childcare facilities for compliance with the International Fire Code. We found KSFM does inconsistent inspections of residential and childcare facilities. For example, not all inspectors check the same things, and some inspectors don't cite facilities for certain violations. We also found inspectors don't adequately support the violations they cite with references to applicable requirements. These issues were due to the vast number of requirements inspectors are responsible for and inadequately designed controls. Local fire departments may also inspect residential and childcare facilities for fire safety, either under an agreement with KSFM or independently. We found KSFM and 3 local fire departments (Hays, Olathe, and Newton) had similar processes for inspecting residential and childcare facilities. However, the 3 local departments inspect according to more recent editions of the International Fire Code than KSFM does. KSFM used the 2006 edition, while the 3 departments used editions from between 2015 and 2024. Differences between the editions likely contributed to inspection inconsistencies and stakeholder frustration.

Data limitations and federal laws prevented us from evaluating the accuracy of TANF benefit payments. The federal government does not require states to assess the accuracy of their TANF benefit payments. DCF has an employee performance review process that includes reviewing TANF payments for process and accuracy errors. However, the data DCF provided to us from that process is not sufficient or reliable for determining the department's accuracy in making TANF benefit payments. Federal law prohibits us from looking at the application data that would allow us to assess the accuracy of TANF benefit payments.

Unintended preferences didn't appear to ultimately influence who was admitted to either the KSU College of Veterinary Medicine or the KU School of Medicine, but control weaknesses may have allowed preferences at certain points in the process. We looked for certain controls in CVM and SOM's admission processes to determine whether there were significant opportunities for preferential treatment. We also used regression models to analyze CVM and SOM's 2023-2025 admission data to determine whether certain factors might have affected applicants' outcomes. CVM policy is to invite all academically qualified Kansas residents for an interview. We didn’t find any unintended preferences in how the CVM selected applicants for an interview. However, we found several weaknesses in CVM’s process that could allow unintended preference in how applicants are scored at the interview stage. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the application material scoring stage, but this didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. Our models also showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the interview scoring phase, but this also didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. After the interview stage, the CVM calculates applicants’ final scores and rankings, which help decide which applicants will be offered admission. CVM does not have controls over the “not recommended for admission” designation, which can impact some candidates. Although there were small indicators of preferential scoring along the way, we did not find evidence of unintended preferences in which applicants ultimately were offered admission to the DVM program. SOM policy is to offer an interview to all applicants with Kansas ties who meet certain GPA and MCAT standards. We found several weaknesses in SOM’s file review process that could allow unintended preference in who is invited for an interview. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment at the interview invitation stage. We also found weaknesses in SOM’s process that could allow unintended preferences in how applicants are scored at the interview stage. Our models showed some possibility of preferential treatment in how interviews were scored, but this didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. Our models also showed some possibility of preferential treatment in how applicants’ overall suitability was scored, but this also didn’t appear to have a large effect on who received admission offers. After the interview stage, SOM uses a standardized rubric to determine applicants’ final rankings for admission. Although there were small indicators of preference along the way, we did not find evidence of unintended preferences in which applicants ultimately were offered admission to the MD program.

Based on the limited information we could review, we identified an estimated $700,000 to $1.2 million in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits paid to recipients who may not live in Kansas in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. SNAP is a federal program that provides monthly funds to low-income families to buy food. There are a few common types of fraud schemes in the SNAP program including skimming, cash-for-card schemes, and imposter fraud. Federal and state law require DCF to take several steps to identify and prevent fraud in the SNAP program. DCF has policies that appear to comply with most of the federal and state requirements we reviewed, but we identified 1 state law DCF has not implemented. We did several tests to identify SNAP benefits that were potentially being misuses, but our analyses were limited by a federal law that prevents DCF from sharing certain SNAP recipient data with us. Based on the data we could review, we estimated that in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 DCF distributed about $700,000 to $1.2 million in SNAP benefits to recipients who may not have lived in Kansas. DCF told us that Kansas's simplified reporting requirements prevent them from quickly identifying when a recipient moves out of state. Making payments to individuals who have potentially left the state could have a small fiscal impact on Kansas.

Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) is a federal program that provides states with funding to serve low-income families. TANF cash assistance provides monthly funds to low-income families to pay for a variety of needs. To be eligible for TANF cash assistance applicants must meet several criteria. TANF applicants must complete multiple forms that include over 250 pieces of information. DCF staff process each application by taking several steps including verifying certain information and conducting an interview. It took DCF an average of 22 days to approve or deny TANF applications in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, but staff reported only spending about 1 hour actively verifying applications. On average, we estimated it took applicants who completed an online application in one sitting about 1 hour to complete a TANF application in fiscal year 2025. Stakeholders we talked to estimated it takes 15 minutes to 2 hours for individuals to complete the application. Federal and state law require DCF to take several steps to identify and prevent fraud and other misuse in the TANF program. Generally, DCF appeared to comply with the requirements we reviewed but we identified 1 state law DCF has not implemented. Last, we identified transactions at impermissible locations totaling about $23,000 in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, but this number is likely understated.

N/A

We completed 15 audits on 13 state agencies, 1 school district, and 1 city between CY 2024 and CY 2025. This summary report shows 7 of the 15 entities did not substantially comply with applicable IT security standards and best practices. Entities struggled with properly scanning and patching their computers. Entities also had compliance problems because they did not create, maintain, or test continuity of operations and disaster recovery plans, as well as incident response plans. Other significant issues included poor security awareness training or failed social engineering tests. More than half the entities had significant management process weaknesses, including inadequate asset inventories, contract issues, or lacking a designated information security officer. Additional security weaknesses included inadequate network, boundary, and data protection processes. We also noted some entities did not adequately protect their electronic backup data. Some entities had poor access or environmental controls for their data centers, and a few entities had inadequate account security control. Lastly, we identified significant security issues within entities' specific IT systems. The findings in this report are similar to those in previous summary IT reports. The main reasons for compliance problems across the 15 entities included insufficient top management attention, inadequate resources, and poor contractor administration.

Real property taxes are taxes paid on land, minerals, and buildings. They're used to fund state and local governments. Most of the real property taxes collected fund local governments (99%) while the remainder fund state government (1%). However, state law exempts some real property, such as government owned property and property owned by non-profits from real property taxes. This means these properties aren't taxed and governments don't receive tax revenue for these properties. We estimated that in 2024 local governments didn't collect about $1 billion in revenue from exempt real properties. We also estimated that in 2024 the state didn't collect about $12 million in revenue from exempt properties. As part of this audit, we also were asked to estimate how much exempt real property was donated to the state's public universities and their foundations. Public universities in Kansas and their foundations owned about $4.4 billion in appraised value of exempt real property in 2024 that they used for things like classrooms, sports, student housing, and research. This was about 98% of the total appraised value of all real property they owned. However, we don't know how much of that real property was donated because most universities don't maintain that information.

DCF’s payment error rate exceeded federal standards in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for multiple reasons including high staff turnover, the complexity of the SNAP eligibility rules, and inconsistent verification efforts. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal program that provides monthly funds to low-income families to buy food. Individuals must submit an application and provide extensive financial and other information to the Department for Children and Families (DCF) to qualify for SNAP benefits. DCF takes several steps to process and verify each application. The SNAP benefit eligibility determination is complex, and errors can occur at many points. The federal government monitors states’ SNAP benefit payments to ensure accuracy. DCF’s SNAP payment error rate has exceeded the federal payment error rate threshold of 6% since 2019. In the 2 years we reviewed, most of the nearly 300 errors that contributed to the payment error rate were related to miscalculating an applicant’s income and resources. Staff turnover, the complexity of SNAP eligibility rules, and inconsistent verification efforts appear to be significant factors in the department’s SNAP payment errors. DCF told us modifications to KEES might reduce SNAP payment errors but it’s unclear how much impact additional actions might have. Across the 2 years we reviewed, we identified several hundred additional errors that were not included in the federal payment error rate because the dollar value of the error was less than the federal reporting threshold. Last, changes in federal law could result in the state paying for a larger share of SNAP costs.

N/A

We estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $28.8 million providing a selection of 3 services in fiscal year 2024, which was partially offset by $9.7 million in state, federal, and user fee funding. State law requires counties to provide a variety of core services, such as election administration, law enforcement, and motor vehicle registration. Counties are primarily funded by local tax revenue, and they generally use this revenue to cover the costs of providing the services state law requires. We selected 3 core services and 3 counties to review. The services included criminal prosecution, motor vehicle registration, and ad valorem tax collection. The counties included Gove, Johnson, and Labette counties. We worked closely with county officials to determine how much the 3 counties spent to provide the 3 core services during fiscal year 2024. In total, we estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $17.3 million on criminal prosecution in fiscal year 2024, which was slightly offset with $846,000 in grants and user fees. In total, we estimate the 3 counties we reviewed spent $8.3 million providing motor vehicle registration services in 2024, which was partially offset by $5.0 million in user fees. In total, we estimate the 3 counties spent $3.2 million collecting ad valorem taxes in fiscal year 2024, which was fully offset by $3.9 million in user fees and fines. The 3 counties’ costs for the 3 services we reviewed were generally related to meeting requirements in state law. We estimate it would cost the state $19.1 million to cover the 3 counties’ fiscal year 2024 costs for the services we reviewed, but this likely isn’t consistent each year. Officials from the 3 counties we reviewed told us state process improvements would be more helpful than additional state funding. Other estimates for counties’ motor vehicle registration service costs used reasonable methods but differed from ours because we had more detailed and updated data.

State agencies purchase or lease space to meet a variety of needs ranging from office work to storage to public services. State agencies have discretion in determining what office space they need and how to acquire it. The information in this report is self-reported by agencies because the state doesn’t have a central repository for all agency-owned office space. In fiscal year 2025, state agencies reported owning or leasing 4.1 million square feet of office space across the state. Additionally, in fiscal year 2025, state agencies leased around 63% of their office space and owned about 32% of their office space statewide. They had other arrangements for about 5% of their office space. As far as usage, agencies reported most office space was occupied. Most agencies also reported they had enough space if all employees were asked to work in the office. Most lease agreements in privately owned buildings are less than 10 years in length and can’t be broken unless state funding is terminated. Leasing appears to be the most common option for state agencies to acquire office space in Topeka. In fiscal year 2025, state agencies in Topeka reported leasing costs for privately owned buildings were less than state-owned buildings. The annual cost to own space in Topeka is unclear because few agencies own space and DOA data on state-owned office buildings wasn’t reliable. Agencies’ decisions to lease or purchase office space are based on several factors, some of which are non-financial. About a quarter of the space in the newly renovated Docking State Office Building is office space, and most of that space will be filled with 4 agencies.

This audit evaluated whether entities implemented 9 previous audit recommendations. We determined that 4 of the 9 recommendations have been implemented. The 5 Groundwater Managmeent Districts implemented 1 recommendation from our 2023 audit. of them? The Departments of Revenue and Commerce implemented the recommendation from our 2023 audit of the Rural Opportunity Zones Program. The Secretary of State's Office implemented 1 recommendation, partially implemented 1 recommendation, and didn't implement the third recommendation from our 2023 audit of election security (part 2). The Department of Revenue implemented 1 recommendation and partially implemented 3 recommendations from our 2024 audit of motor vehicle sales taxes.

N/A