PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT

Transcription

1 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Reviewing Issues Relating to The Financial Management, Efficiency, and Effectiveness of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks A Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee By the Legislative Division of Post Audit State of Kansas February, 1995

2 Legislative Post Audit Committee Legislative Division of Post Audit THE LEGISLATIVE POST Audit Committee and its audit agency, the Legislative Division of Post Audit, are the audit arm of Kansas government. The programs and activities of State government now cost about $6 billion a year. As legislators and administrators try increasingiy to allocate tax dollars effectively and make government work more efficiently, they need information to evaluate the work of governmental agencies. The audit work performed by Legislative Post Audit helps provide that information. We conduct our audit work in accordance with applicable government auditing standards set forth by the U.S. General Accounting Office. These standards pertain to the auditor's professional qualifications, the quality of the audit work, and the characteristics of professional and meaningful reports. The standards also have been endorsed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and adopted by the Legislative Post Audit Committee. The Legislative Post Audit Committee is a bipartisan committee comprising five senators and five representatives. Of the Senate members, three are appointed by the President of the Senate and two are appointed by the Senate Minority Leader. Of the Representatives, three are appointed by the Speaker of the House and two are appointed by the Minority Leader. Audits are performed at the direction of the Legislative Post Audit Committee. Legislators or committees should make their requests for performance audits through the Chairman or any other member of the Committee. Copies of all completed performance audits are available from the Division's office. LEGISLATIVE POST AUDIT COMMITTEE Representative James E. Lowther, Chair Representative Tom Bradiey Representative Duane Goossen Representative Sheila Hochhauser Representative Ed McKechnie Senator Lana aleen, Vice-Chair Senator Anthony Hensley Senator Phii Martin Senator Alicia L. Salisbury Senator Don Steffes LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT 800 SW Jackson Suite 1200 Topeka,Kansas Telephone (913) FAX (913) The Legislative Division of Post Audit supports full access to the services of State government for all citizens. Upon request, Legislative Post Audit can provide its audit reports in large print, audio, or other appropriate alternative format to accommodate persons with Visual impairments. Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may reach us through the Kansas Relay Center at Our office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

3 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT REVIEWING ISSUES RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, EFFICIENCY, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS OBTAINING AUDIT INFORMATION This audit was conducted by Sharon Patnode, Allan Foster, and Laura Sargent. If you need any additional infonnation about the audit's findings, please contact Ms. Patnode at the Division's office.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS REVIEWING ISSUES RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, EFFICIENCY, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Overview ofthe Department of Wildlife and Parks 3 Has the Department of Wildlife and Parks Established Adequate and Appropriate Financial-Management Practices Related to State Parks and Fish and Game Activities?.10 Conclusion 19 Recommendations 20,21 Have the Potential Savings and Efficiencies from Merging the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission Been Achieved? 22 Conclusion 38 Recommendations 39 Are the Primary Missions, Goals, and Objectives of the State's Parks and Fish and Game Areas Being Met, And IfNot, How Can Those Operations Be Improved?.40 Conclusion 53 Recommendations 54 How Can the Department of Wildlife and Parks Be Structured More Efficiently? 55 Conclusion 64 Recommendations 65 APPENDIX A: Survey Responses From Current and Former Agency Employees 67 APPENDIX B: Accounting Solution To the Diversion of Payroll 73 APPENDIX C: Survey Responses From Kansas Anglers, Boaters, Hunters, and Campers 76 APPENDIX D: States With Combined Responsibility for Parks and Wildlife 93 APPENDIX E: Wildlife and Parks Agencies in Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas 95 APPENDIX F: Agency Response " 10 I

5 Reviewing Issues Relating to the Financial Management, Efficiency, and Effectiveness of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Summary of Legislative Post Audit's Findings In 1987, the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission were merged creating the Department ofwildlife and Parks. The primary goals ofthe merger were to cross-train the agencies' law enforcement staff, institute one-stop shopping for licenses and permits, and develop joint park and wildlife facilities. The Department is responsible for the State's outdoor recreational activities, for promoting the use ofnatural resources, and for enforcing laws to protect them. Has the Department of Wildlife and Parks established adequate and appropriate financial-management practices related to State parks and fish and game activities? The Department's financial-management practices are not adequate to provide needed accountability for moneys restricted by federal or State law. During fiscal years 1989 through 1992, the Department spent $1.7 million in violation of federal regulations and $3.9 million in violation of State law. In addition, the way the Department manages its cash flows and fund balances does not always make full and effective use of the moneys available to it. Finally, the Department is not meeting its financial obligation to the Corps of Engineers related to EI Dorado State Park. Have the potential savings and efficiencies from merging the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission been achieved? The merger did not result in any overall cost savings; costs actually increased because of an increase in the number of employees and reclassification of employee positions. Efficiencies did result from the merger primarily when the parks and public lands (wildlife areas) staffs were combined creating flexibility in the use of staff and equipment. However, recent Department attempts to solve the diversion of federally restricted funds have negated this efficiency. Are the primary missions, goals, and objectives of the State's parks and fish and game areas being met, and if not, how can those operations be improved? The Department is not meeting all of its primary goals and objectives. Although the Department generally has increased outdoor recreational opportunities at State parks and fishing lakes, it has not done as well with its wildlife areas. In addition, it has not done a good job ofmaintaining its facilities. How can the Department be structured more efficiently? Even though the combination of parks and public wildlife area programs into one division contributed to organizational inefficiency because of an increased need for procedures to prevent diversion of restricted moneys, the combination of these two programs created offsetting efficiencies. The Department has a layer of general management the other states we looked at don't have. Finally, the Department has devoted proportionally more of its employee resources to support activities and less to field programs than the other states we reviewed.

6 This report includes numerous recommendations for the Department of Wildlife and Parks. We would be happy to discuss these recommendations or any other items in the report with any legislative committees, individual legislators, or other State officials. Barbara J. Hinton Legislative Post Au

7 Reviewing Issues Relating to the Financial Management, Efficiency, and Effectiveness of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks In 1987, then-governor Hayden signed an Executive Reorganization Order merging the former Park and Resources Authority and Fish and Game Commission into the Department of Wildlife and Parks. The Department employs 408 people (406 full-time equivalent employees) responsible for the State's outdoor recreational activities, for promoting the use of natural resources, and for enforcing laws to protect them. The Department is funded primarily through user fees, federal reimbursements and grants, and State tax dollars. The Kansas Governmental Operations Accountability Law (K-GOAL) requires the Legislative Division ofpost Audit to conduct a performance audit of specified State agencies each year on an eight-year cycle. The purpose of these audits is to periodically review the operations of the selected agencies, determine the necessity, propriety, and legality of their operations, identify areas of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and provide information to allow the Legislature to either take action to retain appropriate and effective governmental operations, or to terminate inappropriate or obsolete governmental operations. To fulfill the requirements of the law, the Legislative Post Audit Committee directed the Legislative Division of Post Audit to review the operations of the Department of Wildlife and Parks to determine whether efficiencies expected by the merger were realized, whether the Department had met its primary mission, whether the Department had established adequate financial-management practices, and how the Department's organizational structure compared to other states with combined park and wildlife agencies. This audit addresses the following questions: 1. Has the Department of Wildlife and Parks established adequate and appropriate financial-management practices related to State parks and fish and game activities? 2. Have the potential savings and efficiencies from merging the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission been achieved? 3. Are the primary missions, goals, and objectives of the State's parks and fish and game areas being met, and if not, how can those operations be improved? 4. How can the Department of Wildlife and Parks be structured more efficiently? We interviewed Department officials and reviewed relevant documents to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the agency's financial-management practices. We sent surveys to all current Department employees and some former I.

8 employees to get their opinions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department's organization and operations. We also conducted site visits to EI Dorado, Clinton, Glen Elder, and Melvem park and wildlife areas, and analyzed available data regarding the operations of the Department and the use of the resources it manages. In addition, we surveyed Department customers who had registered a boat through the agency or who had purchased hunting and fishing licenses or park and camp permits, to determine their satisfaction with Department facilities and policies. Finally, we contacted several states with combined park and wildlife agencies to compare the Department's structure and operations with those of other states. In conducting this audit, we followed all applicable government auditing standards set forth by the U.S. General Accounting Office, except we were not able to verify all the data provided by the comparison states. In general, we found the Department's financial-management practices are not adequate to provide needed accountability for restricted moneys, nor do they allow the Department to make full and effective use of the moneys available. Of particular concern is the fact the Department cannot ensure restricted moneys are spent only for the purposes allowed. During fiscal years , this problem allowed the Department to violate State law and misspend nearly $4 million of wildlife and park moneys for unallowed purposes. The Department created efficiencies after the merger when it combined some operations of its parks and public wildlife area staffs. However, it lost those efficiencies when it recently split the operations of those two staffs again in reaction to the diversion problem. In addition, the Department appears to have a severe employee morale problem. The Department has met some of its goals and objectives but not others. It has increased outdoor recreation opportunities, and has ensured the public's safe and legal use of recreation resources. However, it has not improved its wildlife habitat resources or maintained facilities as it should. In addition, the Department needs to improve its wildlife population information and review its agricultural use policy for wildlife areas. The Department's combination of parks and public lands wildlife programs into one division is different from most other states. Further, that combination would appear to require additional administrative procedures to prevent misuse of restricted moneys. However, cooperation between parks and public lands staffs has provided offsetting efficiencies. Regarding management efficiencies, the Department has a layer of general management not found in other states. Finally, the Department has devoted proportionally more of its employee resources to support activities and less to field activities than the other states we looked at. These and other related findings will be discussed in more detail after a brief overview including a history of the merger and general Department information. 2.

9 Overview of the Department ofwildlife and Parks The fonner Park and Resources Authority had responsibility for developing and maintaining the State's parks and recreation areas. The Authority consisted of nine members-the Governor, Secretary of Transportation, Chair of the Fish and Game Corrunission, Secretary of Economic Development, and five members appointed by the Governor. In 1987, when the merger took place, the Authority employed about 120 people. Its main revenue sources were user fees, State tax dollars, and federal park development moneys. The fonner Fish and Game Commission consisted of five members appointed by the Governor. The Commission was responsible for developing and preserving the wildlife and natural resources of the State. In 1987, the Commission employed about 275 people. The agency's main revenue sources were license and permit fees and federal moneys. The Park and Resources Authority and Fish and Game Commission Were Merged Into a Cabinet-Level Department in Fiscal Year 1~87 In March 1987, then-governor Hayden signed an Executive Reorganization Order merging the Authority and the Commission into the Department of Wildlife and Parks. The newly merged Department was given cabinet-level status to help elevate the priority ofpark and wildlife programs within State government. The stated primary goals of the merger were to cross-train the agencies' law enforcement staff, institute one-stop shopping for licenses and pennits, and develop joint park and wildlife facilities. For example, it was expected that the merger would allow the Department to develop such park-related facilities as picnic areas and camp-fire sites at State fishing lakes. Before the merger, Fish and Game Commission members had broad duties. Besides hiring the agency director, they had the authority to approve all agency ex. penditures, set license and pennit fees, and establish hunting seasons. Members of the Park and Resource Authority also had broad general powers, including hiring the agency's director and appointing local park advisory committees. The merged Department had a seven member Commission appointed by the Governor. This Commission no longer appointed the agency head--that was done by the Governor--but the Commission did retain authority to review and act upon rules and regulations proposed by the Department Secretary. The Department Is Administered by Staff in the Topeka Office; Field Operations Are Managed from an Office in Pratt The main office of the fonner Fish and Game Commission was located in Pratt; the Park and Resources Authority was located in Topeka. At the present time, 3.

10 the Department Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Assistant Secretary of Administration are located in Topeka. The support sections including budget, planning, and federal aid also are located in Topeka. The Department's administrative services section-.accounting, licensing, and data processing-are located in Pratt. Also in Pratt are the Assistant Secretary of Operations and directors of the Department's three major operational divisions-fish and Wildlife, Law Enforcement, and Parks and Public Lands. Public lands refer to wildlife areas. A current organization chart showing the various divisions is below. Department of Wildlife and Parks Organization Chart SECRETARY Chief of Slaff I I I I I I I I I I I I,----- I I I I I The Department divides the State into five administrative regions with a regional office in each. Region One includes northwest and north central Kansas with regional headquarters in Hays. Region Two comprises counties in northeast Kansas with headquarters in Topeka. Region Three covers southwest Kansas with headquarters in Dodge City. Region Four includes counties surrounding the regional headquarters in Valley Center. Finally, Region Five includes counties in southeast Kansas with headquarters in Chanute. 4.

11 The graphic below describes the work done by field personnel in each division. In general, Fish and Wildlife Division staff advise private land owners, while Park and Public Land Division employees work on the State's publicly owned or managed lands. Law Enforcement Division employees enforce wildlife-related laws across the State; however, law enforcement in State parks currently is done by park rangers who are not part of the Department's law enforcement division. Parks and Public Lands Division Parks Public Lands (Wildlife Areas) 88 Field Staff 45 Field Staff Park Managers Responsible for: - seiling camping, hunting, and fishing permits - maintaining camp sites in parks - operating sewage and water treatment plants - providing law enforcement - maintaining roads, parking, restrooms, fences, etc. Park Rangers Responsible for: - providing law enforcement - checking campers and park visitors for permits - assisting campers and visitors - maintaining order - dealing with issues such as domestlce violence, gang problems, rapes, and homicides - doing park maintenance duties as time permits Fish & Wildlife Division 54 Field Staff Wildlife Area Managers Responsible for: - assisting in monitoring fish populations - developing food plots for wildlife In wildlife areas - burning grass - replacing signs - fixing culverts - developing and maintaining marshes - perfonming law enforcement duties, as necessary, in public wildlife areas - maintaining roads, parking, restrooms, fences, etc. - picking up trash - cleaning toilets Law Enforcement Division 64 Field Staff Fisheries Biologists Responsible for: - monitoring fish populations - doing fall fish test netting - analyzing data collected - making management recommendations based upon that analysis - Investigating and dealing with fish kills - acting as liaison between the Department and state and local governments on aquatic Issues - budgeting and planning - operating fish hatcheries Wildlife Biologists Responsible for: - working with and giving advice to private landowners in developing and improving wildlife habitat on private lands - monitoring wildlife populations - trapping and transplanting geese and turkey - working with special Interest groups such as Ducks Unlimited Conservation Officers Responsible for: - checking hunters and anglers for permits - performing spot checks of hunters and anglers to see if they have violated any laws - enforcing boating laws - Inspecting commercial wildlife facilities, pet shops, bait shops, and controlled shooting areas - regulating commercial hunting and fishing guides - handling Inlured animal calls 5.

12 Kansas Department ofwildlife & Parks Raw1iDs ri DecaIur Sbaidan *rf ~ Tbomaa rf Graham if." Logan Gove ri ",+ ri WIChita Scou ri N_ 0 ~ Ellis Rush Russell "'Parks i# Wildlife Areas.. State FIShing lakes

13 The map on the facing page shows the location of Kansas' 24 State parks, nearly 450,000 acres of federal or State wildlife areas managed by the Department, and about 40 State fishing lakes. The number of authorized positions in the Department has increased by 4% since In 1987, the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission had a tota! of 392 authorized positions. By 1994, the Department's authorized staffing levels had grown to 406 authorized positions (408 people). In this audit, we categorized employees as management, support, and field. Generally, management employees are upper-level management including the Department Secretary, assistant secretaries, chief of staff, division heads, and regional supervisors. In 1994, there were 32 managers. In general, support staff include clerical, accounting, budget, planning, federal aid, environmental, education, and engineering employees. In 1994, there were 118 support staff. Field staff include park and wildlife managers and employees working in the parks and wildlife areas, as well as Statewide fish and wildlife biologists. There were 258 field staff in The Department Is Funded Primarily Through User Fees, Federal Reimbursements, and State Tax Dollars; Most Expenditures Are for Salaries and Wages The Department's major revenue sources are hunting and fishing license fees, State park permit fees, and federal reimbursements for portions of program expenditures. As license fee and permit revenues have declined over the years, the Department has had to rely more heavily on federal moneys and State tax dollars. A comparison of revenue sources and expenditures for 1987 and 1994 is shown in the graphic on the following page. As the graphic shows, the majority of the Department's revenue comes from license and permit fees. However, this funding source has dropped from about 56% of all revenues in 1987 to 47% in The second major source of revenue is feder- a! reimbursements and grants, which have increased from 24% of all revenues in 1987 to 26% in Reliance on the State General Fund has similarly increased from 13% in 1987 to 15% in Other major revenue sources include lottery moneys, private gifts and donations, State water plan moneys, and State taxpayer dollars made available through the Chickadee Checkoff on the State's income tax forms. Adjusted for inflation, total Department expenditures have increased 33 % from 1987 to 1994, from about $22 million to $30 million per year. Salaries 7.

14 Department of Wildlife and Parks Comparison of Revenue Sources for Fiscal Vears 1987 and 1994 Comparison of Expenditures for Fiscal Yeers 1987 and 1994 License 60% Fee Funds Sliarles 70% and Wages 50% 56% 60% 63% 40% 50% 30% Federal Funds 40% 30% Capllal Improvements 33% other 20% 24% State General Fund Other Funds 20% 10% 10% D Fiscal Year 1987 o FiscalYear1994 License fees make up the majority of the Department's revenues with federal funds and the State General Fund slowly increasing as a total percent of revenues. Salaries and wages continue to be the Department's biggest expense. Capital improvements vary greatly from year-to-year. Other expenditures include office operation costs. and wages have always been the largest expense, but as the graphic shows, they dropped from 63% to 52% as a percentage of total expenses between 1987 and Capita] improvements--expenditures for major facility improvement or development-went from 4% of total expenses to 23%. However, these expenditures are highly variable. Several major development projects contributed to the high capital improvement costs in fiscal year 1994, including the renovation of Cheyenne Bottoms, development of Hillsdale State Park, and repair of flood-damaged parks. Other expenses such as rent, printing, and communication, dropped as a percentage of total expenses between 1987 and The Department will be required to spend an additional $5.2 million over the next several years to repay wildlife funds for moneys spent on parks activi- 8.

15 ties, and to make up a shortfall in required fishery project expenditures. In October 1994, we issued a performance audit examining the Department's compliance with federal fish and wildlife program requirements. In that audit. we found that the Department had inappropriately diverted about $1.7 million in wildlife moneys to parks-related activities during fiscal years 1989 through Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had not issued a final decision on this matter at the time this current audit was concluded, the Department apparently will be required to repay wildlife programs that $1.7 million. Federal officials also plan to conduct an audit of fiscal years 1993 and 1994 to determine whether additional wildlife funds were spent for non-wildlife purposes during that period. That audit is scheduled to begin in February or March In addition, our previous audit found that the Department had failed to maintain the federally required minimum State funding level for fisheries programsabout $1.9 million annually-in every year from 1986 through The total shortfall was $3.5 million. As a result, over the next three years the Department must spend $3.5 million on fisheries programs, while at the same time maintaining the annual $1.9 million expenditure requirement. 9.

16 Has the DepartmentofWildlife and Parks Established Adequate and Appropriate Financial-Management Practices Related to State Parks and Fish and Game Activities? The Department's financial-management practices are not adequate to provide needed accountability for restricted moneys, nor do they allow the Department to make full and effective use of the moneys available. During fiscal years 1989 through 1992, the Department spent about $3.9 million in violation of State law, which restricts the use of wildlife revenues to wildlife purposes and park revenues to park purposes. There is a substantial risk that additional restricted moneys were spent in violation of State law in fiscal years 1993 and Although the Department has improved its financial-management practices since our earlier audit was conducted, it still cannot ensure that restricted moneys are properly spent. In addition, the way the Department manages its cash flows and fund balances does not always make full and effective use of the moneys available to it. For example, the Department has lost some federal moneys, and it has not sought the maximum reimbursements possible for other federal moneys. Finally, the Department is not meeting its financial obligation to the Corps of Engineers related to El Dorado State Park. These and other findings are described in more detail in the sections that follow. From , the Department Spent $3 Million In Wildlife Moneys and About $1 Million In Park Moneys In Violation ofstate Law Federal regulations prohibit the Department from spending hunting and fishing license fees and related federal reimbursements for non-wildlife related activities. State law places even more stringent requirements on the Department's expenditures. Under State law, the Department is prohibited from spending any moneys placed in wildlife funds-not just hunting and fishing fees and federal reimbursements---on non-wildlife activities. The same statutory restriction applies to moneys derived from park permits. Under State law, those moneys must be spent only on park activities. As described in the overview section, our earlier performance audit showed that the Department had inappropriately spent wildlife moneys on park-related activities during fiscal years 1989 through Although some of the diversion was done intentionally, the majority of the unauthorized expenditures occurred because the Department had no way of ensuring that federally restricted moneys were spent properly. The major problems leading to the diversion were as follows: commingling restricted and unrestricted moneys in one fund without separately accounting for them allocating shared costs among programs based on available funding rather than an established reasonable allocation method 10.

17 paying employees based on an estimate of how they would spend their time, rather than how they actually did spend their time. The following table shows the total amount of wildlife fund moneys the Department had spent for non-wildlife purposes during those years. Wildlife Moneys Spent for Non-Wildlife Purposes Fiscal Years 1989 through 1992 Type of Expenditure 1989 (a) Four Year 1992 Total General Administrative $ 507,505 Costs Other Than Salaries and Wages (these Include such things as central of fice supplies that benefit all or many agency programs) $478,210 $449,322 $453,021 $1,888,058 Salaries and 561,201 o 132,252 o 693,453 Wages Other Direct 28,608 Program Costs (these include such things as vehicles that directly benefit parks programs) 99, ,724 35, ,821 Total $1,097,314 $577,879 $843,298 $488,841 $3,007,332 As the table shows, the Department spent more than $3 million of wildlife moneys on non-wildlife activities. However, about $400,000 of that amount was not subject to federal spending restrictions (which was the focus of the earlier audit), and about $900,000 of that amount essentially had been "restored" during those years because the Department had paid $900,000 in wildlife employees' salaries with parks moneys. In all, then, a total of $1.7 million of the $3 million shown on the table above was restricted by federal law. Our findings in the earlier audit focused on this figure. As noted earlier, however, State law generally restricts the use of wildlife moneys to wildlife purposes, and parks moneys to park purposes. In addition, private grants to the Department often restrict the use of those moneys to specific purposes. Because of these restrictions, the full $3 million identified during the earlier audit 11.

18 Positive Comments about the Department During this audit, we surveyed all current Department employees and 30 former employees to get their opinions about the Department's operations. We received many positive comments, some of which are presented below. Although the survey results suggest that employees are very happy with their jobs and their co-workers, many expressed dissatisfaction with the Department. "Despite my comments about current agency morale, I can still say that I have never worked anywhere with so many highiy-dedicated, educated, and capable people on staff. It is a shame that a governor was able to put so many unqualified people in power-people whose primary concern apparently is their own selfadvancement, even at others' expense." "The employees of the Department are self-motivated and dedicated. Few remain in their positions simply for the pay they receive; most sought such a career out of personal dedication and missionary zeal. Because the Department is relatively obscure and small, the political appointment system leaves it unreasonably vulnerable to periods of Inadequate leadership.' "We have some of the most dedicated people in the State, true professionals, who are genuinely concerned about this department. The regional supervisors are wonderful, they have been the backbone of support to the field staff. Also, the majority of field staff go above and beyond the call of duty, always giving 150%. I believe If we had a leader that had vision, had faith in his/her people, allowed each individual the freedom to express his/her ideas, and provided the expertise and direction that would solve the current problems, this department would gain the respect it had, and should have now." "In spite of generally poor morale, most field employees are continuing their duties to the best of their ability. We are fortunate to have self motivation due to the nature of the employment. Most staff feel that they are actually making the world a better place by managing wildlife and other natural resources for public benefit. Unfortunately, many of our best professionals are taking jobs in other states.". "Even with all the problems, KDWP is a great place to work. It is the best job I've ever had. It is my continued hope that the leadership of the Department will stabilize and that the Department will be an even better employer In the coming years.' "Someone is always complementing my work, which means a lot. I have never worked anywhere where the atmosphere is this good, with no fighting or arguing." was spent in violation of State law. In addition, the $900,000 of park moneys used for wildlife salaries also was spent in violation of State law. Finally, it should be noted that the previous audit focused only on fiscal years If additional audit work scheduled to be done by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Inspector General's Office uncovers diversion in 1993 and 1994, there likely will be additional violations of State law in those years. Unlike federal law, which requires that diverted moneys be restored, State law contains no sanctions for violating State spending restrictions. The Department also has no way to ensure that equipment purchased with restricted moneys was used in accordance with those restrictions. Federal, State, and other requirements restrict how equipment and other property purchased with restricted moneys can be used. For example, if the Department buys a truck with hunting and fishing license moneys, which are restricted by federal law for wildlife activities, then that truck must be used for wildlife activities. Further, if that truck is sold later, the moneys from that sale must be applied to wildlife activities. This last requirement generally would be accomplished by depositing moneys from the sale of the truck back into the same fund from which the truck was purchased. When the two agencies were merged in 1987, no record was kept of which equipment came from which agency, so it was impossible to tell if equipment was purchased with restricted moneys. Since the merger, the De- 12.

19 partment keeps a record of the fund from which equipment is purchased. However, it does not record whether restricted moneys were used. Thus, it is still impossible to tell if equipment was purchased with restricted moneys. Although our reviews and tests of the Department's property and its use in this audit and the previous audit did not show any misuse, the Department has no way of ensuring that it adheres to restrictions regarding the purchase and use of equipment and other property. Although some concerns had been expressed about the Department's use of the "agricultural" moneys it receives, we didn't identify significant problems in this area. The Department allows farmers to plant and harvest crops on certain wildlife areas. In return, farmers either pay the Department a percentage of the revenues from the crops, or agree to provide services rather than cash. Such services mightinclude plantingfood plots for wildlife, or building fences. For federally owned lands managed by the Department, federal regulations generally require the "agricultural use" moneys received be spent on the areas that produced the moneys. At the outset of this audit, some legislative concerns had been expressed that moneys derived from one area were being inappropriately diverted to other areas. To ensure that these requirements are met, the Department keeps track of agricultural use moneys on federal lands separately by area. Each area is given an informal budget, and expenditure requests by area managers are reviewed by central office staff to ensure that funds are available and restrictions are complied with. The central office prepares monthly reports on each area showing receipts, expenditures, and balances. We reviewed these procedures, and determined they should ensure compliance with applicable requirements. Regarding agricultural use of State-owned lands, Department officials we talked to held different opinions. Some officials thought that moneys from agricultural use of State-owned lands had to be spent on the lands that produced those revenues; others did not think that the use of those moneys was restricted in that way. In our work, we found no documentation for restriction of these moneys to use on the lands that produced them. Any cash received from these lands goes into the Park Fee Fund. However, it is the Department's general practice to allow farmers to plant and harvest crops on State-owned land in return for services rather than for cash. The Department Has Improved Its Practices Related to Spending and Accounting for Restricted Moneys, but Those Changes Still Will Not Ensure That Restricted Funds Are Properly Spent To address the financial-management problems we identified in the previous audit, we had recommended that the Department do the following: 13.

20 Request a separate fund in the State's central accounting system for restricted moneys, or establish separate accounting records in its own accounting system to account for revenues, expenditures, and balances of restricted moneys. Develop a rational method ofallocating costs shared by many or all programs, and use it consistently. Develop a way to pay employees based on the type of projects they actually work on, so that moneys restricted to use on certain programs are not being used to pay for work performed on other programs. Develop a way to reconcile the Department's cost accounting system with the State's central accounting system, and perform regular reconciliations. Enforce the new policy requiring supervisors to document their reviews of the accuracy of vouchers and employee activity reports. The Department has not established the accountability needed to ensure that restricted funds are accounted for separately. The Department has not requested a separate fund in the State's central accounting system for restricted moneys, nor has it established separate accounting records in its own accounting system to account for revenues, expenditures, and balances of restricted moneys. Although its internal accounting system does include separate revenue, expenditure, and balance information for some restricted moneys, it does not include that information for all such moneys, including the Wildlife Fee Fund. The Department has begun putting information in its cost accounting system that identifies funds separately. However, that cost accounting system includes expenditure information only, not revenues or balances. The Department's new method of allocating costs shared by many or all programs, which is based on available funding, is not adequate to ensure that costs are properly allocated in accordance with federal requirements or accepted accounting practices. These requirements and practices call for shared costs to be allocated based on reasonable estimates of actual benefits to the programs. Accepted methods for estimating the amount of shared costs that benefit an agency's programs include such things as making the allocation in proportion to direct dollars spent by the programs, or in proportion to direct labor costs spent on the programs. Allocating shared costs based on available funding does not logically estimate the amount of shared costs that actually benefit the various programs. The Department has chosen to have employees work in the manner in which they are paid, rather than to pay the employees in the manner in which they work. In other words, if an employee's position is set up to be funded 60% by wildlife moneys and 40% by park moneys, the Department will have that employee spend 60% ofhis orher time on wildlife activities and 40% on park activities. 14.

21 That decision, if adhered to, will avoid diversion of restricted moneys for employee salaries. However, it will not necessarily result in the most cost-effective use of that employee's time. We discuss this issue further starting on page 3S of this report. The Department's current way of reconciling its cost accounting system with the State's central accounting system is not fully able to address the concern raised in the earlier audit. Based on our review, it appears that some unreconciled differences remain, but these differences are not large. Department officials indicate that one reason for the differences is that different fringe benefit rates are used by the two accounting systems. They are working to resolve those differences. We think it is still a problem that the Department is reconciling its cost accounting system to the central accounting system on a Department-wide basis, rather than separately by restricted types of moneys. Department officials indicated to us that the cost accounting system currently does not have fund-by-fund information, but that it will have such information beginning with fiscal year 1996, and will be able to perform a fund-by-fund reconciliation after that time. However, as long as the. Department commingles restricted moneys with other moneys in one fund, even a fund-by-fund reconciliation will not ensure separate accountability. (Because the cost accounting system deals only with expenditures, and not with revenues and balances, the process of reconciling the cost accounting system to the State's central accounting system will, by itself, not achieve all the accountability needed by the Department.) The Department Has Not Managed Its Cash Flows and Fund Balances To Make Full and Effective Use ofthe Moneys Available to It Our findings in this area relate to large unspent balances in the Department's Wildlife Conservation Fund and its Boating Fee Fund, and to the Department's failure to maximize the federal moneys it receives. The Department has accumulated more than $3 million in the Wildlife Conservation Fund from the sale oflifetime hunting and fishing licenses, with no plans to spend these moneys. In addition to annual hunting and fishing licenses, the Department also sells lifetime licenses. The fee for these licenses is substantially larger than the fee for the annual licenses. When it collects the fee for a lifetime hunting or fishing license, the Department deposits the portion of that fee equal to an annual license fee in the Wildlife Fee Fund. The additional amount collected is deposited in the Wildlife Conservation Fund. During the last five fiscal years, annual deposits into the Wildlife Conservation Fund have averaged about $400,000, while expenditures have averaged only about $70,000, most apparently from interest earnings of the fund. This situation has continued for some time. As a result, by the end of fiscal year 1994, the balance in IS.

22 the Conservation Fund had grown to more than $3 million. This situation exists in spite of the fact that, for the last two fiscal years, the Legislature has placed no limit on expendituresfrom this fund. Department personnel indicated to us that these moneys were being used as an endowment, where the fund earns interest, the interest is all that is spent, and the amounts collected are never spent. In an endowment situation, however, major receipts are received sporadically, rather than on a regular ongoing basis. In the case ofthe Wildlife Conservation Fund, significant receipts come in every year. In addition, the lifetime license fees conceptually are designed to fund wildlife programs for the remaining life of the licensee. To make the most proper and effective use of those moneys, the Department should adopt a plan to gradually spend the moneys in the Wildlife Conservation Fund for wildlife programs. For example, the Department could adopt a policy that lifetime license fee moneys should directly benefit the next 20 years after those moneys are received. Then, if the Department received $400,000 in lifetime license moneys in fiscal year 1995, it would plan to spend a twentieth of that amount ($20,000) in each of the next 20 years. If the Department received an additional $450,000 in lifetime license moneys in fiscal year 1996, it would plan to spend a twentieth ofthat amount ($22,500) in each of the next 20 years. That would result in expenditures of lifetime license moneys of $42,500 in fiscal year 1997, $20,000 of the moneys received in fiscal year 1995, and $22,500 of the moneys received in fiscal year Unless the Department adopts some systematic plan for spending lifetime license moneys, at its current rate of fee collections, the balance in the Wildlife Conservation Fund would be in excess of $5.6 million by the year Although there apparently is a need to improve the State's boat docks and programs, the Department is maintaining large unspent balances in the Boating Fee Fund, and it has lost some of the federal boating grant moneys available to help make such improvements. Our review of the moneys available to spend from the Boating Fee Fund showed that, in each of the last two years, the Fund's ending balance has equaled more than a year's worth of expenditures. (On average the Department spent about $700,000 per year from the Boating Fee Fund.) In general, moneys being deposited into that fund are increasing both because of fee increases that took effect in 1993, and because ofa growing number ofboatowners. In addition, the Department receives federal grant moneys each year from the U. S. Coast Guard for boating safety programs. The amount of money made available to Kansas is based one-third on an equal distribution among the states, one-third on the number of boats registered in Kansas, and one-third on how much Kansas has spent for boating safety programs in the past. The amount of grant moneys the Department actually receives is limited to a 50% reimbursement for eligible boating expenditures. 16.

23 It appears that moneys are available to spend on boating safety programs if additional spending is needed. During this audit, we surveyed a total of 250 boat license holders and 360 anglers. About one-third of the 95 boat owners who responded expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the State's boat docks and nearly onefifth of the 120 anglers responding told us boat docks were not well maintained. In addition, in a July 1994 letter from the U. S. Coast Guard communicating the results of an on-site review, the Guard pointed out several areas where the Department could make use ofavailable moneys to improve its boating programs. Improving boat dock facilities is an allowable use of Boating Fee Fund moneys. Such expenditures also can be reimbursed with federal grant moneys. The Department told us it has attempted to increase boating expenditures, including those for boat docks, but has consistently had the budget cut by the Governor. However, in its fiscal year 1996 budget, the Department requested $1.1 million for boating programs and the Governor approved the request. ('We did note that the Governor had turned down the Department's requests in fiscal years to spend a total of about $450,000 on boat programs,) Not spending available moneys for boating programs or improvements also has had a negative impact on the federal moneys available to the Department. Federal regulations require that federal grant moneys allocated to the State must be drawn down within three years of their being made available. Otherwise, those moneys are offered to other states. We found that the Department has not always budgeted for or spent enough State moneys within the three-year time allowed to take advantage of all the federal grant moneys that had been allocated to Kansas. For example, available records showed that the Department gave up $70,000 of its fiscal year 1990 federal grant allocation of about $300,000 because it didn't spend enough moneys on boating programs by the end of fiscal year Those same records point out the potential for losing significant additional grant moneys. According to Department officials, the Department's ability to increase expenditures from the Boating Fee Fund is limited by existing State appropriations procedures. The Department's expenditure of its federal moneys, as well as its moneys from State sources, is subject to limitations put in place by the Legislature. At times, these limitations could prevent the Department from making needed expenditures, even though additional federal moneys might be available. In this audit, we looked at comparable state agencies in four other states--texas, Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota. According to representatives of those agencies, those states' appropriations procedures generally give state agencies more spending flexibility for federal moneys than Kansas does. In some cases federal moneys are not even part of the appropriations process; in other cases, expenditure of federal moneys is not limited. 17.

24 The Kansas Legislature has expressed an interest in financial oversight of moneys from non-state sources, such as federal grants, as well as moneys from State sources. Nevertheless, if the Legislature loosened its restrictions on the Department's expenditure of federal moneys, the Department would have more flexibility in responding to financial needs as they arise. Because the Department hasn't drawn down federal reimbursements on a timely-basis, State moneys have been tied up longer than they needed to be, and the Department has lost interest income. The Department of Wildlife and Parks collects more than $9 million each year in hunting and fishing license fees. Federal and State requirements call for those moneys to be be spent for wildlife programs. In general, moneys spent for wildlife programs are eligible for 75% reimbursement by federal grant moneys from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Department can submit reimbursement claims as frequently as it wishes. Officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told us that most states submit claims on a monthly basis. In the past, the Department has submitted reimbursement claims only twice a year. That means that six months' worth of the Department's wildlife programs must be funded by hunting and fishing license moneys until federal reimbursements are received. If license moneys must be used to finance expenditures that ultimately will be paid by federal reimbursements, those license moneys can't be spent for other purposes, and aren't available for investment by the Pooled Money Investment Board. Under federal requirements, any interest earnings on these moneys would be deposited into the Wildlife Fee Fund. As a result, the Department loses interest income that it could have earned otherwise. We estimate that, if the Department had submitted reimbursement claims on a more timely basis, it could have earned an additional $40,000 a year in interest income during fiscal years 1989 through Department officials told us federal reimbursements could be requested in a more timely manner if the Department had more than one individual on its federal aid staff. In our review of other state agencies with comparably sized staffs, Nebraska had six federal aid employees, and South Dakotahad three. The Department may not be receiving all the federal reimbursements it could for certain programs. The Department receives federal moneys under several different programs. Many of those programs are reimbursement programs, where the Department spends State moneys for eligible programs, and is subsequently reimbursed for a portion of those expenditures. The portion that is reimbursed varies depending on the program. For example, as described under previous sections, federal wildlife moneys reimburse eligible expenditures for 75% ofthe total spent, while federal boating moneys reimburse eligible expenditures for 50% ofthe total spent. Department officials told us the Department did not always plan its reimbursements to ensure that, when an expenditure could be reimbursed under either of 18.

25 two programs (such as the wildlife program or the boating program), the Department claimed the reimbursement under the program that paid the highest percentage. In such circumstances, if the Department does not claim reimbursement from the program with the highest reimbursement rate, the Department is not getting the maximum federal reimbursement for its given level of expenditures. For example, a $20,000 boat ramp expenditure could be reimbursed 75% with federal fisheries moneys or 50% with federal boating moneys. The Department would receive a greater reimbursement from federal fisheries moneys than federal boating moneys. The Department spent approximately $15 million for wildlife programs in 1994, and nearly $800,000 for boating programs. While we were not able to estimate the amount of federal funding the Department might be losing, we did conclude that this issue should be taken into account in the Department's budgeting and accounting. The Department Is Not Meeting Its Financial Obligation To the Corps of Engineers Related to EI Dorado State Park In 1972, the Park and Resources Authority agreed in writing to pay the Corps of Engineers for certain costs of constructing EI Dorado State Park. The agreement calls for the State to pay 50% of the total cost over a 50-year period. That 50-year period started with the initial development activities in In 1988, the Corps of Engineers awarded the final construction contracts on the park, and began attempts to finalize costs figures with the Department of Wildlife and Parks. The Department did not respond to those attempts. In April 1991, the Corps finalized the cost figures on its own and requested a first annual payment of $43 I,580 from the Department of Wildlife and Parks. During 1992, the Department and the Corps agreed to adjust the amount owed based on Department-financed improvements to the park. The Governor informed the Corps in February 1993 that the State's fiscal condition did not permit current payment, and asked for a one-year extension. The Corps agreed to a delay; the first payment of $431,575-the revised payment amount- was to be due in August The Department's fiscal year 1995 budget request included moneys to begin payment to the Corps. However, the Governor recommended deleting this funding, and the Legislature concurred. No payment was made in August 1994, and the Corps of Engineers began monthly billings to the Department for the amount due. The Department's fiscal year 1996 budget request, now under consideration, again includes moneys to make the required payments. At the same time, representatives of the Department are exploring with the Corps the possibility of a reduced lump-sum payment to meet its financial obligation. While the ultimate financial obligation seem to be undetermined, it is clear that the Department has not met its financial obligation to the Corps of Engineers. Others involved in the budget process, such as the Governor's Office and the Legislature, also participated in this decision. 19.

26 Conclusion From a financial-management standpoint, one of the most critical needs of the Department of Wildlife and Parks is to ensure that restricted moneys are spent only for the purposes allowed. Failure to meet that need puts the Department at risk of violating both federal and State legal requirements. In the case of federal requirements, violations can cost additional State dollars. In fact, the Department has violated federal requirements, costing at least $1.7 million in additional State General Fund moneys for fiscal years 1989 through 1992, with the possibility of additional violations for fiscal years 1993 and In addition, the Department spent almost $4 million in violation of State law for fiscal years 1989 through The largest contributing factor to these violations is the Department's inadequate financial management practices. The Department also needs to improve its financial-management so that it meets its financial obligations, maximizes the federal moneys it receives, and makes the most cost-effective use of the moneys available to it. Recommendations I. To address the issue of restricted moneys spent in violation of State requirements, over and above those spent in violation of federal requirements, the Department of Wildlife and Parks should work with the Governor's budget staff and the Legislature to determine whether any of those moneys need to be restored to the appropriate funds. 2. To ensure that restricted moneys are spent only for allowed purposes, the Department of Wildlife and Parks should do the following: a. Establish a separate fund in the State's central accounting system for restricted moneys, or establish separate accounting records in its own accounting system to account for revenues, expenditures, and balances of restricted moneys. b. Allocate costs shared by two or more programs so that each type of restricted money pays only for its share of those costs. c. Allocate employee salaries and wages so that the amount charged to each type of restricted money is the cost for employee time spent on allowable activities for those restricted moneys.. 20.

27 d. Reconcile its accounting records with the State's central accounting system at the level of detail necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements. 3. To ensure that property is used in accordance with applicable restrictions, the Department's property records should indicate whether each property item was purchased with restricted moneys. 4. To ensure that lifetime license fees are spent to benefit licensees, the Department should adopt a plan to spend those license fees gradually over some long-termperiod, such as 15-to-20 years. 5. To meet boating program needs identified by the Coast Guard and boating program users, and at the same time make maximum use of federal boating grant moneys available to the State, the Department should consider increasing its boating program expenditures. 6. To reduce the amount of State moneys needed for current expenditures and increase its interest earnings, the Department should submit claims for federal reimbursements on a more frequent and timely basis. To accomplish this, the Department may wish to consider devoting additional positions to this task. 7. To increase the amount of federal reimbursement it receives for certain programs, the Department should review its budgeting and accounting practices to make sure it claims federal reimbursements under the program with the greatest reimbursement percentage. 8. To ensure that the Department meets its financial obligations, the Department should work with the Corps of Engineers, the Legislature, and the Governor to resolve the unpaid State costs for the El Dorado State Park. When completed, it should report the results of these efforts to the Legislative Post Audit Committee. 21.

28 Have the Potential Savings and Efficiencies from Merging the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission Been Achieved? The Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission were merged to make them more efficient and effective. The merger did not result in any overall cost savings; costs actually increased after the merger because of an increase in the numberofemployees, reclassification of employee positions, and an increase in equipment purchases. The merger did allow the Department to use some of its resources more efficiently. For instance, the combination of the parks and public lands (wildlife area) staffs created much greater flexibility in the use of staff and equipment. However, other efforts did not result in efficiencies, and the cross-training of the law enforcement officers has not worked as well as expected. The number of support staff also has grown considerably since the merger. In addition, recent Department attempts to solve the diversion of federally restricted funds has negated many of the efficiencies gained from the merger. Finally, employees we surveyed said that morale is very low in the Department; the greatest dissatisfaction was expressed about upper-level management. These and other findings are discussed in the sections that follow. The Park and Resources Authority and The Fish and Game Commission Were Merged To Make Them More Efficient and Effective The two agencies were merged and the new Department was given cabinetlevel status to help elevate the priority of park and wildlife programs within State government. The operational functions of the new agency were to be centered in Pratt, and the administrative functions were centralized in Topeka so that the Secretary could be closer to the Governor. The Executive Reorganization Order creating the new Department listed several goals of the merger that were designed to make the Department more efficient and effective. From an efficiency standpoint, the stated goals were; to establish one-stop shopping for all camping permits and hunting and fishing licenses, making it easier to people to purchase licenses to allow parks and wildlife employees to be cross-trained and to share responsibilities, allowing the Department to accomplish more with the same employees and improve its services Although the idea of saving money by merging the two agencies may have been implicit, we could find no stated assumption that any actual cost savings would result from the merger. 22.

29 Other stated goals of the merger were designed to make programs more effective by providing more "crossover" activities and services. Such crossover activities would include developing wildlife habitat areas in parks, developing camping sites and park areas at State fishing lakes, and opening up more park land to hunting. In Question ill, we note that many of the crossover activities and services have been achieved. The sharing of expertise from the merged agencies allowed park land to be managed in ways that increase wildlife habitat and promoted the development of park like facilities such as toilets and camp sites in wildlife areas and State lakes. This question will focus on efficiency-related goals. The Merger ofthe Two Agencies Resulted in No Overall Cost Savings We examined the Department's total expenditures (excluding capital improvements) from fiscal years 1987 (the year before the merger) through These expenses are shown in the accompanying table. The table also shows the number of authorized full-time-equivalent staff positions. Department of Wildlife and Parks Total Expenditures (Excluding Capital Improvements) Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1994 Fiscal Year Expenditures (in Millions) $15.9 $16.9 $21.3 $23.8 $21.4 $21.8 $22.9 $22.8 Number of Authorized Staff (FTE) As the table shows, the Department has experienced a fairly steady increase in costs over the years. By fiscal year 1989, the first year the Department's budget actually was based on the merged agency, expenditures had increased to $21.3 million from the pre-merger level of $15.9 million. Expenditure levels since then have continued to increase, but not as dramatically. We identified three primary reasons for these cost increases: a rise in staffing levels after the merger, upgrading or reclassification of many employee positions, and increases in expenditures for things like vehicles and equipment. Costs have increased in part because staffing levels increased after the merger. As pointed out in the overview, the Department's largest expenditures each year are for salaries and wages. Although there may have been expectations that staffing levels would drop after the merger because duplicate positions would be eliminated, the table shows there actually has been a fairly steady increase in staffing levels since the merger. 23.

30 Department Employees Offer Suggestions to Improve Agency Efficiency Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks employees provided comments on the employee survey about the efficiency of the Department and how the efficiency could be Improved. One common suggestion wes to separate the public lands section from parks and move it to the fish and wildlife division. One employee commented, "The philosophy of managing state parks and wildlife areas are entirely different...the management of public lands should immediately be placed under the control of the fisheries and wildlife division. This move would increase effectiveness, remove. the temptation to misuse federal aid moneys, and decrease the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy." Other employees recommended ieaving parks and public lands together and allow them to work together as they did before the most recent reorganization. Employees in the parks The biggest increase occurred between fiscal years 1989 and 1990, when the Legislature approved 13 new positions for the Department. Eight of those positions were field positions, mostly for the parks; five were supportpositions. During the 1992 legislative session, the Governor cut 10 positions from the Department and added three new positions, for a net reduction of seven positions. The Department cut seven unfilled positions in the Parks and Public Lands Division to meet those staffing cuts. The positions the Department cut included park and wildlife area maintenance positions, and a park/wildlife assistant manager.. reorganizations have been stressful and confusing, and they are tired of the uncertainty and lack of stability within the Department. and public lands division thought the original Costs have increased partly because so many employee positions structure of the division was efficient and effective. One employee commented on the were reclassified or upgraded after recent spl~ as follows: "The separation of divisions within the Department has created a the merger, resulting in higher salary loss on combined direction, low morale, and costs. In the years after the merger, general confusion among field personnel. three things happened to increase salary Contradicting instruction or lack of any instruction from management has made it difficult to provide costs. First, the merger changed the a smooth operation of any division within (Parks work required of employees in many of and Public Lands)." the old job classifications. In addition, Although many employees had suggestions on improving the efficiency of the similar employee positions in the Authority and the Commission often were Department, many employees also thought organizational structure was good, but the paid at different salary levels. The Secretary asked the Division of Personnel administration lacked the experience and expertise tc be effective. Employees told us the Services to conduct a classification study of all the Department's job classifications in light of the changed job duties and requirements. As a result of the study, many new job classes were created, representing an upgrading of the required education and experience requirements and a corresponding increase in salary levels. Job classes affected by this reclassification were the conservation workers, wildlife/park program administrators, and regional supervisors. More than 50 people received salary increases ranging from two to six pay ranges (2.5%-30%) in fiscal year Second, all the law enforcement positions were included in Phase III of the Di VISIOn of Personnel Services' Statewide reclassification, which was undertaken to bring State employee salaries into line with similar public sector jobs. When the Statewide reclassification took effect in June 1989, the following positions received salary increases of one to six pay ranges (2.5%-30%): the Department's law enforce- 24.

31 ment positions, conservation officers, and park and wildlife managers and assistant managers. This reclassification affected about 140 people. Taken together, the reclassifications done at the Department's request and the Statewide reclassification affected nearly half the Department's employees. As a result, the Department's salary costs increased by more than $1 million in fiscal year Third, in creating the Parks and Public Lands Division in fiscal year 1989, the Department promoted 17 people into a newly created supervisory job classification called a "park/wildlife field unit supervisor." Most of the people who filled these new jobs had been park or wildlife area managers. Their pay was increased % in their new jobs. (For an explanation of the combination of parks and wildlife areas, see the profile box on the next page.) Costs also have risen because of increases in spending for equipment after the merger. In addition to an increase in personnel and payroll costs, in fiscal year 1989 the Department increased expenditures by over $1 million for new and replacement vehicles and equipment such as tractors, mowers, and radios. The Department also began new programs or expanded existing ones in the years after the merger. For example, Hillsdale State Park was added to the State park system in 1988, and the McPherson Wetland Project began to acquire and develop a new wetland area near McPherson, Kansas. Through Early.1994, the Results of the Department's Consolidation and Streamlining Efforts Had Been Mixed To obtain the actual results of the merger, we did several things. To determine employee opinions, we surveyed all 406 current Department employees and a sample of 30 former employees. Our survey asked employees about morale, working conditions, and the Department's organization. The survey had a very high response, 81 %. Details of the employee surveys can be found in Appendix A. To determine current conditions in the field, we visited the State parks and wildlife areas at Clinton, Melvern, EI Dorado, and Glen Elder lakes. At each location, we talked to the park manager, the wildlife manager, the regional park supervisor, and the regional wildlife supervisor, as well as other employees. We also conducted telephone interviews with fish and wildlife biologists and conservation officers and reviewed Department records. Soon after the merger, the Department established 'one-stop shopping" for all camping permits and hunting and fishing licenses, fulfilling one of the stated goals of the reorganization. These permits and licenses can now be purchased at 30 Department facilities, including all regional and park offices and the administrative offices in Pratt and Topeka. 25.

32 The Parks and Public Lands Unit Concept Allowed Parks and Wildlife Areas To Be Managed Jointly. As part of an Internal reorganization In fiscal year 1989, the Department split the State into five regions, each with three regional supervisors representing the divisions of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Public Lands, and Law Enforcement. The Parks and Public Lands Division further divided each region into "units" in order to manage the large number of properties it was responsible for. "Units" were collections of several individual parks, wildlife areas, and State fishing lakes under the supervision of a field supervisor. The field supervisor was responsible for managing the wildlife and park areas In a coordinated fashion. Each region contained three to five units. The following diagram of the Melvern/Pomona Unit in Region Five shows how units were organized. As the diagram shows, the field supervisor of that unit supervised three wildlife/park managers: the manager of Pomona State Park, the manger of Eisen hower State Park, and the manager of the Melvern Wildlife Area. (The manager of the Melvern Wildlife Area was responsibie for the Melvern Wildlife Area, Osage and Lyon State fishing lakes, and the Otter Creek Game Management Area.) Melvern/Pomona Unit Field Supervisor Melvern/Pomona Unit I I I I, Wildlife/Park Manager Wildlife/Park Manager Wildlife/Park Manager I Office Assistant II I MelvemWA Osage SFL Lyon SFL Otter Creek Game Management Area I Conservation Worker Eisenhower State Park Pomona State Park f-i General MaintenanceI --1 Office Assistant II I Repair Technician Ii ~General Maintenancel --1 Assistant Manager I Repair Technician I ---jgeneral Maintenance, Repair Technician II ---1 General Maintenance I Repair Technician I The unit concept allowed a single manager to coordinate management planning, budgets, allocation of manpower, and equipment. The idea was for the field supervisor to work with his or her entire staff in planning, developing, and managing all areas in the unit. This would allow the supervisor to call on a variety of staff expertise. For example, a wildlife manager could help develop and carry out the land and vegetation management plan for the parks in the unit. Another purpose was to help decentralize agency operations and delegate more authority to the local level. 26.

33 When the Department reorganized after the merger, the two largest changes made to increase efficiency were combining parks and public wildlife area staffs, and combining the law enforcement staffs (park rangers and conservation officers, also known as game protectors). The Department achieved great successes in cross-training parks and wildlife employees so they could share responsibilities and accomplish more with the same number of employees. In addition, the combination of parks and wildlife areas into one division allowed the staffs to share equipment and sell duplicate or little-used equipment. However, efforts to consolidate the park rangers and wildlife conservation officers into a single division, with similar cross-training and shared responsibilities, were not completely successful. In addition, the merger resulted in a fairly significant increase in the number of support staff, rather than a decrease, as some might have expected. Also, more management "layers" were added on the parks side after the merger. The "merger" of the the parks and public wildlife area staff-and the resulting cross-training and sharing of responsibilities-appeared to have Comments About Frequent Change in the Department When asked about morale, the second most common response was that morale was bad because of too many reorganizations in the Department. Following are some of those comments. "It seems that with a politically appointed Secretary and Under Secretary we are constantly seeing Department policy and working conditions changed to reflect what the new Secretaries think should be done." "Constant changes in methods of operation (as dictated by offices in Pratt and Topeka) are frustrating to field staff. Most field staff feel that they were doing things right all along,!! "In the past five years we have gone through a lot of changes, Every time we think we are back on track something happens. This is bad for employee morale. Hopefully better times are ahead." "Constant change to previously successful programs, coupled with diversion of resources to administration destroys morale." "Morale is the lowest its been in the 14 years I have been here. So many things keep changing, there is no stability in the Department." IlSince we have merged we have become too political. Every time the administration changes we change direction. We need a good qualified top management position that is classified, not political. We need a good sturdy ground to stand on." "The Department put park rangers into the law enforcemant division in Now, they have made them go back to the park division. They created field supervisors and organized the park division into units. Now, they have demoted these folks to managers and dropped the units. This is just a couple of examples of the changes. People are tired of all this nonsense." "In a little over four years I have worked under four different Secretaries. It is no wonder we are experiencing problems." worked very well. These staffs were combined so that one division would be responsible for all land under the control and management of the Department. On the local level, the two staffs generally were located near each other on the same reservoirs. Both generally had small staffs,and the type of work they did occasionally required the use of additional people. By combining the two staffs, Department officials hoped the work could be done more efficiently. For example, before the two staffs were merged, when native grasses on wildlife areas had to be burnt in the spring, additional wildlife area employees had to be brought in from other areas of the State to help. After the two staff were combined, it was expected that additional parks staff would always be available nearby to help out. 27.

34 EI Dorado State Park and Wildlife Area ~ State Park Areas EZ:Z1 Wildlife Areas This map shows EI Dorado Lake and the relationship between the State Park and wildlife area. Most public reservoirs in the State are set up in a similar fashion, with a portion of the. land surrounding the lake assigned to the State park, and part to the wildlife area. Typically, part of the wildlife area is farmed and part is managed as wildlife habitat. Hunting is allowed on wildlife areas except for designated wildlife refuge areas. Park staff manage the park lands and public lands staff manage the wildlife areas. The public lands staff are usually responsible for several other smaller wildlife areas and State lakes in the vicinity of the reservoir. 28.

35 During this audit, we found that combining the two staffs appeared to have worked as well as the Department had hoped. In addition, placing the two staffs together under the same supervisor allowed greater flexibility in assigning work. For example, if work needed to be done on a State lake and the public wildlife area staff were busy somewhere else, but park staff were available, the park staff could be sent to the lake to do the work. Or, if the public wildlife area staff were spraying noxious weeds on a wildlife area, it was easy for them to continue spraying for weeds in the park. Also, Department officials told us the combination of parks and wildlife areas into one division allowed the staffs to share equipment and sell duplicate or little-used equipment. Employees also seemed to be pleased with this new arrangement. During our site visits, all the Parks and Public Lands employees spoke very highly of the combination of the two staffs. We also observed that these employees had developed a high level of cooperation, despite their admission that they originally disliked the idea of working with another staff. They told us they had developed a lot of pride in their combined efforts because they were serving the public better. The following comment from an employee survey was typical of the comments we heard during our site visits: The original structure with the unit concept on public lands was very efficient and effective. It allowed property managers to pool resources of manpower and equipment and direct the effort toward better service to the public. Property management could have single direction and accomplishment of goals. One unit of employees was able to set priorities for the property, complete a task and then move on to the next task. Units provided office support for field employees who had done their own typing and had missed many phone messages. Unit offices relieved Regional and Headquarters staff of many clerical duties. The Department's combination of the two law enforcement staffs, which consisted of park rangers and wildlife conservation officers, was designed to bring about efficiencies, but was never successful. Before the merger, there were a total of 31 park rangers and 61 wildlife conservation officers (game protectors). Park rangers provided law enforcement in the parks, assisted campers and visitors and checked their pennits, and performed maintenance duties. Wildlife conservation officers enforced wildlife laws and regulations, checked hunters and anglers for permits, enforced boating laws, and handled injured animal calls. Because peak periods for park rangers are in the summer and for wildlife conservation officers are in winter, Department officials reasoned it would be more efficient to combine the staffs into a single law enforcement division. The Department gave rangers the choice of becoming an assistant park manager or a conservation officer in the new law enforcement division. About half of the rangers chose to stay on as assistant park managers. well: For a number of reasons, combining the law enforcement staff never worked 29.

36 Many wildlife conservation officers did not like doing park law enforcement work. One conservation officer told us he didn't like working in the parks because he was dedicated to working in wildlife law enforcement, and that working in the parks was more like being a small-town policeman. Park staff told us they preferred to solve problems through negotiation, and to issue citations only when it became necessary. They said that many conservation officers didn't have very well developed people skills, and tended to treat everyone as "violators." One park manager told us he often had to handle irate park visitors because a conservation officer had been inflexible in dealing with them. Park staff also told us that scheduling was a problem. For example, during the summer most of the domestic problems, parties, and thefts take place in the evenings and at night. Sometimes, it was difficult to get conservation officers to work during those hours. Because the park managers no longerhad any authority over the conservation officers, they could do little about it. (Two of the conservation officers we talked to dispute this point. They told us they scheduled their time in the parks in the summers. This problem may have varied by region.) Park staff didn't think the conservation officers spent enough time in the parks. Conservation officers told us they had conflicting duties in the summers. If they spent all their time in the parks, they said, they would have no time to check fishing licenses and boating permits. Because of these and other problems, the Department recently reassigned eight conservation officers and two empty officer positions to the parks to be fulltime park rangers. Although the rangers are assigned full-time to the parks, they also are free during the off-season in the parks to help the wildlife conservation officers during hunting season. Conservation Officers Transferred To the Parks Are Unhappy About the Change The recent reorganization of the Law Enforcement Division transferred conservation officers to the parks to become park rangers. This move upset the officers who were involuntarily transferred to the parks. One officer quit over the transfer, and the others filed grievances with the Department. The grievances were all denied by the Secretary. Several park rangers commented on the employee survey about being reassigned. One ranger said: "After being transferred to the park, I am little more than a small town 'beat cop' and a maintenance person in the winter. I was lied to incidentally. When I was made to become a Park Ranger I was told my duties would be the same as my duties as a conservation officer. i would work parks in the summer and hunters in the winter. Since transferring to the Parks Division my duties have become more and more restricted. It has reached the point where going out into the county or wildlife area to check hunters or find animals makes me feel A.W.O.L. I feel as though I wasted eight years of very hard work in order to get a biology degree to become a biologist, only to be lured from a job I loved (conservation officer)." 30.

37 In assessing this situation, we noted that, in the context of parks and wildlife programs, the general area of law enforcement is not necessarily a single program with a consistent focus. Rather, the problems faced by park rangers and the approaches taken to those problems appear to be quite different from the problems faced by conservation officers and the approaches taken to those problems, at least in the minds of the law enforcement officers themselves. Our review of comparable agencies in 24 other states with combined parks and wildlife operations showed that, although those other states did not have a consistent organizational approach to law enforcement, most of them organizationally separated park law enforcement from wildlife law enforcement. We found that only nine (38%) of the 24 states combined their parks and wildlife law enforcement into one division, while the other 15 states (almost twice as many) did not. The total number of support staff has grown sharply since the merger, while the number of field staff has stayed fairly constant. The merger may have set up expectations that some support staff employees who had been performing duplicate functions when there were two separate agencies would have their positions eliminated. The following table shows changes in the number of the different types of staff between fiscal year 1986, before the merger, and fiscal year As part of our audit work, we took great care to ensure that we were comparing similar types of positions before and after the merger. (For definitions of the employee categories we used, see the overview section of this report.) Department of Wildlife and Parks Staffing Changes by Major Category FY 1986 FY 1995 Tvpe of Employee FY 1986 FY 1995 Net Change Management Support Field Total As the table shows, although the net change in management and field staff has been slight, the support staff category increased by 16 people. In the years between 1986 and 1995, at least 10 additional field positions had been added at different times, but those positions were eliminated during budget cuts in fiscal years 1993 and Several support positions were also cut in those two years. We looked at the support staff in more detail to see where the increases had occurred within that category. The table on the following page presents that information. 31.

38 Type of Employee Department of Wildlife and Parks Changes in the Support Staff FY FY 1995 Number of Employees FY1986 FY1995 Net Change Secretarial, clerical, office assistants 44 Accounting/business 12 Engineering 7 Data Processing 5 BiologisVEnvironmental staff (non-field) 17 Education/Media 11 Other: planning, law enforcement admin- 6 istration, central office maintenance, attorney Total o As the table shows, most increases occurred in secretarial and other central office functions like planning, maintenance, and legal services. Department officials told us some of the increase in support staff was necessary to support the Department's new cabinet-level status. Officials also told us clerical positions were added at State parks to expand park office hours. State law allows cabinet-level agencies to have extra unclassified positions, including a personal secretary and a special assistant for the Department Secretary. In general, the merger resulted in more layers of supervisory and management staff for employees in the field. One of the concerns expressed at the outset of this audit was that the merger resulted in extra "layers" of supervision between "line" employees-such as park maintenance workers, wildlife area conservation workers, and field biologists-and the Secretary. After the Park and Resources Authority and Fish and Game Commission were merged, the resulting Department of Wildlife and Parks had three "program" divisions-parks and Public Lands, Fish and Wildlife, and Law Enforcement. The Parks and Public Lands Division included the operation of the State parks as well as the wildlife areas on public lands. Our review showed that, after the merger, two more layers of management were added. One of those layers-the Assistant Secretary of Operations-affected all three program divisions. The other layer-the field unit supervisors-affected only the Parks and Public Lands Division. The Assistant Secretary of Operations position is dealt with in our discussion ofmanagement layers and organizational efficiency later in this report. The field unit supervisors are discussed below. The field unit supervisor level of management was used to coordinate the efforts of park staff and public land wildlife staff. When the parks and public wildlife lands programs were combined in one division, the Department sought to gain effi- 32.

39 Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Supervisory Layers Between Field Staff and Agency Head Before and After Merger Pre-Merger Agency Director Secretary Park Operations Administrator Division Director Regional Supervisor Regional Supervisor Park Manager Park Manager Conservation or Maintenance Worker Conservation or Maintenance Worker 33.

40 ciencies from sharing resources in one location. One way in which the Department was able to make this work was by establishing field units that included parks and public wildlife areas within a certain geographic area. The field unit supervisor oversaw this area, and coordinated the work ofthe park and wildlife staffin that area. We received very mixed signals from employees regarding the establishment of the field unit supervisor level. On the one hand, some employees complained that there were too many management positions and not enough field positions. On the other hand, some employees said the additional management level created more of a careerladder for them. In fact, during our interviews with Department employees, it became clear that employees in the other divisions were jealous of the additional career-ladder step available within the Parks and Public Lands Division. On balance, it appears that the additional field unit supervisor layer of management contributed to the efficiencies gained from bringing the parks and public lands operations together, in spite of some concerns about additional management layers. Career Ladders within Parks and PUblic Lands Division and Wildlife and Fisheries Division ParksIPublic Lands Division FlshIWlIdllfe Division Division Director Regional Park/Publlc Land Supervisor Field Unit Supervisor Park/INlldlife Area Manager DivisIon Director Assistant Manager Regional Supervisor t Conservation Worker t FlshNVlldlife Biologist Although this is a career ladder step, it is not a supervisory layer. Biologists working in the Fish and Wildlife Division of the Department had fewer opportunities for advancement than the conservation workers within the Parks and Public Lands Division. Biologists could only aspire to the few regional supervisor positions and one division director position, while Parks and Public Lands conservation workers had many positions to which they could seek promotion. 34.

41 In April 1994, the Department's Attempts to Solve Problems That Were Created When Federal Moneys Were Diverted "Undid" Many of the Efficiencies That Had Been Achieved Since the Merger As noted earlier in this report, one way the Department diverted money was by using wildlife funds to pay the salaries ofpark employees. Stafftime spent working in parks is supposed to be paid from the Park Fee Fund, and time spent working on public lands is supposed to be paid from the Wildlife Fee Fund. For all employees who did cross-over work, the Department's practice was to estimate the percent of time each employee would spend on park- or wildlife-related work, and pay them according to those estimates. Even though employees filled out timesheets showing how they actually spent their time, Department officials never used that information to make adjustments in the sources of funds they used to pay employees. When we made such comparisons, we found that employees did more work in the parks than the Department had estimated. Therefore, the Department ended up paying employees for park-related work with restricted wildlife funds. To prevent this type of diversion from occurring in the future, the Department reorganized the Parks and Public Lands Division in April Our previous audit recommended that the Department develop a way to pay employees based on the type of projects they actually worked on, so that moneys restricted for use on certain programs would not be used to pay for work performed on other programs. We indicated Department officials could accomplish this by estimating how much time employees would spend on parks or wildlife projects, periodically comparing those estimates with the actual amount of time employees worked in each area (from their timesheets), and adjusting payments to accurately account for any differences. The Department decided not to use this method. In April 1994, Department officials decided the best way to prevent diversion was to limit the type of work people in the Department were allowed to do. If wildlife staff were paid solely with wildlife funds and only allowed them to work on wildlife-related projects, they reasoned, there could be no diversion. To accomplish this, the Parks and Public Lands Division was split into two sections-one for parks and one for public wildlife areas-and all cross-over work in the field was stopped. In addition, all equipment was divided, with each piece of equipment going to whichever section had purchased it. The Department also stipulated that equipment purchased with wildlife funds could not be shared with a park. This left some parks and some public wildlife areas with little equipment, and others with more equipment than they needed. If new equipment has to be purchased, it will again result in duplication and inefficient use ofthat equipment. Department officials also eliminated the Division's unit concept, getting rid of 19 field supervisor positions and increasing the number of regional supervisors from 35.

42 Comments About the Number of Administrators When asked about whether the organization of the Department allowed efficient operations, the most common comment was that there were too many administrators and too few field staff. Following are some of those comments. "We continually seem to add positions In the Topeka office. Decisions are increasingly made by persons not familiar with biology or even conservation of natural resources. They certainly don't know the needs for funding and equipment at the field level, yet make all the budget decisions." "The Department is unconscionably topheavy. Field positions have steadily been sacrificed to add to Secretary Ensley's staff. While the Topeka staff is numerous, most members don't have a clue as to what the Department is about." "There are too many department heads and not enough people to do the grunt work." "There are too many divisions in the Department, which requires more directors, assistants, staff specialists, and regional supervisors in Pratt and the regional offices. The effect of this reduces actual field positions because of higher salaries and staff in those offices." "There Is too much upper-level administration at the cost of field employees. The field staff get more responsibilities without the resources needed to carry them out." ", believe there are too many management positions and not enough field positions. The general public has contact with field personnel, not someone who Just sits behind a desk, The Department would be providing better public service by replacing upper-level positions with field staff." "There is entirely too much management staff and not enough field staff. The Legislature does not allocate the money needed to be efficient, which is frustrating since most of the Department revenue Is from fees not tax funds. There Is no communication from (management) staff to field personnel, especially when field personnel should be consulted." five to nine. Now, instead of having one regional supervisor per region, each region has a regional12!!ik supervisor and a regional public land supervisor. Therefore, nine people now are doing what five people used to do, although the nine regional supervisors have assumed the responsibilities of the former field supervisors. The other fourteen ex-field supervisors generally returned to being park or wildlife area managers. The Department's decision not to allow parks and wildlife staff to work together negated many of the efficiencies that had been achieved through the merger. Staff inefficiencies resulted from the split. For example, a regional wildlife supervisor told us he recently had to pull staff from the Marais des Cygnes Waterfowl Refuge to help the Wildlife Manager on Melvern Lake with a project, because no one closer within his region was available. In that instance, someone had to travel about 90 miles one way when park staff were available just a few miles away. Staff in the parks and public wildlife areas we talked to were very upset by the reorganization. They told us they thought their cooperation was the most natural and efficient way to get all the work done, and they were disheartened to see the Division split up. Many wondered why the Department couldn't develop a computer accounting method of measuring park- and wildlife-related work to solve the diversion problem. Appendix B presents an accounting plan that would allow the Department to pay employees based on estimates of how they would work, compare the amount of time employees actually worked, and make up any differences monthly by shifting money between the Park and Wildlife Fee Funds. This method would allow parks 36.

43 and public lands employees to continue to work together, and the Department could regain the efficiencies of that working arrangement. Employee Morale in the Department Is Very Low; the Greatest Dissatisfaction Has Been Expressed About Upper-Level Management and the Seemingly Constant Reorganization As part of this audit, we surveyed current and former employees and interviewed staff at all levels of the Department. In general, most employees expressed great love for their work and respect for their co-workers and the Department's midlevel managers. For example, 84% of the 351 current and past employees who responded to our survey said their jobs were interesting and challenging, and 69% reported being able to make good use oftheir skills and abilities. In response to questions about their co-workers, 83% of the survey respondents said their co-workers were qualified for their jobs, and 80% said their co-workers were easy to work with. In addition, 76% of the survey respondents said their supervisors were sensitive to their subordinates' needs, and 64% thought their supervisor gave them adequate positive reinforcement. However, when we asked employees to respond to the statement, "The general morale of Department employees is good," 85% of the respondents disagreed. More than half the respondents strongly disagreed. When we asked why their morale was the way it was, the most common responses were as follows (employees could give multiple answers): 83 employees said upper-level managers were unqualified, had little or no field experience, or were political appointees who made political decisions 76 employees said there had been too many reorganizations in the Department 70 employees said that upper-level management didn't pay attention to the field staff, didn't consider them in decision making, didn't support them, or lied to them 45 employees said there were pay inequities, little chance for advancement, and favoritism in promotions 44 employees said the diversion issue caused morale problems. Management was not held accountable for the diversion, and because of the diversion, parks and public lands staff were no longer allowed to work together Based on the comments we received, most of the criticism of management was directed toward managers above the Division Director level-the Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries, and the Chief of Staff. See the profile box on the next page for examples of comments from the employee survey. 37.

44 Employees Commenting Aboul Their Morale "Morale is currently as bad as I have ever seen tt, because of inadequate leadership, reduced freedom to perform duties and make decisions in the field, and continued display of mistrust by upper administration. Too many decisions, including project selection, are being made by a small group of mostly unquaiified individuals In the Secretary's office. Qualified professionals are not used adequately. "The Department is so concerned about the diversion problem that it is a hindrance. For Instance, I'm a Park Ranger paid from Park Fee funds. If a wildlife call comes in about a wounded deer, I'm not allowed to take the call, even though I may be only several minutes away. Instead, an employee paid from wildlife funds has to come and take the call, even though they may be an hour or more away. The public doesn't understand these differences, and reaily neither do I.. "There Is a general lack of respect for this agency's dedicated professional from the agency's politically appointed administrators and their hand-picked staff. They have created an us-versus-them atmosphere, keeping important information from staff, excluding us from decision making, and carrying out personal vendettas against those who dare to disagree with them. Never in 15 years of profession work have I seen anything like this - in the public or private sector." Communication is almost absent. When it is present, it Is generally one way and always strained. We continually see valuable field positions reallocated as administrators, specialists, or other management roles." These comments are backed up by the way employees responded to questions about the Department's management. Only 15% of those responding thought there was a good relationship between management and staff, only 18% thought management was open and honest with employees, and only 13% thought the Department did a good job of planning. Lastly, 43% of the survey respondents thought managers retaliated against employees. Mid-level managers we talked to also expressed concerns about their decisionmaking authority being pulled up to the Secretary's office. Many complained that the Department micromanaged field operations. Conclusion The Department created significant efficiencies when it combined the parks and public wildlife area staffs, but then lost those efficiencies when it split them back apart in reaction to the diversion problem. At the time, that action was probably the only way Department officials thought they could convince the federal regulators that the Department had stopped diverting federally restricted wildlife money. However, the Department now has the time to develop an accounting solution to the problem that will allow it to recombine the two staffs and regain the lost efficiencies achieved by working together. The Department also has a severe morale problem. With the changing of administrations and the resulting change in upper-level management, the Department's managers have a good opportunity to make in-. 38.

45 roads into improving employee morale by letting the employees know that they want to work with them to solve the problems. The Department has a valuable resource in its workforce, and would be remiss if it did not make improving morale a high priority. Recommendations 1. The Department should develop an accounting method that will prevent diversion of federally restricted funds and allow parks and public lands employees to work together and share equipment. In developing this accounting method, the Department should strongly consider the ideas presented in Appendix B for such a method. 2. After a permanent Secretary is hired for the Department, he or she should work with employees to find a way to address the employee morale problem. 39.

46 Are the Primary Missions, Goals, and Objectives of the State's Parks and Fish and Game Areas Being Met, And IfNot, How Can Those Operations Be Improved? The Department of Wildlife and Parks is not meeting all of its primary goals and objectives. Although the Department generally has increased outdoor recreational opportunities at State parks and fishing lakes, it has not done as well with its wildlife areas. Once the Department has developed facilities to provide those opportunities, it has not done a good job of maintaining those facilities. Finally, the Department has done a good job of ensuring the public's safe and legal use of the State's recreational resources. Although the Department has developed a strategic plan that incorporates goals and objectives related to all of the areas mentioned above, the Department does not use this plan to guide its selection of projects or the development of its budgets. In addition, the Department does not measure its progress in meeting the goals and objectives of the plan. As part of this audit, we surveyed a sample of 1,570 users of the Department's services and facilities-hunters, campers, boaters, and anglers. We received 608 responses, an overall 39% response rate. Our individual response rates are presented in the table below. Details of the user surveys are presented in Appendix C. User Surveys Sent and Responses Received Group Hunters Campers Boaters Anglers Surveys Sent Responses Received Response Rate 42 % The response rates would seem to indicate that the users of the Department' services are quite interested in the availability and quality of those services. Department's Mission Statement Wildlife and outdoor recreation are important to the quality of life for all Kansans. As the public 9uardian of the natural resources of this State, the mission of the Department of Wildlife and Parks is to: Conserve and enhance Kansas' natural heritage, its wildlife and its habitats - to assure future generations the benefits of the state's diverse, living resources; Provide the public with opportunities for use and appreciation of the natural resources of Kansas, consistent with the conservation of those resources; and Inform the public of the status of the natural resources of Kansas, to promote understanding and gain assistance in achieving this mission. The Department Has Adopted a Mission Statement and Developed a Strategic Plan With Goals And Objectives The Department of Wildlife and Parks has adopted a broad mission statement related to its statutory directive. That mission statement is presented in the accompanying box. That statement indicates that the Department's primary mission is to develop and maintain the State's wildlife and its habitat, and give Kansans opportunities to use and appreciate the State's natural resources. 40.

47 Based on that mission statement, and in connection with federal oversight of its programs, the Department also has developed a five-year strategic plan outlining goals and objectives designed to help the agency accomplish its mission. The number ofgoals and objectives included in the plan was so large that we could not review and evaluate the Department's accomplishment of all of them. In addition, the Department usually had not gathered and maintained information that would have allowed us to assess the Department's accomplishments in a cost-effective manner. As a result, we based our review and evaluation on general goals implicit in the Department's mission statement, and on selected objectives related to those goals. In some cases, the objectives selected were stated in the strategic plan; in other cases, the objectives were implied by the mission statement. Because of our time constraints, we could not review all Department goals and objectives. The Department Generally Has Increased Outdoor Recreational Opportunities at State Parks and Fishing Lakes, but Has Not Done as Well With Its Wildlife Areas One general goal of the Department of Wildlife and Parks is to increase outdoor recreational opportunities. The table on the following page identifies several objectives under this general goal. In general, these objectives involve increasing the number of facilities available (for example, developing a new State park), and increasing the activities available at existing facilities (for example, adding campsites to existing State fishing lakes). The table shows that the Department generally has increased outdoor recreational opportunities at its State parks and fishing lakes. The Department has added a State park, and assisted in the development and improvement of community lakes. In addition, the Department has opened some State park land to hunting, added camping facilities at State fishing lakes, implemented education programs in State parks, and improved hiking trails on public wildlife areas. Although the Department has met its goal for stocking fish in State lakes, one of every three anglers responding to our user survey indicated that State lakes have an inadequate supply of fish. One factor that could be contributing to this response is that the Department has not met federally required minimum spending on fisheries programs. This issue was addressed in an earlier performance audit, which indicated that during fiscal years 1986 through 1992, the Department spent a total of $3.5 million less in State moneys on fisheries programs than the required minimum. The table also shows that that Department has not met its objectives for developing its wildlife areas. As the table shows, the Department's objectives in this area included adding more than 200,000 acres to its public wildlife areas by the year 2000, and adding 200,000 acres each year to its private wildlife habitat program. The Department is accomplishing neither of these objectives. 41.

48 GENERAL GOAL: Increase outdoor recreational opportunities. OBJECTIVE DEPARTMENT ACTIONSI STATUS ASSESSMENT FACTORS INVOLVED IN NOT MEETING OBJECTIVES AT STATE PARKS AND FISHING LAKES Develop additional lands when the opportunity exists. Added Hillsdale State Park in Assisted in the development and improvement of community lakes. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective. Develop and diversify the use of existing facilities. Opened additional State park land to controlled hunting. Added primitive campsites and toilets to State fishing lakes. Implemented educational programs in State parks. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective.

49 OBJECTIVE DEPARTMENT ACTIONS! STATUS ASSESSMENT FACTORS INVOLVED IN NOT MEETlNG OBJECTIVES Increased the number of fish stocked in State lakes by 200% since However, one of every three anglers responding to our user survey said that State lakes have an inadequate supply of fish. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective, but is not meeting the needs of all users. The Department has not met federally required minimum spending on fisheries programs. Assisted local communities in developing public lakes. The Department has long-term agreements with 200 local communities or businesses for lake development. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective. IN WILDLIFE AREAS Develop additional lands: o Add 203,000 acres of public wildlife area by the year (Objective adopted in 1990.) The Department added only 9,567 acres between 1991 and At that rate, the Department will fall 174,299 acres short of its objective. The Department is not meeting this objective. According to the Department, limited funding has been made available for this objective.

50 OBJECTIVE DEPARTMENT ACTIONS! STATUS ASSESSMENT FACTORS INVOLVED IN NOT MEETING OBJECTIVES o Add 200,000 acres of private land per year to those already enrolled in the wildlife habitat development program. Since 1990, the Department has averaged only about 60,000 additional acres a year in the program. The Department has not met this objective. According to the Department, the major reasons this objective has not been met are budget cuts and a lack of program advertising with a resulting lack of interest on the part of landowners Develop and diversify the use of existing facilities. Improved hiking trails. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective.

51 In looking at public wildlife land, we found that from 1991, when the Department adopted its objective for adding 200,000 acres, through 1993, the Department added only 9,567 acres. At that rate, the Department will fall almost 175,000 acres s.hort of its objective by the year According to Department officials, limited funding has been made available for this objective. In looking at private wildlife land, we found that since 1990, the Department has added an average of only about 60,000 acres a year. That is less than half the amount targeted by the Department. According to Department officials, budget cuts have adversely affected this program. In addition, those officials pointed out a lack of advertising by the Department, which may have decreased landowners' interest in participating in the program. Although the Number of Customers Has Decreased Overall, They Are Satisfied With the State's Outdoor Recreational Opportunities Regarding a general goal of increasing usage, we reviewed several measures showing how much the public is using the outdoor recreation opportunities provided by the Department. We also surveyed holders of fishing, hunting, and big game licenses, camping and park vehicle permits, and boat registrants to determine their general satisfaction with those opportunities. The majority of survey respondents said they were satisfied with Department services. Details are provided below. Users 01 Department Services Type 01 Use Number of annual 4,003,000 4,024,000 4,314,000 4,119,000 4,119,000 park visitors (est.) Camping 94,000 91,000 98,000 99,000 74,000 permits sold Fishing licenses 291, , , , ,000 sold Hunting licenses 166, , , , ,000 sold Boats registered 89,900 90,300 94,400 97,200 97,300 In 1992, the Department changed the manner in which it calculated park visitors. Instead of relying on Corps of Engineers data, the Department began estimating visitors without the Corps' assistance. Department officials told us this change in methodology may account for the decrease in the number of park visitors from

52 User Comments Praise, Criticize Department Efforts and Personnel In a survey of hunters, boaters, and anglens in Kansas, over 80% of respondents said that their overall experience with the Department of Wildlife and Parks was good Users commended either the Department as a whole or praised specific programs or Department employees. One park user praised the Department's former Secretary for giving more attention to park issues and problems. An angler lauded conditions at State fishing lakes noting that the lakes "always seem to be clean, safe, and provide the opportunity for mysen and my family to have an enjoyable time fishing and camping." The overall satisfaction, though, didn't prevent other users from commenting about problems they've come across during their outdoor experiences. Campers who said they had trouble wilh rowdy neighbors or other park users playing loud music had trouble finding park rangers to handle the siluations. "You have all the rules but no one to enforce them... wrote one camper. Four boaters complained about alcohol abuse on lakes and reservoirs. "I think more money should be used to prevent alcohol use on all waterways,' wrote a McPherson County boater. Other users commented there Is an adequate number of conservation officers and park rangers, but the current law snforcement pensonnel don't always understand reguiations or nilpick when enforcing regulations. One angler complained of friends being fined for what he said was a fraction of an inch violation on a length limit. to In addition, park visitor, camp permit sales, and fishing license sales data for 1993 reflect the effects of flooddamaged parks. National trends indicate that hunting license sales are decreasing. According to a Department official, this appears to be tied to an increase in other leisure activities and the increasing urbanization of the population; fewer people now have a connection to rural land on which they can hunt. Only three percent of the land in Kansas is publicly owned-one of the lowest percentages in the country. All these factors have led to a loss of interest in hunting, both nationally and in Kansas. Over 80% of those responding to our customer survey told us their overall experience with the Department was good. As indicated earlier. we sent surveys to almost 1,600 people across the State who had purchased hunting or fishing licenses, camping or park vehicle permits, or had registered a boat with the Department in About 600 surveys were returned to us. The majority of survey respondents were satisfied with Department staff, the processes for buying licenses and permits, and the Department's enforcement of laws and regulations. As described in the next section, the areas of greatest dissatisfaction involved Department facilities. The Department Generally Has Not Done a Good Job of Maintaining The Facilities It Has Developed Another general goal of the Department of Wildlife and Parks is to conserve and maintain the facilities it has developed. The table on the facing page identifies several objectives under this general goal. In particular, the Department needs to maintain its boat docks, public restrooms, and public campsites in good repair. In addition, it should keep all park areas open to users. 46.

53 GENERAL GOAL: Conserve and maintain the facilities it has developed. OBJECTIVE DEPARTMENTACTION~ STATUS ASSESSMENT FACTORS WORKING AGAINST ACCOMPUSHMENT Maintain high quality boat docks in good repair. While most users responding to our survey did not have a problem in this area, one in three boat owners said that boat docks were of poor qualify and one in five anglers said boat docks were not well maintained. The Department is not meeting this objective. Park managers told us that some needed maintenance is being deferred because of budget cuts. In particular, reductions in funding for seasonal workers has limited the workforce available for maintenance. Keep public restrooms clean and in good repair. Maintain campsites in good repair and in adequate numbers to meet the need. While most users responding to our survey did not have a problem in this area, one in five said that restrooms were not well maintained. While most users responding to our survey did not have a problem in this area, one in four said there was not an adequate number of campsites The Department is not meeting this objective. The Department is not meeting this objective. Employees cited an unwritten Department policy to defer maintenance until absolutely necessary. The Department's number of field staff and parks and wildlife staff per 1,000 acres are significantly less than two other states we contacted. Keep all park areas open to users. Access to portions of some State parks has been limited because of recent flood damage. Progress on repair work has been slow. The Department is not meeting this objective. The Department closed portions of parks because of limited operating funds. According to Department officials, progress on repair work has been slow because of the State's contracting policies, and the Department's havinq too few enqineerinq staff.

54 The table shows that a significant number of the Department's customers think the Department has not maintained its facilities adequately. As part of our audit work, we surveyed a large number of users of the Department's parks and other facilities. While most users did not raise concerns about the facilities, one in three said that boat docks were not of high quality, one in five anglers said boat docks were not well maintained, one in four said there was an inadequate supply of well maintained campsites, and one in five said that public restrooms were not well maintained. In responding to this issue, park managers told us that some needed maintenance is being deferred because of budget cuts. In particular, funding for seasonal workers has limited the work force available for maintenance. Department officials told us that since 1992, funds available for seasonal workers have declined rapidly, by $200,000 per year for the last two years. Because of the reduction for fiscal year 1995, only State parks had seasonal workers, with no seasonal workers for wildlife areas and State fishing lakes. Park and wildlife area employees we talked to told us repeatedly that seasonal workers were vital to maintaining the condition of the Department's facilities. Because of the nature of the work, more employees are needed in the summer than in the winter. Hiring seasonal workers allows the Department to have the work force when needed, they said, without the need for funding permanent employees. Employees we talked to and surveyed also cited an unwritten Departmental policy to defer maintenance and replacement until absolutely necessary. That approach can result in breakdowns (with attendant loss of services) and major repairs (usually more expensive than regular preventive maintenance). Department employees pointed out specific instances of aging or obsolete equipment. One such instance involves the hot water heaters at El Dorado State Park. According to Park employees, those heaters are all old and the same age. Unless they are replaced gradually in the near future, the Park risks the breakdown of several at once. Another instance involves utility lines at the parks. Department employees indicated that these lines are too old and undersized to handle the increasing utility needs of modern campers. An additional factor contributing to maintenance problems could be size of the Department's staff compared to the size of the area it must maintain. As part of this audit, we contacted five other states to gather information about such things as staffing levels. Only two of those states- Nebraska and South Dakota-provided enough information for us to use. We tried to ensure that those employees considered field staff were the same in each state. That comparative information is shown in the table below. Comparative Staffing Information Kansas Nebraska South Dakota Field Staff per 1,000 Acres Park and Wildlife Staff per 1,000 Acres

55 As the table shows, the Department of Wildlife and Parks' staffing levels compared to the size of the land it must maintain are significantly less than those of Nebraska and South Dakota. The table also shows that the Department has not kept ali park areas open to users. We found that public access to portions of some State parks has been limited. Department officials indicated that some restrictions were due to insufficient operating funds, and other restrictions were because offlood damage. While restrictions because of flood damage may be necessary for a time, Departinent employees indicated that progress on repair work has been slow. Department officials also indicated that moneys made available for flood repairs were not sufficient. The 1993 floods caused the closing of some parts of State parks. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, a total of $1.5 million was designated specifically for repair of these flood-damaged areas. However, those moneys have not been spent quickly. For example, in Glen Elder State Park, the most damaged of all State parks, only about $12,000 of a budgeted amount of nearly $200,000 has been spent. Department officials estimate that an additional $600,000 will be needed to replace damaged facilities. Department officials indicated that the Department has closed some park areas in 1994 because oflimited operating funds. The Department asked each park manager to evaluate his park's budgetary situation and, if necessary, close portions of the park having few visitors. The park budget proposed for fiscal year 1996 would allow ali park areas to be open by Spring of Telephone Survey Gauged Public Opinion On Department Efforts A survey of Kansas residents oommissioned by the Department of Wildlife and Parks showed that Department services are popular, but expanding them could bring more participation. The random telephone survey, conducted during the fall of 1994 by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia. asked 500 randomly selected Kansas residents about their attitudes towards the Department, their usa of outdoor activities and Department programs, and how they thought the Department should fund expansion. The following funding mechanisms received significant support from survey participants: an increase in daily park entrance fees (75.1%) an increase in camping fees (76.5%) an increase in boat registration fees (81.5%) an increase in the amount of lottery funds appropriated to the Department (90.6%) Participants were opposed to the following funding mechanisms: charging senior citizens for hunting and fishing licenses (69.8%) charging senior citizens for park entrance (61.8%) charging an additional $30 for environmental theme license plates Survey participants were divided on which programs should receive additional funding. About 48% thought that funding for fish and wildlife should be increased and 38% thought that funding for parks should be increased. 49.

56 Although We Weren't Able to Evaluate Fully the Department's Management Ofthe State's Wildlife Populations, We Did See Some Opportunities for Improvement Still another general goal of the Department of Wildlife and Parks is to maintain the State's wildlife population. The table on the facing page identifies two objectives under this general goal. Specifically, the Department should maintain the State's wildlife habitat, and develop and maintain data about the State's wildlife populations. In reviewing the Department's management of the State's wildlife habitat, we found that the Department has reduced its wildlife plantings, such as trees and native grasses, by 50% in total since It appears that the Department needs to improve in this area. However, the Department's limited success in enrolling private lands in the wildlife habitat program has affected its ability to keep wildlife plantings at previous levels. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Department allows farmers to plant and harvest crops on parts of some wildlife areas. In our interviews and surveys, some Department employees expressed concern that more wildlife land was used for agricultural purposes than was prudent. While the question of how much wildlife land should be used for agricultural purposes could just be a matter of opinion, that concern might indicate a need for the Department to review this area. To most effectively manage the State's wildlife populations, the Department would need information about the size of those populations. We found that Department data about wildlife populations is basically trend information. That information does not identify population levels, it merely identifies increases or decreases in those levels. It appears that the Department needs to develop some way to determine, even by estimation, wildlife population levels. Department officials indicated to us that the Department has had fewer staff available for gathering this type of information since the merger. The Department Has Done a Good Job of Ensuring the Public's Safe and Legal Use of The State's Recreational Resources Another general goal of the Department of Wildlife and Parks is to ensure the public's safe and legal use of the State's recreational resources. The table on page 52 identifies several objectives under this general goal. The Department should ensure that hunters and anglers are properly licensed, help ensure compliance with legal requirements, and promote safe practices in hunting, fishing, and boating. In reviewing this area, we found that the Department estimates that 90% of hunters and anglers have appropriate licenses. In addition, the Department reported a 5% decrease in legal violations, such as fishing without a license or hunting out of 50.

57 GENERAL GOAL: Maintain the State's wildlife population. OBJECTIVE DEPARTMENT ACnONSI STATUS ASSESSMENT FACTORS WORKING AGAINST ACCOMPUSHMENT Develop and maintain data about the State's wildlife populations. Conducted studies of threatened and endangered species. This activity is meeting the Department's general objective. Developed and maintained trend data regarding wildlife populations. However, this information does not identify actual population levels. The Department's efforts to gather actual population data were very limited. This activity will not fully meet the Department's general objective. The Department has fewer staff available for this work now than before the merger. Maintain the State's wildlife habitat. The Department has reduced its wildlife plantings, such as trees and native grasses, by 50% in total since The Department is not meeting this objective. The Department's limited success in enrolling private lands in the wildlife habitat program has affected this area.

58 GENERAL GOAL: Ensure the public's safe and legal use of the State's recreational resources. OBJECTIVE DEPARTMENT ACTIONS! STATUS ASSESSMENT FACTORS WORKING AG~NSTACCOMPUSHMENT Ensure that hunters and anglers are properly licensed. The Department estimates that 90% of hunters and anglers have appropriate licenses. The Department is meeting its general objective. Reduce violations of legal requirements, such as hunting without a license or hunting out of season. The Department reported a 5% decrease in violations between 1990 and The Department is meeting its general objective. en N Ensure that hunters, anglers, and boaters are aware of safe practices. Increased the number of hunter safety students by 7% since 1986 This activity is meeting the Department's general objective. Held boating safety classes starting in Enrollment was 327 in 1993, and 390 in This activity is meeting the Department's general objective.

59 season, between 1990 and The Department has increased the number of its hunter safety students by 7% since Finally, the Department started holding boating safety classes in Enrollment for those classes was 327 students in 1993, and 390 students in All of the measures above seem to indicate that the Department has been making strides toward ensuring public safety and compliance with legal requirements. The Department's Long-Range Planning Process Is Inadequate The five-year strategic plan developed in 1990 set the Department's overall mission and and the goals used to meet that mission. The strategic plan was designed as the Department's planning guide for 1991 through 1996, and could be expected to be used during that period. The plan included 12 very broad goals that affected all functions of the Department and that were designed to carry out the Department's mission. However, in general, the Department did not prioritize the goals, does not monitor whether the goals are met, and doesn't use the Plan for determining budget priorities. The Department does not use the strategic plan as its guide to selecting project or developing budgets. The Department each year bypasses the strategic plan and instead selects projects through a weighted selection process relying on requests from the regional, division, and executive levels. The Secretary's choices carry the most weight. Last year the Department's budget section chose the projects. None of this selection process necessarily reflects the goals and objectives specified in the long-range strategic plan. The Department doesn't use the goals of the strategic plan to measure its progress. The strategic plan established measurable objectives for carrying out the Department's mission. We reviewed several objectives to determine whether the Department met them. In general, the Department didn't know whether the objectives were met because it didn't monitor progress. Thus, it wasn't able to measure its performance toward meeting its mission and the major goals of that mission. Conclusion In attempting to meet its primary mission, goals, and objectives, the Department of Wildlife and Parks has done well in some areas but not in others. Users of the Department's services and programs indicated general satisfaction, but did point out several areas of concern. In discussing reasons for the Department's poor performance in some areas, Department 53.

60 officials often cited budget cuts and lack of funding. Our recommendations regarding the Department's financial-management practices presented earlier in this report point out several ways the Department can make better use of available moneys and avoid having to spend additional State moneys to make up for legal violations. Implementing those recommendations should help with funding problems. However, the Department also needs to relate its financial planning and budgeting more closely to its mission, goals, and objectives. Better use of the Department's existing strategic plan would help focus the Department's efforts and expenditures of its moneys on what it is trying to accomplish. In addition, the Department could focus its efforts even better if it regularly measured its performance in attempting to accomplish the goals and objectives of the strategic plan. Recommendations 1. To ensure that its financial plans and budget requests are consistent with its mission, goals, and objectives, the Department of Wildlife and Parks should make its strategic plan an integral part of choosing annual projects, and developing its budget request. 2. To improve its performance in maintaining facilities, the Department should review its maintenance policies and resource commitments. In particular, the Department should review its policies regarding seasonal workers, deferral of maintenance, and the general level of staffing devoted to the State's parks. 3, To improve its management of the State's wildlife populations, the Department should begin to develop information about the level of wildlife populations rather than just trends in those populations. In addition, the Department should review its policy regarding the use of wildlife areas for agricultural purposes. 4. To ensure that it makes needed adjustments in its operations, including the development of future financial plans, the Department should regularly measure its performance in the accomplishment of its mission, goals, and objectives. Such measurement would allow for reallocation of resources and adjustment of goals and objectives. 54.

61 How Can the Department of Wildlife and Parks Be Structured More Efficiently? In terms of divisional structure, the Department's combination of parks and public wildlife area programs into one division probably contributed to organizational inefficiency because of an increased need for procedures to prevent diversion of restricted moneys, and because of efforts expended by different programs simply in competing for limited division resources. However, we saw, and Department employees told us of, offsetting efficiencies that had been provided by that combination when division resources were shared by different programs. In terms of management structure, the Department has a layer of general management that other states we looked at don't have. Finally, in terms of the allocation of employee resources, the Department has devoted proportionally more of its employee resources to support activities and less to field programs than the other states we looked at. An organization can be structured more efficiently if it can be restructured to do the same work with fewer resources, or if can be be restructured to do more work with the same resources. In looking at whether the Department of Wildlife and Parks can be structured more efficiently, we looked at the impact of the Department's structure on its efficiency from three different perspectives-<iivisional structure (how the Department is organized into divisions), management structure (how the Department is organized into its different management levels), and employee resource allocation (how the Department's employee resources are organized into management, support, and field staff). As previously mentioned, as part of our audit work, we surveyed current and past Department employees. In reviewing the results of our employee survey, we became aware of the significance of the Department's structural efficiency to its employees. Fully 86% of the respondents to that survey indicated that they thought the organization of the Department did not allow it to operate efficiency. The Department's Divisional Structure Is Different from Most Other States With Combined Parks and Wildlife Responsibility, But the Department Has Achieved Some Operating Efficiencies With That Structure In general, combined wildlife and park agencies across the country perform the same functions with similar programs. Generally, these programs include parks, wildlife (primarily involved with work on private land), fisheries, public lands (primarily involved with improving wildlife habitat on public land), and law enforcement. From a basic organizational standpoint, agencies can have separate divisions for each program, or can combine two or more programs within one divi- 55.

62 sion. This choice can have an impact on the efficiency of the agency. Some ways in which this can happen are discussed below. Ensuring that restricted moneys are properly spent is easier when agencies have a separate division for each major program. Most restricted moneys can be spent only for certain allowable purposes. For example, federal regulations require hunting and fishing license moneys to be spent only for wildlife-related activities. Thus, an employee's time paid from hunting and fishing license moneys should be spent only on wildlife activities and for no other purpose. If that employee spends time on non-wildlife activities, that time should be paid for from other moneys. In an agency with separate divisions for each program, the risk of using restricted moneys for unallowed purposes is lessened. That is because, with a separate division responsible for wildlife programs, an agency could pay for that division's operations from hunting and fishing license moneys with little or no risk that those moneys would be spent on non-wildlife activities. If, on the other hand, that agency had a division responsible for wildlife programs and non-wildlife programs, the agency would have to have additional recordkeeping procedures to ensure that hunting and fishing license moneys were not spent for the non-wildlife activities of that division. When a program has its own division, the operations ofthatdivision are more likely to be focused on that program. Communications from management are much more likely to be efficient because they do not cross program lines. In addition, staff are supervised by managers from their own specific field (for example, wildlife biologists are supervised by a wildlife biologist). If staff from several specialties are combined and supervised by one manager, the manager's bias towards his or her field may influence which projects are emphasized. Finally, each division or program can focus on the projects it thinks are most important, and maintain consistency in carrying out program goals. When a program has its own division, the needs of that program are more likely to be met when competing for scarce resources. In selecting and funding projects, an agency administering several programs must make choices among those programs. If a program has its own division, it is likely to have a bigger say in those choices. If a program does not have its own division, that program must first compete for attention within its division, and stands a poorer chance of getting equal footing with other programs of the agency. Agencies also can achieve efficiencies by combining several programs or functions together. When an agency combines several programs, administrative and management resources can be shared. One manager could oversee several programs rather than having a manager for each program. Other resources, such as equipment and staff, can be shared among programs. This type of structure also allows different programs to coordinate efforts and work on joint projects. However, a former official from the Wildlife Management Institute told us that strong supervision and accountability are necessary for this type of organization to work. 56.

63 As opposed to the Department's situation, most other states with combined parks and wildlife responsibility have structured their agencies with a separate division for parks programs. In all, 25 states including Kansas have combined fish, wildlife, and park agencies. Of those 25 states, only Kansas and Texas do not have a separate parks division. As a result, those states are at greater risk of spending restricted wildlife moneys for parks activities. As discussed earlier in this audit, during fiscal years 1989 through 1992, the Department did end up spending about $3 million of restricted wildlife moneys for non-wildlife activities. Although most other states with combined parks and wildlife responsibility do not have a separate di;vision for fisheries programs, not having a separate division may have been a problem for Kansas. Of those 25 states, only six have a separate fisheries division. However, as discussed above, agencies without a separate division for fisheries have a greater likelihood for fisheries programs to suffer in comparison to other programs when competing for scarce resources. In fact, an earlier performance audit of the Department showed that for fiscal years 1986 through 1992 the Department's expenditures for fisheries programs fell $3.5 million short of the federally mandated minimum. In addition, many employees we interviewed and surveyed indicated a need for the Department to establish a separate division for fisheries. Kansas has a separate law enforcement division, but that division includes only part of the Department's law enforcement function. The Department of Wildlife and Parks' Law Enforcement Division includes conservation officers only; the park rangers are in the Parks and Public Lands Division. It appears that it may not be organizationally efficient to devote the administrative resources needed to maintain a separate Law Enforcement Division if that division does not include all the Department's law enforcement function. Of the 25 states with combined parks and wildlife responsibility, 10 including Kansas had separate law enforcement divisions. However, we could not tell how many of the other states with separate divisions had only part ofthe law enforcement function in that division. Other states' structures are described in Appendix D. In General, the Department Has Fewer Program Management Layers Than Comparable Agencies in Nebraska and South Dakota, But It Has an Additional General Management Layer The number of management layers between field staff and the agency head can affect an agency's efficiency because it affects communication. If there are too many supervisory layers, communications may be inefficient or even ineffective. For example, poor communications between the agency head and the field staff can result in work not being done in accordance with directions, which means additional work must be done to correct that situation. To comparatively assess the impact of the number of Department and Wildlife and Parks management layers on the Department's efficiency, we surveyed other 57.

64 states with combined park, fish, and wildlife agencies. We attempted to gather information from five other states, but only four of those states responded-nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, and Texas. Of those four, only Nebraska and South Dakota provided enough information to allow the comparisons we wanted to make regarding management layers. Based on information we received from those two states, we compared the number of supervisory layers between selected field staff positions and the head of the agency. The field staff positions we selected were fish and wildlife biologists, wildlife area managers, and park managers. For wildlife biologists, the chart below shows that the Department of Wildlife and Parks has fewer management layers between the biologists and the agency head than comparable agencies in Nebraska and South Dakota. However, in Nebraska and South Dakota, all of the supervisory positions between the biologist and the agency head are program-related, while in Kansas, there is a layer of general supervision- Assistant Secretary of Operations--between the program managers and the agency head. Supervisory Layers Between FishlWildllfe Biologists and Agency Head Nebraska South Dakota Director Secretary Regional Supervisor FlshIWildllfe Biologist Flsh,wUdlife Biologist 58.

65 For wildlife area managers, the chart below shows the same management structure as the comparison for wildlife biologists. Supervisory Layers Between Wildlife Area Manager and Agency Head Nebraska SQuth Dakota Secretary Director Secretary Assistant Secretary - Operations Parks & Public Lands Division Director Assistant Director Fish & Wildllfe Fish & Wildlife Division Director FishiWildlife Administrator Assistant Director of Operations Assistant Administrator Regional Supervisor District Manager Regional Supervisor Assistant Regional Supervisor Wildlife Area Manager Wildlife Area Manager Wildlife Area Manager Conservatlon Worker Conservation Worker Conservation Worker For park managers, the chart on the following page shows that the Department of Wildlife and Parks has the same number of management layers between those managers and the agency head as the comparable agency in South Dakota, and more layers than the comparable agency in Nebraska. Again, the Department has a layer of general supervision between the program~related employees and the agency head. 59.

66 Supervisory Layers Between Park Managers and Agency Head Nebraska Soutb Qakota secretary Director secretary Assistant Secretary of Operations Parks & Public Lands DIvision Director Assistant Director Parks Parks & Recreation Division Director Assistant Director of Operations Regional Supervisor RegIonal Manager Regional Manager Park Manager Park Manager Park Manager Park Fjeld Staff Park Field Staff Park Fjeld Staff In general, the Department of Wildlife and Parks has fewer supervisory layers than comparable agencies in Nebraska and South Dakota. Conceptually, this would seem to suggest that communications are set up to be as efficient in Kansas as they are in Nebraska and South Dakota. However, 40% of employees responding to a question about management communications indicated that Department management did not keep them infonnedabout important matters. One employee commented that he had to find out about what was happening in the agency from a newspaper because of the lack of communication from management. The Department's additional layer of general management could be a contributing factor to employee dissatisfaction, and may be having at least an indirect impact on the Department's efficiency. In addition, employee survey results indicated some dissatisfaction with the position of Assistant Secretary of Operations. General employee concerns about communications also could be the result of the different locations involved in the Department management operations. The Sec- 60.

67 retary's office in Topeka, and the Department's main operating office in Pratt. Although modem technology, such as facsimile machines and the Department's aircraft, should enhance the ability of the Department's management to communicate with its staff, the Department's managers should be aware of employee concerns in this area. The Department of Wildlife and Parks Devotes Fewer of Its Employee Resources to Field Activities Than Do Comparable Agencies in Nebraska and South Dakota One way conceptually to measure the efficiency of an agency is to compare the amount ofprogrammatic work it accomplishes for the given number of employees it has. Looking at an agency that way, the agency's field staff accomplishes the programmatic work under the direction of the management staff with the assistance of the support staff. An agency should have only the number of management and support staff it needs to direct and support the field staff. As discussed in an earlier section of this report, since the merger the Department of Wildlife and Parks has increased staff somewhat, but mainly in the area of support staff rather than management and field staff. To assess the Department's organizational efficiency from a staff resource standpoint, we compared the Department's allocation of staff-management, support, and field-to the same allocation of An Independent Review Team Made Several Suggestions For Department Improvements Because of the diversion probiem, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Wildlife and Parks agreed that a three-member panel independent of both agencies should review the organizational structure of the Department to determine if structural changes could prevent diversion. The panel included staff from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the Missouri Department of Conservation, and a formar employee of the Wildlife Management Institute. After conducting interviews with agency staff and reviewing planning documents and Department budgets, the panel made the following observations in a report Issued in late Diversion of wildlife moneys to non-wildlife purposes was not caused by a particular organizational structure; rather, the cause was a management philosophy which blurred the lines between parks and wildlife programs. Organizational structure alone cannot ensure correct allocation of funds. Ciear policy and procedural guidelines are needed. In light of the fact that there is inevitabie turnover in the Department's top positions. it is vital that policies and procedures be established directing operations and clear direction regarding chain-of-command, planning, budgeting, and decision. Regional offices should operate under more precise guidelines; beyond that regional staff should have the flexibility to carry out established objectives as they see fit. The fisheries program lacks an identity, both internally and externally. Selection of fisheries projects appears to depend more upon political considerations than fisheries bioiogy. A separate fisheries division may be needed, with project development and selection becoming the job of that division. The management of public wildlife areas should be beller coordinated with all other fish and wildlife activities in the Department. This argues for placing the public lands division in the fisheries and wildlife division, disconnecting It from the park function of the agency. However, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, Kansas realized some efficiencies from having parks and public lands in the same division. 61.

68 staff for comparable agencies in selected other states. We contacted the same states as we did for management layer information-nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, and Iowa. Only Nebraska and South Dakota provided us with employee data which categorized staff as management, field, and support. Neither Texas nor Iowa was able to supply this information. To be consistent with our analysis earlier in this audit report, we categorized staff using the following criteria: Management staff included upper-level management, such as the agency head, division heads, and regional supervisors. Support staff included, clerical, budget, accounting, federal aid, and engineering employees. Field staff included employees working in the parks and wildlife areas, fish and wildlife biologists, and environmental staff. As the chart below shows, the Department ofwildlife and Parks has allocated a significantly larger portion of its employee resources to support staff, and a significantly smaller portion of its employee resources to field staff, than comparable agencies in Nebraska and South Dakota. Management, Support Staff, and Field Staff As a Percentage of Total Staff 80% Field Staff 70% 60% 63% 50% 40% Support Staff 30% 20% 29% 25% 10% Management KS NE SD KS NE SO KS NE SD 62.

69 Other States Have Been Successful Raising Funds Through Alternative Sources Legislative concerns prompted us to identify the ways some other states finance their parks and wildlife agencies: Several states received funding from lottery proceeds. Arizona's lottery provides approximateiy $10 million a year to the state's Game and Fish Department. Lottery funds have been used by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks primarily for development of Hillsdale State Park. States also used a portion of taxes and additional fees for services to provide funding for wildlife and park agencies. Wyoming's proceeds from a special conservation license that must be purchased with all hunting and fishing licenses yielded $800,000 in The funding is used for non game and watchable wildlife programs. Florida has increased funding for the state's Department of Game and Freshwater Fisheries by $2.5 million from a $4 surcharge to new residents when they transfer their automobile titles. Another $3 4 million is estimated to be added from a 25 cent fine charged to speeders for each mile per hour over the speed limit. In Texas, fuel taxes not claimed for refund by boat owners provides $13 million to the Department of Parks and Wildlife. The Department also raises a small amount of money from the sale of a $25 voluntary license, the Texas Conservation Passport, that allows holders to attend special events held by the Department. A portion of Nebraska's cigarette tax provided $1.8 million to the Wildlife and Parks Commission when the tax was implemented in Revenues from the tax have been slowly declining. In 1994, the tax provided $1.4 million in funding to the Commission. Missouri's proceeds from a one eighth of one percent sales tax generated almost $55 million in 1991 for the Department of Conservation, which does not include parks. This comparison suggests that Kansas is understaffed in field positions and overstaffed in support positions relative to the comparison states. Although we do not know the details of the operations in Nebraska and South Dakota and we didn't review the duties of Department of Wildlife and Parks staff to determine work loads, it appears that the Department is not comparable to the other two states we looked at. If the Department had the same allocation of staff to field activities and support activities as the two other states we looked at, it would have 32 more field staff and the same number fewer support staff. Details regarding the other states we surveyed are included in Appendix E. Further, the results of our employee survey show that a significant number of Department employees (63) thought the Department had too many administrators and too few field staff. The following comments are representative of those responses: Kansas Accounts for Costs Shared by Parks and Wildlife Functions Similarly to Other States Kansas recently split its parks and public lands division into two sections to prevent diverting wildlife moneys to non-wildlife purposes. This split occurred to eliminate cross funding of positions and projects at the field level, and to avoid using wildlife funds on park areas, The four states we surveyed were asked how they dealt with 'crossover" work between park and wildlife employees. Officials from the states said their park and wildlife moneys are heid in separate funds, which are never mixed and crossover work is not routinely done. However, South Dakota and Iowa said there is no attempt to account for crossover work by fieid staff; if it is done It is ignored. In Texas, field staff are paid out of a designated fund, For exampie, a game warden would be paid from the game, fish, and water safety fund. If the warden did work in a park area, the warden still would be paid from the game, fish, and water fund. Also, the time keeping system used by Texas restricts the type of work an employee can enter, Therefore, the game warden would not be able to record time spent doing work in a park, 63.

70 "Positions are continually being lost from the field to Pratt and Topeka, yet the responsibilities grow as well as the expectations from Topeka and the public." "I believe there are too many management positions and not enough field positions. The general public has contact with field personnel, not someone who just sits behind a desk. The Department would be providing better public service by replacing upper level positions with field staff." "There is too much upper level administration at the cost of field employees. The field staff get more responsibilities without the resources needed to carry them out." Conclusion The Department of Wildlife and Parks' divisional structure is different from most other states with combined parks and wildlife responsibility, in that it doesn't have a separate division for parks. Rather, the Dec partrnent combines parks and public wildlife area programs in the same division. However, the Department has achieved some efficiencies from that divisional structure inthe past. One disadvantage of that combination is the increased risk that moneys restricted to wildlife activities by federal and State requirements could be spent for parks activities. In fact, during fiscal years 1989 through 1992 the Department did spend $1.7 million in violation of federal restrictions, and almost $4 million in violation of State restrictions. Implementation of our recommendations regarding financial management practices 'will significantly decrease the risk of this happening in the future. In terms of management structure, the Department has a layer of general management that other states we looked at don't have. That additional management layer may be contributing to significant employee dissatisfaction we found in our employee survey, particularly in the area of communication. Communication problems can significantly hamper an organization's general efficiency. How efficiently an organization uses its employee resources depends a great deal on how those resources are allocated. In general, an organization should allocate most of its resources to direct program activities, and allocate to management and support activities only the resources needed to direct and support the program activities. Our comparison to other states and the results of our employee survey both indicate that the Department may have too much of its resources allocated to support activities. 64.

71 Recommendations I. To help promote organizational efficiency and effectiveness, the Department should do the following: a. Review the advantages of establishing a separate division for fisheries. The Department also should assess whether it needs to continue having a separate Law Enforcement Division, or whether it would be more cost-effective to bring its current employees in the Law Enforcement Division under the Fisheries and Wildlife Division. b. Review its management layer structure, in particular, the position of Assistant Secretary of Operations. In its deliberations, the Department should recognize that unnecessary management layers can be a barrier to communication, as well as a channel. If the Department decides to eliminate this position, it should consider that a statutory change will be needed because the position is authorized by State law. c. Review the allocation of its employee resources among program, management, and support activities. The Department should seek to maximize the allocation of employee resources to program activities and minimize allocation of employee resources to management and support activities, consistent with the operating needs of the agency. 65.

72

73 APPENDIX A Survey Responses From Current and Former Agency Employees As part of this audit, we surveyed 406 current employees and a sample of 30 fonner employees to obtain their opinion on such things as Department management, working conditions, and morale. We received 351 responses to the survey, for a responserate of80.5%. Theresults ofthe survey are presentedin this appendix. 67.

74 Legislative Division of Post Audit Survey of Department of Wildlife & Parks Employees The Legislative Post Audit Committee ofthe Kansas Legislature has directed the Legislative Division of Post Audit to conduct a performance audit of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department ofwildlife & Parks. The following survey is intended to obtain your opinions about the management, working conditions, and organizational structure of the Department. This survey does not require that you give your name. The results will be tabulated and reported in such a way that you cannot be personally identified, but the returned surveys will be included in the audit working papers which will become a public document upon completion of the audit. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions about the survey, please call Allan Foster, Senior Auditor, at (913) Important: Please return the survey in the enclosed postage paid envelope By Wednesday, November 9th. Demographic Information 1. How long have you worked for the Department or its predecessor agencies, the Fish and Game Commission or the Parks and Resources Authority? Years 2. What division do you currently work for? 21!& Administrative (including Executive staff) 2!r& Law Enforcement 18% Fisheries & Wildlife 25% Parks 12% Public Lands ~ Education & Public Affairs 3. Do you consider yourself a member of management? (For example, positions like Assistant Secretary, Region Supervisor, Field Supervisor, etc.).l1..%. Yes.12.%. No 68.

75 Management 4. The Department's managers keep employees informed of Department policy decisions. 5. There is a good relationship between employees and management in the Department. 6. Department managers retaliate against employeeswho complain. 7. The Deparnnent's managers are generally qualified for their jobs. 8. Department managers are open and honest with employees. 9. The Deparnnent does a good job oflong-range planning. 10. Planning decisions drive the actions of the Department. 11. Agency leaders spend most oftheir time reacting to crises. 12. The Department is receptive to input from the public, including negative input 13. The public is adequately involved in important Department decisions. ~ ~~ ~~ <t':l ~ ~~ fai5... rj:l 4)... ~>. 'bh ~< 0 ~ c g~ u ls Ze v.la ~! 39.0% 21.0% 40.0% 15.0% 18.0% 67.0% 43.0% 35.0% 22.0% 32.0% 21.0% 47.0% 18.0% 25.0% 57.0% 13.0% 26.5% 60.5% 11.0% 32.0% 57.0% 75.0% 15.5% 9.5% 54.0% 24.0% 22.0% 37.0% 31.0% 32.0% Your Supervisor 14. My supervisor is constructive in his or her use of discipline. 15. I have easy access to my supervisor. 16. My supervisor is generally sensitive to the needs of his or her subordinates. 17. My supervisor gives adequate positive reinforcement. 66.5% 17.5% 16.0% 91.0% 4.0% 5.0% 76.0% 10.0% 14.0% 64.0% 18.0% 18.0% 69.

76 ~ ~~ ~.,,~ fac; ~~ <.u ~.~ -so ~~ r~...~.~ ~ Working Conditions ",fa ~8 0'" 18. I know what the mission and goals ofthe Department are. 54.0% 19.0% 27.0% 19. I have a clear idea of what is expected ofme in my job. 70.0% 13.0% 17.0% 20. I have opportunity to be innovative and creative in my job. 66.0% 14.0% 20.0% 21. I have the necessary freedom to make my own decisions. 59.0% 17.0% 24.0% 22. There is too much pressure on the job. 39.0% 32.0% 29.0% 23. I find my work load to be excessive. 44.0% 29.0% 27.0% 24. I fmd my work to be interesting and challenging. 84.0% 10.0% 6.0% 25. I am able to make good use ofmy skills and abilities. 68.5% 15.5% 16.0% 26. I have ample opportunity for personal and occupational training. 50.0% 20.0% 30.0% 27. My co-workers are easy to work with. 80.0% 13.0% 17.0% 28. My co-workers are generally qualified for their jobs. 82.5% 10.5% 7.0% 29. Parks staff and wildlife staff generally work well together. 36.0% 24.0% 40.0% 30. I know that ifi perform well, I will get ahead. 15.0% 22.0% 63.0% 31. The Department's performance appraisal system accurately 24.0% 29.0% 47.0% reflects my strengths and weaknesses. 32. I am satisfied with my salary in relation to others in the Department 30.0% 13.0% 57.0% 33. I have the equipment I need to do my job well. 35.0% 14.0% 51.0% 34. Department equipment is used efficiently. 36.0% 25.0% 39.0% 35. The equipment I use is too old. 46.0% 24.0% 30.0% 36. The general morale of Department employees is good.. 7.0% 8.0% 85.0% 70.

77 37. Please comment on why you answered as you did on the previous question (#36): Most Common Responses: Managers are unqualified, have little or no field experience, and do their work poorly. (n=83) Too many reorganizations, too much uncertainty, and worries about job security. (n=76) Management does not pay attention to field staff, does not consult them in decision making, and lies to them. Employees have no faith in management. (n=70) Pay is not equitable between divisions, there is no chance for advancement, and favoritism in promotions. (n=45) The diversion of funds caused problems. Management was responsible, but was not held accountable. Now park staff and wildlife staff must work separately and cannot help each other. (n=44) Bickering and power plays between Topeka and Prall, or between divisions, cause problems. (n=39) We have insufficient staff or funds to get our work done. (n=39) Management does not communicate with field staff, and disregards advice from the field (n=39) Lack of strong management (n=34) Too many administrators, too few field staff. (n=27) 38. Do you think the organization ofthe Department allows it to operate effectively and efficiently? 14.0% Yes 86.0% No Please Comment: Most Common Responses: We have too many administrators and too few field staff. Shift administrative positions to the field. (n=63) The combination ofparks and Public Lands is not good. Public Lands should be combined with Wildlife. (n=6l) Administrators are unqualified and need more field experience. (n=26) Parks has become the main focus, and is draining resources from wildlife. (n=20) We are really still two different agencies with two philosophies that don't mix well. (n=19) There is a lack of communication between top administration and field staff. (n=18) 39. I worked at the Fish and Game Commission or the Parks and Resources Authority before the merger. ~ 121 No I' 217 Yes II... ~ If you did not work at the Fish and Game Commission orthe Parks and Resources Authority before the merger, please skip to Iquestion Ifyou answered "yes," please indicate which agency you worked for: l65. Fish and Game Commission..A2 Parks and Resources Authority Now, please continue on to the fmal section and answer questions about the differences in the agency before and after the merger...., 71.

78 Answer questions Q!l.!x ifyou worked for the Fish and Game Commission or the Parks and Resources Authority before the merger. For each ofthe following categories, indicate whether each is better or worse now than it was before the merger. Better Worse Same 40. Maintenance ofthe parks 34.0% 35.0% 31.0% 41. Maintenance ofwildlife areas 12.0% 68.0% 20.0% 42. Law enforcement - Parks 23.0% 47.0% 30.0% 43. Law enforcement - Wildlife 0.0% 95.0% 5.0% 44. General morale ofdepartment employees 1.0% 94.0% 5.0% 45. Quality ofmanagement 6.0% 77.0% 17.0% 46. Management/staff relations 3.0% 79.0% 18.0% 47. Adequate number of staff to get the required work 5.0% 74.0% 21.0% done 48. Quality ofstaff 16.7% 29.5% 53.8% 49. Clearly defined duties 6.0% 54.0% 40.0% 50. Serving the public 15.0% 59.0% 26.0% 51. Overall efficiency ofthe agency 6.0% 82.0% 12.0% 72.

79 APPENDIX B Accounting Solution To the Diversion of Payroll Based on our discussions with Department employees and the results of the employee survey, we concluded earlier in this report that the Department ofwildlife and Parks had achieved significant efficiencies in its operations when it was able to have parks and public lands employees work on various programs and activities as needed, whether those activities were wildlife- or parks-related. In other words, at times wildlife staff would work on parks projects, and at other times parks staff would work on wildlife projects. In addition, those employees generally told us they thought that arrangement worked very well. If employees paid with restricted moneys work on projects not allowed by those restrictions, the Department could be diverting those restricted moneys to unauthorized purposes. Many of the Department's employees are paid with restricted moneys. That means those employees' time should be spent only on projects that are authorized uses of those restricted moneys. For example, if an employee is paid from wildlife moneys, that employee is supposed to work only on wildlife projects. If that employee works part of the time on a park project, even if that work is the most efficient use of his or her time, that would be unauthorized use of wildlife moneys because wildlife moneys would be used for park projects. By the same token, if a second employee is paid from park moneys, that second employee is supposed to work only on park projects. If that second employee works part of the time on a wildlife project, that would be unauthorized use of park moneys. However, those two employees taken together could balance out the unauthorized use ofmoneys so that the total amount ofemployee time spent on wildlife projects is appropriate for the total amount of wildlife moneys spent, and the total amount ofemployee time spent on park projects also is appropriate for the total amount of park moneys spent. That means that, although individually the two employees worked so that restricted moneys were diverted to unauthorized purposes, taken together the appropriate amounts of restricted moneys were spent for the authorized purposes. Further, by having each of the employees work some of the time on wildlife projects and some of the time on park projects, the Department could be making the most efficient use of those employees. In the past, the Department actually diverted restricted moneys to unauthorized purposes. A previous performance audit documented that the Department had spent about $1.7 million in moneys restricted to use on wildlife programs for unauthorized purposes, such as parks-related activities. For the time period we reviewed, we found that employees paid from restricted wildlife moneys spent some of their time on park projects, and employees paid from restricted park moneys spent some of their time on wildlife projects. Because employees paid from wildlife moneys worked more on parks projects than employees paid from park moneys worked on wildlife projects, the costs did not balance out. The net effect was that the Department spent restricted wildlife moneys on park projects. 73.

80 To prevent diversion, the Department has eliminated job sharing and given up the efficiencies that job sharing provided. To keep diversion from happening in the future, the Department has directed its employees to work only on projects consistent with restrictions on the moneys from which they are paid. Thus, employees paid from restricted wildlife moneys are to work only on wildlife projects, andemployees paidfrom restricted park moneys are to work only on parkprojects. This new directive will prevent the kind of diversion that occurred in the past, but it also gives up the efficiencies achieved from sharing work as needed. Consistent with this viewpoint, Department employees told us in interviews and surveys they were unhappy with the new directive because it does not allow them to make most efficient use of their time. In our opinion, the Department could take advantage of the efficiencies provided by work sharing and still adhere to the restrictions on its funds. If the Department took full advantage of the capabilities of its cost accounting system and carefully monitored its moneys, it could reinstitute job sharing and still make sure that restricted moneys are spent only for the purposes allowed. To do that, the Department would have to do the following: o o o Fund expenditures initially on a predetermined basis. In other words, establish each employee's payroll funding in the State's payroll system based on the Department's best estimate of how that employee will spend his or her time. This already is being done. Keep track of actual costs for the various projects and activities of the Department. This already is being done through the Department's time reporting and cost accounting systems. At the end ofeach payroll period make the accounting adjustment that would result in employees being paid from the various funding sources consistent with how they actually spent their time. Employees will have been paid from various funding sources based on the Department's initial estimates of how those employees would spend their time. At the end of each payroll period the Department would know how these employees actually spent their time. The actual time could very well be different from the initial estimate. Thus, an accounting adjustment is needed to make sure that employees are paid from the Department's different funding sources consistently with how those employees actually spent their time. This could all be successfully accomplished by a single adjustment document called a journal voucher once each payroll period. This document would contain the differences--by individual employee--between the initial estimated payroll and the actual completed timesheet amounts. Department officials noted problems with these accounting adjustments. According to Department officials, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative reviewed this recommendation in the draft audit report, and indicated a journal voucher adjustment each payroll period would not be acceptable to the Service. Rather, the Service wants an individual adjustment in the State's personnel and payroll system records for each of the affected employees for each payroll period. This would result in the Depmtmentmaking many hundreds ofadjustments in a fiscal year instead ofonly

81 o Because the practice desired by the Service would result in a significant increase in the Department's work load, yet would not provide any information that should not already be available from the Department's cost accounting system, we consider the Service's position to be excessively restrictive. Periodically compare remaining unspent cash balances to anticipated future payroll costs for each type of restricted moneys, and make any necessary adjustments to ensure that sufficient moneys are available from the appropriate sources. If anticipated future payroll costs for some type of restricted moneys exceeded remaining unspent cash balances, the Department could do one of the following: = If additional restricted moneys will be on hand but not available for expenditure because of budgetary expenditure limits, the Department could seek an increase in the expenditure limit. = If sufficient moneys will not be on hand as needed, the Department could adjust work assignments so that employees work in accordance with available funding sources rather than in accordance with the work needs of the Department. As mentioned earlier, this may not be the most cost-effective use ofemployees' time. = As an alternative, if sufficient moneys will not be on hand as needed, the Department could seek authorization to "borrow" from other restricted types moneys, and repay that "loan" when sufficient moneys become available in the next fiscal year. = Ifthe borrowing alternative is not authorized, the Department could seek unrestricted "working capital" funding that would allow for the borrowing discussed above. = Overtime, the Departmentwould be better able to predict its actual work needs and, by adjusting fees, etc., provide for revenue levels that meet the expenditure needs of cost-effective work assignments. 75.

82 APPENDIX C Survey Responses From Kansas Anglers, Boaters, Hunters, and Campers As part of this audit, we surveyed a sample of 1,500 persons who had purchased a fishing license, hunting license, camping permit, or boat registration in 1994 to obtain their opinions on such things as the Department's performance, policies, and interaction with the public. A total of 1,570 surveys were mailed. The additional surveys were sent to persons with combined hunting and fishing licenses who received two surveys, one for hunting and one for fishing. We received 608 responses to the survey, for a response rate of 39%. The results of the survey are presented in this appendix. User Surveys Sent and Responses Received Surveys Responses Response GrQup s.e.n.t Receiyed Rat.!: Hunters % Campers Boaters Anglers

83 BOATERS Legislative Division of Post Audit User Survey of Department of Wildlife & Parks The LegislativeDivision ofpost Audit, a fact-fmding agency ofthe Kansas Legislature, is conducting a performance audit of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks. As part of the audit, the Division of Post Audit is surveying a random sample of boaters to determine how satisfied they are with the Department's performance, policies, and interaction with the public. Your response is important to our audit. Please fill out this survey today and return it to the Division ofpost Audit in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. We don't require that you give your name. The survey's results will be tabulated and reported in such a way that you cannot be personally identified, but the returned surveys will be included in our working papers and will become public documents when the audit iscompleted. Thankyou for your time and help. Ifyou have any questions about the survey, please call Tom Gress, Associate Auditor, at (913) Important: by December 1. Please return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope Demographic Information 1. Have you boated in Kansas within the last year? Yes 81.0% No 19.0% 2. Ifyes to Question 1, how often? 5 or less 19.5% 5-10 times 26.0% 10 or more 54.5% 3. Do you boat in other states? Yes 43.0% No 57.0% 4. Ifyes to Question 3, please list the other states _ 5. Age: % % % % % % % 6. Sex: Male 94.0% Female 6.0% 7. County ofresidence _ 8. You use your boat primarily for (circle one): fishing/hunting 61.0% recreational boating 39.0% 9. What type of boat do you own (circle one): personal watercraft sail boat pleasure boat canoe other 77.

84 Survey For each statement, please circle one of the numbers listed to the right of the que~tions. The numbers measure your level of agreement with the statement: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = disagree; 5 =strongly disagree. ~ j~ <~ ~ 0Jl< ~r5 ~'t:l '0) S t/l Zl: ~ 't:l", i5 ~~ r5~ 1. The process for obtaining a pennit/license is uncomplicated. 89.0% 5.5% 5.5% 2. License and pennit fees are reasonable. 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 3. The Department keeps boaters aware ofpolicy and regulatory 53.0% 24.0% 23.0% changes. 4.. The Department's boating regulations take into account 72.0% 18.0% 10.0% the concerns and needs of boaters. 5. The Department's enforcement ofboating regulations applies 64.0% 25.0% 11.0% equally to all boaters. 6. State fishing lakes are well-managed for boating purposes. 55.0% 36.0% 9.0% 7. Reservoirs are well-managed for recreational 65.0% 23.0% 12.0% boaters' needs. 8. State boating lakes and reservoirs have high-quality 40.4% 29.3% 30.3% boat docks. 9. Adequate parking is available at state reservoirs. 67.0% 22.0% 11.0% 10. Adequate parking is available at state fishing lakes. 54.0% 35.0% 11.0% II. Boaters have a meaningful role in Department decision-making. 24.0% 53.0% 23.0% 12. The Department regularly gathers input from boaters on 16.0% 51.0% 33.0% issues that are potentially controversial. 78.

85 13. The Department resolves regulatory conflicts between itself and 19.0% 69.0% 12.0% boaters in a fair manner. 14. The Department resolves policy conflicts between itself and 21.0% 72.0% 7.0% boaters in a fair manner. 15. Overall, boating in Kansas is a good experience. 85.0% 9.0% 6.0% 79.

86 CAMPERS Legislative Division of Post Audit User Survey of Department of Wildlife & Parks The Legislative Division ofpost Audit, a fact-fmding agency of the Kansas Legislature, is conducting a perfonnance audit of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks. As part of the audit, the Division of Post Audit is surveying a random sample of campers and park users to determine how satisfied they are with the Department's performance, policies, and interaction with the public. Yourresponse is importantto our audit. Pleasefill outthis survey today andreturn it to the Division ofpost Audit in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. We don't require that you give your name. The survey's results will be tabulated and reported in such a way that you cannot be personally identified, but the returned surveys will be included in our working papers, which will become public documents when the audit is completed. Thank you for your time and help. If you have any questions about the survey, please call Tom Gress, Associate Auditor, at (913) Important: by December 1. Please return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope Demographic Information 1. Have you camped in Kansas within the last year? Yes 82.0% No 18.0% 2. Ifyes to Question 1, how often? 5 or less 5-10 times 10 or more 36.0% 28.0% 36.0% 3. Do you camp in other states? Yes 53.0% No 47.0% 4. Ifyes to Question 3, please list the other states 5. Age: % % % % % % % 6. Sex: Male 83.5% Female 16.5% 7. County ofresidence 8. Do you use the maintainedcamping areas at the StateParks? (circle one) yes 47.5% no 52.5% 80.

87 9. Do you participate in "primitive"camping - primarily tent camping in non-maintained areas (circle one) yes 24.0% no 76.0% 10. Do you use the trails in state parks? (circle one) yes 47.5% no 52.5% 11. Ifyes to Question 10, how do you use the trails? (circle as many as apply to your situation) biking hiking walking other 81.

88 Survey For each statement, please circle one of the numbers listed to the right of the questions. The numbers measure your level of agreement with the statement: 1 =strongly agree; 2 =agree; 3 =neither agree nor disagree; 4 =disagree; 5 = strongly disagree. ~ ~., ~ -Coo <~ ai:s =< ~i5 ~-S;... o:l : g.~ i5~ ~~ l. The process for obtaining a camping/vehicle pennit 86.0% 8.0% 6.0% is uncomplicated. 2. Permit fees are reasonable. 74.0% 7.0% 19.0% 3. The Department informs campers/park users of policy and 60.5% 18.5% 21.0% regulatory changes. 4. The Department's camping regulations take into account the 73.0% 15.0% 12.0% concerns and needs of campers. 5. The Department's park regulations take into account the 75.0% 11.0% 14.0% concerns and needs ofpark users. 6. The Department's enforcement ofcamping regulations applies 65.0% 16.0% 19.0% equally to all campers. 7. Park workers conduct themselves in a professional manner. 89.0% 6.0% 5.0% 8. State parks are well-managed. 76.0% 8.0% 16.0% 9. State Parks are clean and in good condition. 78.0% 8.0% 14.0% 10. Restrooms in State Parks are clean and in good condition. 69.0% 12.0% 19.0% 11. There are adequate numbers of restrooms in State Parks. 70.0% 9.0% 21.0% 12. Camping pads in State Parks are in good condition. 69.0% 18.0% 13.0% 13. Picnic grounds and picnic tables in State Parks 77.0% 10.0% 13.0% are in good condition. ~~ 82.

89 14. State Parks provide adequate numbers ofmaintained camp sites. 61.0% 16.0% 23.0% 15. State Parks provide adequate numbers ofprimitive (unimproved 54.0% 33.5% 12.5% or non-maintained) areas. 16. State Parks have enough trails. 56.0% 32.0% 12.0% 17. State Parks offer a variety ofof recreational activities 53.0% 34.0% 13.0% (e.g. playgrounds, softball fields, biking and hiking trails, etc.) 18. Campers have a meaningful role in Department decision-making. 26.0% 39.0% 35.0% 19. The Department regularly gathers input from campers on 24.0% 40.0% 36.0% issues that are potentially controversial. 20. The Department resolves conflicts over regulations between itself 38.0% 47.0% 15.0% and campers/park users in a fair manner. 21. Overall, State Parks are well run. 85.0% 5.0% 10.0% 83.

90 HUNTERS Legislative Division of Post Audit User Survey of Department of Wildlife & Parks The LegislativeDivision ofpost Audit, a fact-fmding agency ofthe Kansas Legislature, is conducting a performance audit of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks. As part of the audit, the'division ofpost Audit is surveying a random sample ofhunters to determine their levels ofsatisfaction with the Department's performance, policies, and interaction with the public. Yourresponse is important to our audit. Please fill out this survey today and return it to the Division ofpost Auditin the enclosedpostage-paid envelope. We don'trequirethatyou give your name. The survey's results will be tabulated and reported in such a way that you cannot be personally identified, but the returned surveys will be included in our working papers, which become public documents when the audit is completed. Thank you for your time and help. If you have any questions about the survey, please call Tom Gress, Associate Auditor, at (913) Important: by December 1. Please return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope Demographic Information 1. Have you hunted in Kansas within the last year? 2. Ifyes to Question 1, how often? 5 or less 5-10 times 10 or more Yes 98.0% No 2/0% 18.0% 25.0% 57.0% 3. Do you hunt in other states? Yes 21.0% No 79.0% 4. Ifyes to Question 3, please list the other states 5. Age: % % % % % % % 6. Sex; Male 96.0% Female 4.0% 7. County ofresidence 84.

91 8. What game do you hunt? (circle one ormore) quail pheasant rabbit squirrels deer turkey ducks other 85.

92 Survey For each statement, please circle one of the numbers listed to the right of the questions. The numbers measure your level of agreement with the statement: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree. ~ ~o ~I <0 <~ 8:0 ~tb b ~ -SO ~~ Ole.~ ~:;... eng 8 l. The process for obtaining a pennit/license is uncomplicated. 82.0% 5.0% 13.0% 2. The process ofobtaining a hunting license provides equal 85.0% 6.0% 9.0% opportunity for all participants. 3. License and permit fees are reasonable. 63.0% 11.0% 26.0% 4. The Department informs hunters ofpolicy and regulatory 61.0% 24.5% 14.5% changes. 5. The Department's hunting regulations are fair. 81.0% 8.0% 11.0% 6. The Department's hunting regulations take into account the 65.0% 19.0% 16.0% concerns and needs of hunters. 7. The Department's enforcement ofregulations applies equally 72.0% 18.0% 10.0% to all hunters. 8. Conservation officers are professional. 65.0% 27.0% 8.0% 9. Conservation officers are helpful. 70.0% 23.0% 7.0% 10. The Department adequately balances the interests ofhunters 71.0% 14.5% 14.5% with biological interests when setting bag and season limits. 11. The Department properly manages the state's wildlife areas/ 61.0% 21.0% 18.0% public lands to maintain an adequate supply ofgame Hunters have a meaningful role in Department decision-making. 33.0% 40.0% 27.0% 13. The Department regularly gathers input from participants on 30.0% 45.0% 25.0% issues that are potentially controversial. i5~ 86.

93 14. The Department resolves conflicts over regulations between itself 27.0% 65.0% 8.0% and participants in a fair manner. 15. The Department resolves conflicts over policy between itself and 32.0% 58.0% 10.0% hunters in a fair manner. 16. Overall, hunting in Kansas is a good experience. 94.0% 3.0% 3.0% 87.

94 ANGLERS Legislative Division of Post Audit User Survey of Department of Wildlife & Parks The Legislative Division ofpost Audit, a fact-fmding agency ofthe Kansas Legislature, is conducting a performance audit of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks. As part of the audit, the Division of Post Audit is surveying a random sample of anglers to determine how satisfied they are with the Department's performance, policies, and interaction with the public. Yourresponse is important to ouraudit. Please fill out this survey today and return it to the Division ofpostauditin the enclosedpostage-paid envelope. Wedon't require that you give your name. The survey's results will be tabulated and reported in such a way that you cannot be personally identified, but the returned surveys will be included in our working papers and will become public documents when the audit is completed. Thankyou for yourtime and help. Ifyou have any questions about the survey, please call Tom Gress, Associate Auditor, at (913) Important: by December 1. Please return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope Demographic Information 1. Have you fished in Kansas within the last year? Yes 97.0% No 3.0% 2. Ifyes to Question 1, how often? 5 or less 5-10 times 10 or more 23.0% 23.0% 54.0% 3. Do you fish in other states? Yes 44.0% No 56.0% 4. Ifyes to Question 3, please list the other states 5. Age: % % % % % % % 6. Sex: Male 85.0% Female 15.0% 7. County ofresidence 88.

95 8. Where do you fish (circle one or more): streams/rivers private ponds/lakes reservoirs state fishing lakes 89.

96 Survey For each statement, please circle one of the numbers listed to the right of the questions. The numbers measure your level of agreement with the statement: 1 =strongly agree; 2 =agree; 3 =neither agree nor disagree; 4 =disagree; 5 =strongly disagree. ~ 'O~ ~ ~~ <~ tao ~ <", ~< ~~ b.~ ~~ "'S -SO '1) 6.~.t:l z= Om 1. The process for obtaining a pennit/license is uncomplicated. 92.5% 4.0% 3.5% 2. License and pennit fees are reasonable. 66.0% 11.0% 23.0% 3. The Department keeps anglers aware of policy and regulatory 52.0% 27.0% 21.0% changes. 4. The Department's fishing regulations take into account 52.0% 32.5% 15.5% the concerns and needs ofanglers. 5. The Department's enforcement offishing regulations applies 70.0% 25.0% 5.0% equally toall anglers. 6. Conservation officers are professional in their enforcement 66.0% 27.0% 7.0% of state fishing regulations and laws. 7. The Department maintains an adequate supply offish in 34.0% 35.0% 31.0% state fishing lakes. 8. The facilities at state fishing lakes are well maintained 50.0% 27.6% 22.4% 9. State fishing lakes have high-quality boat docks. 33.0% 45.0% 22.0% 10. Boat docks at the state fishing lakes are well-maintained. 35.0% 46.0% 19.0% 11. Adequate parking is available at state fishing lakes. 67.0% 24.0% 9.0% 12. Anglers have a meaningful role in Department decision-making. 18.0% 46.0% 36.0% 13. The Department regularly gathers input from anglers on 19.0% 48.0% 33.0% issues that are potentially controversial. 90.

97 14. The Department resolves regulatory conflicts between itself and 19.4% 68.0% 12.6% anglers in a fair manner. 15. The Department resolves policy conflicts between itself and 23.0% 65.0% 12.0% anglers in a fair manner. 16. Overall, fishing in Kansas is a good experience. 81.0% 8.0% 11.0% 91.

98

99 APPENDIX D States with Combined Park, Wildlife, and Fisheries Departments As part of this audit, we reviewed the National Wildlife Federation's.l.225. Conservation DirectoIy to identify states with combined park, wildlife, and fisheries departments. We also used the information in this publication to determine if these states had a separate law enforcement division or a separate fisheries division within the Department. This appendix provides information about the states we identified as having combined agencies. 93.

100 Separate Separate Separate Law Parks Fisheries Enforcement State Division Division Division Alabama X Colorado X Connecticut X X Delaware X Georgia X Hawaii X X lliinois X X Indiana X X Iowa X KANSAS X Maryland X Massachusetts X X Michigan X X X Minnesota X X Mississippi X Montana X X X Nebraska X New Jersey X Ohio X Rhode Island X X South Dakota X Texas X X Utah X Vermont X Wisconsin X X X 94.

101 APPENDIX E Wildlife and Parks Agencies in Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas As part ofthis audit, we gathered infonnation about wildlife and park agencies in four other states: Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas. Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas were chosen because they have agencies similar to Kansas -- that is parks, fish, and wildlife were the major functions of their park and wildlife agencies. Iowa, which has a natural resources department, was chosen because parks, fish, and wildlife are in the same agency. Montana was also selected, but did not respond to our survey. This appendix provides detailed information about all four states, including how their agencies are structured, the types of funding mechanisms used, and statistics on their operations. 95.

102 ill m State Statistics for Combined Parks and WLldlife and Fisheries Departments Type ofagency and Appointment ofagency Administration Minimum Qualifications for Head ofdepartment Total Number of Federal Aid Staff Structure of Operations Name ofdepartment Divisions and Number ofemployees ineach Divisifin Cabinet level - Headed by Secretary appointed by governor; 7 member Commission with 4 yr terms serves in advisory capacity. There have been 3 secretaries since The Secretary is required to be fully qualified by education, training and experience in wildlife, parks or natural resources. or a relaxed field. 1 - responsible for parks, fish, and wildlife. The Wildlife and Fisheries division is divided into 5 regions. The Parks and Public Lands divisiou is divided into 4 park regions and 5 public lands regions. Executive Services Administrative Services Fisheries and Wildlife Parks Public Lands Law Enforcement Total Employees permanent only Number of: AdminlMgmt Employees Support 8ta Field 8ta 7 member Commission appointed by the governorfor 5 yr terms. Commission appoints a Director for a 6 year term. There have been 2 directors in the last 20 years. Directors have had a background in resources in the past. The last director and the current director do not. Other upper level management do have resource backgrounds. 6 - one federal aid administrator for parks with two support staff. One federal aid administrator for fish & wildlife with two support staff. The Department is organized into 6 districts. Each district has an office with personnel from Fisheries, Wildlife, and law Enforcement. Parks has 3 regions. Fish & Wildlife. 47 Administration Section 45 Administrative Division 79 InfolEd Division 113 Budget & Fiscal Division 50 Outdoor Ed Division...:...74'-!Planning & Fed. Aid Parks Section Parks Engineering Ops & Constroetion Fish & Wildlife Section Fisheries Wildlife Realty Law Enforcement Environmental Tinst 408 permanent only ,D.' Cabinet level - Headed by Secretary appointed by governor; Commission illso appointed by governor. Normally, the Secretary changes as the Governor changes. The Secretary is not required to have any type of background in resource management and usually does nol. Other upper level management usually have applicable backgrounds. 3 - One federal aid coordinator with a secretary and a GF&P specialist for parks, fish, and wildife. Parks is divided into 3 regions. Wildlife is divided into 4 regions. Wildlife regions include Game, Land, Fish, and law personnel. Administration 28 Wildlife 29 Parks and Recreation 20 Custer State Park member Commission appointed to 6 year terms by governor. Commission appoints an Executive Director. There have been 2 directors in the last 16 years. The Executive Director is not required to have a background in resource management, however, current director does. Other upper level management usually have applicable backgrounds. 5 - One federal aid and internal cost manager in CFO division. One federal aid coordinator with approximately two support srnffin Inland Fisheries division. One federal aid coordinator in Wildlife division. Parks are divided into 10 regions. Cabinet level - Exec. Dir. appointed by governor. 7 member Namal Res. Commission appointed by governor for 6 yr terms. 9 member Environmental Protection Commission appointed by governor for 4 yr terms. The current director has been with the Department since Director is required by sramle to have a background in conservation.. All upper level management must have credentials. Parks is divided into 6 regions. 31 Executive Office 19 Director's Office and InfolEd 264 CPO Division 231 Administrative Services 159 Human Resources 22 Fish and Wildlife 52 Wildlife 196 Parks Inland Fisheries 168 Forestry Coastal Fisheries 126 Environmental Protectiou Public Lands (incl. parks) 826 Energy and Geology Law Enforcement 592 Waste Management Resource Protection 85 Conservation Communications --=.6"l permanent and seasonal 506 permanent only permanent only permanent and temporary permanent only Admin. staffto total sta 7.84% 5.03% 7.14% 378

103 Total Salaries of; II Illl ~I 11I1.. 1 IIlIlIIIIlllIIIII'IIIi!IIIIIIIIImlllllllllllll 11II11II1111~!il!!!!Ii.1 All Staft S11,880,066 $10,608,75LOO SI2,027,616 $72,685, S32,989,946 Administration $1,347,989 $2,986, Salary Ratios: Admin. safito total staff $0.11 to $1.00 $028 to $1.00 Includes seasonal employees Salary per person $29,118 $22, ,819 $31,249 $41,289 Handling oflaw Personnel in the Law Enforcement Separate law enforcement division Each division has its o'wlllaw Personnel in Law Enforcement division Fish and Wildlife have Conservation Enforcement in Parks and division only work in wildlife. Park within FiSh & Wildlife Section. enforcement personnel. only workin wildlife related areas. Officers responsible for fish and wildlife Wlidlife Areas rangers are responsible for law Officers work in both parks and Parks - Rai:J.gers Law enforcement in parks is performed matters, water safety, and snowmobenforcement in the parks. wildlife areas. Wildlife -'Conservation Officers by personnel who work strictly in iling. Parks have park rangers. parks. There is a lot of infonnal cooperation among rangers and conserv. officers. During peak periods (e.g. opening season days), other F&W staff assist conservation officers. Funding Mechanisms User Fees Park revenue: Park revenue: Boating Registration & Titling Camping Fees Other than Hunting and Park entrance fees - park entry Entrance Fees F,,,, Fishing License Fees Boating Permit Fees permit, swimming pools, etc. Camping Permits Ground Water Fund Use fees - trail rides, camping, State Motor Boat Fuel Tax Park Fees Donations lodging, etc. General Fund -entrance and use fees Boating Fees Food Services Sale oftimber Sporting Goods Sales Tax General Fund Nebraska Outdoor Rec. Act Sale ofbuffalo - for parks and capital EPA Federal Funds -portion of cigarette tax Wildlife revenue: Unclaimed Motor Boat Fuels Tax Income Tax Check Off Boat License Sales - Boaters may claim a refund for tax General Fund - for nongame & endangered Interest on Account on fuel used in boats. Most species Rent on Dept. property people do not file fot arefund. General Funds Misc. Receipts Environmental Trust Special Permits - funds from state lottery proceeds Cash Reserves Types of Noncoilsumptive Camp permits Park use fees Texas Conservation Passport Chickadee Checkoff User Fees Park vehicle permits considering trail fee -Voluntary $25 license. Deparnnent Chickadee Checkoff has special events for TCP holders Had tried a park user fund, but this did and offers discounts. not work well and was dropped How Department Monitors The Parks and Public Lands Division Federal funds are monitored by a Federal funds are shared with Statutes require that these moneys Iowa's time activity system is used to Spending ofhunting and was separated into different sections Federal Aid Coordinator and are Parks and Custer State Park for be held in separate funds. demonstrate accountability. Fishing License Fees and with ffdefinable and dedicated funding spent for activites related to fish or work in combined areas, such as Texas has two major funds - Activites are usually tied to federal Federal Wildlife and sources for each." wildlife. boat ramps. Game, Fish and Water Safety Fund grants or state funds. Fisheries Money This eliminated cross funding of Licenses revenue can only be Parks and Wildlife are given Parks Fund. positions and projects at the field level spent for fish and wildlife activities different fund numbers and the by state statute. Some revenues two are never mixed. are spent on park areas, such as boat ramps, fishing piers, etc. How Department Deals Wildlife conservation officers can only Costs applicable to administrative Nothing is done in the accounting or Most employees are paid out of one Department makes no attempt to with Crossover Work work on wildlife, boating, and fishing and support personnel are prorated payroll system for Crossover work. of the two funds. For Administrative account for crossover use ofresources. Between Park Employees because wildlife moneys are restricted. between park funds and wildlife Work by conservation officers in parks Service employees, they are paid Administrative costs are allocated by and Wildlife Employees Parkrangers are paid with General funds based on work in these or park rangers in wildlife areas is not out ofboth funds based on a applying the federal indirect rate. Funds and can do crossover work.,""", recorded in the time keeping system. pre-determinedpercentage ofwork Shared costs are allocated based on Percent of time spent in each area is ForDivision ofadministration performed for each division. the proportion offunds available determined for budget purposes and personnel, costs are divided among The pay percentages do not reflect to each division as allocated in the is not based on actual time spent for the divisions based. on the size ofthe actuai work perfonned. budget. each area budget for each division. Employees can only use certain codes On-site maintenace work is covered when recording their time and actual by a project requisition coded for work performed is not caprored in the fund, work activity, area, etc. time keeping system.

104 .'::~ ::::::::~:#:::::~::::~r:;~;;::::;;;:;%:::%~;~~;::;;~;;~~:i~~:l::::~lw};:;;:k.:~fl~~l!;;~;ri;;~*;:;;;~ :-t~;~m?~; ::::: ~!::t.~::::;::.: ')~Wffi :::. :.":' ~%;:::r.;::; :." :..:'.*,.. ~;:::::>"'f.::::{ :~';' ':l~u~ ::::::.:...:...:::. : :<f*::::::;:j~~ ':::::::.:;~:::...".. ".,-,:.".~ -:m. :.~::::;:::~,:::...:::;:.::~ Shott- or J.onR-ranxe Ikpartmmt hili developed a5 year Cum:ntly Ict MOlHenn SOIls. The divilirm or wildlire has. planning Strategic planning is required by state Current director docs nol have a PlannhlX UM'd hi 5tratqpC ptan that &pedficli milllion" lilts pmcea:.. None oftheplanlnlis statute. Corm"planninsprocea:. Deparbnent goels. and CtintaillB meuunble Devdoplng long-tenn ttrateric,,,,,,at. Man-.,ement meeu annuajly to Objcc:tiVCll claigncd 10 meet goalt. plan that will be JCYiewcd annu.ny. TheDqmtment.HI.5 year pt.n Iblt eaabtish critiuj iauea and ad is updated -e:rj 2 yeas. objedi... Theplan is nut used forlana"'p Stmeglcplan will be Pled the low", sovemcwh.developed pt.lning. b.document for 1he budget, Management DIS the IbIIleBlc plln etntra1 plan f«tbie agenciel. which to develop actionpt_. The IIdion is wed by Depetment JJe.d1l in pi_hue.dittd. impllct on opntim.. piannino. o :0 Cooperation amonr Therecent strictlicgmg.tim orpub All employccll worlt we1ltogethel'. Employees work together in F..mployccll areenc:ounged to work Theze..lome animc.it)' anton, Emplolee1l1 and public1andi hu causedhed AD employees areinvolved in luff mu1lenanee orwater t.cd ~on together. MOlI1 ortheconfiiw occur c:ol1lery!dion offical" mid biologist fcdings. Bickering and powerpt.,.. mcdinp and trainins- wea. There am no probtemr between fisheries laid wildlife. 'I1teIe t)'pel. This h.been ~uced.. the among diyisiorll and between the bdwem anplo)'ts in different t-o divisionl ~ combined IIboat4 two lypeloremplo)'a:1 have had 10 Pratt and Topeka offic:el. divisionl. }'UII.,and wererecently splitup _It each othrz more. because orftlujf wtn"_ Department's MMf: Wildlife n:l8led revenues have FundinK problem. Licmle8 feel The Department is facing moftl thm Internal pl.-ing is poor. Ptdllng Problem decrcaed bccauie of decliniftllevek do not provide enoush n:w:nue. $450 million in capit.t impruvanenll Fundin,doeto declinin,nmnber ofparticip8lion by huntml and because they h_emany vr:ry old ofhuntc:ri md fishen. r""... stalepub. The DepartmaJl dod: not have fundinb availmje for tbeierepun: (tnoiil will COIIl milliodl c:a dolian:). Ageney docs have lome lii1thorilj to is1lue bonds.; butha noway to..,. II".. back. Hunting PennltSales: V... CYlm CY 1993 CY 1992 FY 1994 Sopt 1 - API!- 31 Number ,2lJ6 1, Fishing PermitSales: V... CYlm CYlm CY 1992 FY 1994 Sopt I-API!- 31 Number 244; ,221 Cllinplil. permit luda:: Campi... and Vehlde Permits Parkent.,. penni" V... CYlm CY 1993 CY 1993 CY 1993 Number , , %6 Boats Registered: V... CY 1993 CY 1993 CYlm FY 1994 Sopt I-A.,. 31 Number 97,308 62,654 38, ,827 Wildlife Acres: V... CY 1993 CY 1993 CYlm FY 1994 Sept 1- AUI-31 Number or Acres 321, , Dmartm...owned Park Acra:: V... CYlm CY 1993 CYlm FY 1994 Sept 1 - AUI- 31 Number of Acres 32, O.B23 515,861 Number of neld stalt per 1,000 wildlife and park acres Nombt'r of park."l and wildlife stalt per 1,000 wtldllfe arid park acta: 0.89 L

105 Law Enrorccmenl.: # ofcdnser""ildn omccrs # Dr park rangers 23 5 total acres In slale 52,366, ,440 It ofstate resldenls 2,477':;74 1,573,385 Acres per cons. officer 818, , Residents per cons. officer 38, , Ucensees pti' cons. officer 7, , Park acres per ranger 1, , (b) CamplnglEnlry Pennlls per ranger , Total VIsitation per ranger 192, , Field Personnel: (a) Totall1eld penonnel los 117 Total Park ACrclIle 29, ,803 Number or Parks Park acreage per neld stall , Fieldstarr per park (c) 48,573, , , , , , , , , , , , to to (a) Datataken from thenationalksociationofstate PlUk: DiIectoIll 1992 Annuallnfonnation Exchange, pp. 1, 2, and 32 Totalpmacreage and number ofparks includes: Kansas =parks Nebraska=pm.+Ieereation exeu+historic areas South Dakota=parlcs+==tion areas TeXll... --pou:its+=tion 8!'CllS+ltistoric areas Field olliff =Foll-time perle: profesllionala + full time other olliff in all stateo. (b) Conservation officers alan pairoi parle: They are included in the number gfilulgers for NebIilllka. (c) South Dakota does not have pajk Iangers. 1lri. number is parle: managers andassistants plus 2 conservation officet's for Custer Stale Park. These 2officet'S me n:sponsib1e for53,000 acmi ofstale par.k acreage.

106

107 APPENDIX F Agency Response On January 31, we provided copies of the draft audit report to the Department ofwildlife and Parks. Its response is included as this appendix. After reviewing the Department's response, we made the following additions and clarifications: Ensuring restricted moneys are spent only for allowed purposes. We added a clarification to recommendation 2a in Question I that the Department could do one of two things to account for restricted money. It could request that separate funds be established in the State's central accounting system to account for restricted moneys, or the Department could establish separate accounting records in its cost accounting system to account for revenues, expenditures, and balances of restricted moneys. During our field work, agency officials indicated that revenues from agricultural use of State-owned lands had to be used on the specific lands producing those revenues. However, the Department's response pointed out, and subsequent follow up showed, that use of these revenues was not restricted to that extent. Accordingly, we have modified the report to eliminate the finding and recommendation in this area. In Question II, we discussed payroll adjustments that would increase the flexibility of the Department's workforce. Department officials noted problems with our recommendation detailed in Appendix B regarding an accounting solution to the diversion of payroll. According to Department officials, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative reviewed this recommendation in the draft audit report, and indicated a journal voucher adjustment each payroll period would not be acceptable to the Service. Rather, the Service wants an individual adjustment in the State's personnel and payroll system records for each of the affected employees for each payroll period. This would result in the Department making many hundreds of adjustments in a fiscal year, instead of only 12. Because the practice desired by the Service would result in a significant increase in the Department's work load, yet would not provide any infolmation that should not already be available from the Department's cost accounting system, we consider the Service's position to be excessively restrictive. A few other minor clarifications were made based on Section III of the Department's response. Regarding the Department's concern (page 119 in the agency's response) that the number of employees in South Dakota was different from the draft report: we were told when we called the South Dakota personnel officer at the Department's request that the number ofpermanent employees had changed since the officer had completed our survey in November We did not change the final report based on this new information: rather, we used the number of employees given us by the states at the point in time the audit work was initially done--november

108 STATE OF KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & PARKS OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 900 SW Jackson St., Suite 5021 Topeka, Kansas (913) FAX (913) February 9, 1995 Ms. Barbara Hinton Legislative Post Auditor Legislative Division of Post Audit Merchants Bank Tower 800 SW Jackson street, suite 1200 Topeka, Kansas Dear Ms. Hinton: Thank you for providing the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) the opportunity to comment on the recent audit performed.under the requirements of the Kansas Governmental Accountability Law (K-GOAL) That audit reviewed issues relating to the financial management practices, efficiency, and effectiveness of the KDWP. We have reviewed the draft audit report and prepared a formal response to the audit. It should be noted that the KDWP administration does agree with many of the recommendations contained within the audit and appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues. The audit is quite lengthy and we were allowed a limited amount of time in which to prepare a response. I encourage you or members of your division to contact myself or employees of the KDWP if you are uncertain as to the intent of any particular response. As you will note, the audit response is organized into three sections: I. Department General Response II. Department Response to Legislative Post Audit Recommendations III. Suggested Corrections and Clarifications to the Draft K-GOAL audit In closing, I again thank you and the members of your staff for your time, effort, and professional demeanor. ~ Since;;Jkih John K. Strickler Acting Secretary of Wildlife and Parks 102.

109 I. DEPARTMENT GENERAL RESPONSE. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks appreciates the opportunity created by the K-GOAL audit review being performed by the Legislative Post Auditor. The audit has come at an appropriate time in the Department's history. The audit will provide guidance to the new Secretary of Wildlife and Parks in his or her efforts to work with the Governor in improving the managment and efficiency of the Department. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) was created to allow outdoor recreation activities and associated resource management conducted by the State to be in one cabinet level agency rather than separate agencies controlled by commissions. The Executive Reorganization Order which created the KDWP anticipated that certain efficiencies would result regarding the utilization of personnel and equipment. As stated in the K GOAL audit, certain of these efficiencies have not developed or no longer are possible. However, the creation of a cabinet level Secretary has allowed resource'mana~ementprograms of the KDWP to be better coordinated and developed with other state agencies and public organizations. The Department is able to integrate the diverse COncerns of a broad array of constituencies that use wildlife and park resources. In addition, the public is better served by the united department facilities which provide all licenses and permits as well as other services. The KDWP has prepared detailed responses to the recommendations contained within the draft audit report. These responses are contained in Part II of this report. It should be noted that the KDWP concurs with many of the recommendations contained within the draft audit and appreciates the opportunity to discuss the issues involved. The draft audit report discusses issues related to financial management practices of the KDWP and the utilization of certain funds. The KDWP concurs with the Legislative Post Auditor (LPA) that the receipts to the Wildlife Fee Fund should be divided into restricted and non-restricted funds. The KDWP will address this issue with the 1995 Legislature. The KDWP has modified the internal cost-accounting system used to track agency expenditures. These modifications when fully implemented will allow KDWP to properly allocate costs. The KDWP accounting system has reconciled with the state accounting system (STARS) on a monthly basis since the beginning of FY The creation of restricted and non-restricted funds would allow for the detailed 103.

110 reconciliation recommended by LPA. The LPA draft audit report contains recommendations on the recording of salary expenditures and the utilization of funds. The recommendations regarding salary expenditures will require manual adjustments to both the current payroll system (KIPPS) and the proposed SHARP payroll system. These adjustments will require the utilization of additional personnel and associated costs. In addition, recommendations regarding the utilization of funds will require changes in federal aid procedures as currently administered by the USFWS and in current state budgeting practices regarding contingency funding. Any changes instituted by the KDWP must be compatible with federal aid requirements as determined by the USFWS. The draft audit report address the balance in the Wildlife Conservation Fund and the lack of utilization by the KDWP of the funds available. That issue will be addressed by the Secretary of the Department and a policy will be developed to appropriately use the funds on expenditures relevant to wildlife activities. The KDWP will provide further detail in Part II of this response regarding the expenditure of funds available in the Boating Fee Fund, federal aid reimbursements, and the financial obligation of the KDWP for El Dorado State Park development. However, the KDWP would comment at this point that actions to address these issues are restricted by budget instructions regarding expenditure levels and require action by the Governor and the Legislature to authorize recommended levels of expenditures. It should be noted that unlike the majority of other states utilizing federal aid for hunting and fishing programs, KDWP receives its expenditure authority from the State appropriation process. other states receive and utilize federal aid outside of the State's appropriation process for general tax receipts. The KDWP is not criticizing the existing process of appropriations but would note that the process does limit the flexibility of the Department to respond to federal aid issues. The comments made by the LPA regarding the efficient utilization of agency resources, both personnel and equipment, are appropriate. The organization structure created for the KDWP, effective on July 1, 1988, allowed for the "cross utilization" of both equipment and personnel from wildlife to parks programs. The Law Enforcement Division and the Parks and Public Lands Division would utilize resources on both state parks and wildlife areas as needed to provide public service. This approach was very popular with agency personnel and allowed for efficient cooperation between personnel for the public good. The above situation allowed for the maximum utilization of resources, but required more support from the KDWP cost accounting system that it could provide. Therefore, as stated in 104.

111 an earlier LPA report on federal aid, the KDWP was inappropriately utilizing restricted funds on uses that did not comply with Federal regulation or State law and was found to be in diversion of federal aid by approximately $1.7 million for the period FY 1989 to FY To address the concerns included in the LPA audit on federal aid, the KDWP was reorganized in 1994 to divide the operations associated with state parks and wildlife areas. Separate SUbprograms for state parks and for public lands (wildlife areas and state fishing lakes) were established within the Parks and Public Lands Division, and personnel were transferred from the Law Enforcement Division to be utilized as park rangers. These actions allow for the separation of funding to comply with State and Federal law. However, the reorganization does restrict the flexibility of managers to utilize personnel and resources most efficiently. The KDWP concurs that the separation of personnel and resources between state park management and wildlife area management was not "popular" with agency personnel. The Department is willing to discuss with the Legislature improved accounting methods for the agency, including the recommendation of the LPA, with the understanding that additional resources will be required. To appropriately account for "cross utilization" of resources the accounting system used by the KDWP must be able to record expenditures for equipment usage not just personnel. As stated before, any changes in KDWP operations procedures must be compatible with federal aid requirements as determined by the USFWS. The draft audit report addresses the KDWP's ability to provide public services and adequately maintain facilities. This also is a concern of the Department and for a number of years, funds have been requested to rehabilitate facilities, to provide appropriate equipment, to provide adequate staff, and to provide funds for repair and maintenance. The Secretary of KDWP is of the opinion that given the resources that have been provided through the State's appropriation process, the employee's of the Department have done a commendable job to satisfy 85 percent of state park users, 94 percent of hunters, and 81 percent of anglers. The KDWP provides services to the public through three field divisions based in Pratt. The Assistant Secretary for Operations position was created by law to provide proper guidance and supervision to the Directors of these divisions. It is not possible for the Secretary of Wildlife and Parks to efficiently manage the span of control required without the Assistant Secretary for Operations position. The use of electronic mail and FAX machines allows for the rapid dissemination of information but does not substitute for supervision of employees located in a 105.

112 facility separated from Topeka. This separation strengthens the benefits from and the need for the Assistant Secretary for operations position. In addition, the KDWP abolished the Field Supervisor positions in 1994 as part of the effort to separate the funding for state parks and wildlife areas. The draft audit report discusses the number of positions utilized by the KDWP as support personnel and compares that number with other states. The KDWP reviews the need for positions and the duties that are to be performed by any positions that are requested. At the time the KDWP was created, the State Park offices where not full time facilities. The offices were open only part of the year and the clerical staff in the offices were part-time positions. In addition, the wildlife areas and state fishing lakes had no offices and managers of those facilities were difficult to communicate with during the normal work day. One goal of the merger was to create full-time offices to provide public service. In order to accomplish that goal, the clerical staff in the park offices were increased to full-time positions and the park offices are now open all year. In addition, ERO 22 and enacting state law for the KDWP authorized seven unclassified positions which did not exist prior to the creation of the KDWP. These positions in effect replaced two \.D1classified directors of the agencies that were merged and no longer utilized. It should be noted that the draft audit report includes the Environmental Services Section located in Pratt as support staff. The personnel assigned to this section have direct responsibilities in the preservation of the State's natural resources and do not provide direct support to field staff. In Part II of the response from the KDWP, additional information is provided regarding the recommendations and comments prepared by the LPA in the draft audit report. The draft audit report contains numerous recommendations and the KDWP was allowed a limited amount of time to prepare a response. Additional information will be provided as requested. 106.

113 Part II. RESPONSES TO LEGISLATIVE POST AUDITOR RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS ESTABLISHED ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL-MANAGEMENT PRACTICES RELATED TO STATE PARKS AND FISH AND GAME ACTIVITIES? 1) The federal aid activities of the KDWP were audited by the Legislative Post AUditor in an earlier audit issued October, At that time, the KDWP concurred with the findings of the LPA regarding diversion of federal aid funds and agreed to work with the USFWS, the Governor, and the Legislature to resolve issues regarding federal aid management and recording of expenditures. 2a) The KDWP will request from the 1995 Legislature appropriation authorization for creating two separate funds to monitor revenues and expenditures for wildlife related activities. The creation of two funds will result in the ability to deposit restricted funds in one account and unrestricted funds in a separate account. By subdividing restricted/unrestricted funds at this level, processing will be accomplished directly through the state accounting system (STARS). with Legislative approval this action will be effective with the start of FY b) It is the intent of the KDWP to establish a certifiable allocation system, in conjunction with the USFWS which would distribute indirect program costs based on direct program cost proportions. In other words, the KDWP agrees with the recommendation. 2c) This recommendation was researched by the KDWP within the Department and through the KIPPS payroll system operated by the Department of Administration. This review also included the capabilities of the proposed SHARP payroll system. The KIPPS and SHARP systems will both require manual, key entry to adjust payroll transactions in order to implement this recommendation. These manual adjustments will require additional payroll and accounting resources such as personnel and equipment. The manual adjustments will be required to implement the exception reporting which will occur from implementing direct tracking of employee time. The KDWP has additional information which can be provided regarding this topic. 2d) The KDWP internal cost accounting system and STARS have been reconciled monthly since JUly, Fringe rates and totals are obtained from KIPPS and are adopted into the audit and utilized on the cost accounting expenditures. Beginning July 1, 1995, fringe rates and totals will be installed independently in the KDWP cost accounting system which will provide for more direct comparison and reconciliation. 3) The KDWP concurs with the recommendation of the LPA and with the creation of restricted/unrestricted funds, as discussed above in item 2a, will be able to comply by utilizing the current 107.

114 capabilities of the KDWP inventory system. Currently, funding sources for equipment, specifically vehicles, can be identified by reviewing actual vouchers and confirming the fund source for each item, prior to the merger and will indicate which agency actually bought the item. The subsequent sale and deposit of the proceeds can be indirectly supported by receipt vouchers and records of the state surplus system. The source of funds cannot be further subdivided into these categories. 4) Cash revenues generated from state land agricultural practices must be deposited in the appropriate fee fund. There is no requirement for expenditure of such funds back on the area where they are generated, so the general deposit is appropriate. 5) No statutory reference or proclamation of policy was found to indicate a plan or an established direction for the use of revenues from the Wildlife Conservation Fund. An operating perception has been to consider this fund as an endowment fund, but with relative low principal balances and assuming use of only the earned interest yields, an approach other than an endowment fund should be considered. Records do indicate that interest earned was comparable to revenues gained if the individuals were to purchase annual licenses, but there was no intended purpose stated for use of the principal. The department intends to prepare a formal plan to address purpose and use of this fund. This plan will include provisions to maintain a minimum balance in the Wildlife Conservation Fund and to maximize the use of federal aid for hunting and fishing. 6) The Division of the Budget, Department of Administration, dictates through annual budget instructions What items can be requested above the defined operation & maintenance base, such items must be placed in C Level. The Department has no alternative for placement. Therefore, any increase in boating program expenditures is determined by actions of the Governor and the Legislature. 7) The department agrees with the need for more frequent federal aid drawdowns and has assigned additional personnel to assist the Federal Aid Coordinator in both federal aid drawdowns and establishment of an indirect cost rate for the KDWP. 8) The department agrees that it should fund programs with greatest federal aid reimbursements and is taking steps to correct this problem. The KDWP has reviewed the use of federal aid funds for both FY 1995 and FY 1996 to maximize federal aid reimbursements. In addition, the FY 1997 guidelines for development of the annual operational plan will include a requirement to consider programs which maximize federal aid reimbursements. 108.

115 9) The KDWP has been involved in discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) since August, 1992, to resolve the issues regarding the State's obligation to repay the COE for development cost at El Dorado State Park. Since that time, the KDWP has been involved with the Office of the Governor, members of the Legislature, and the COE to establish a procedure to settle the amount of repayment owed to the Federal Government. In November, 1994, the KDWP proposed to the COE that the State of Kansas would make a one time payment of $2,500,000 to settle the outstanding obligation of $8,499,987. The KDWP has yet to receive a response to this proposal. HAVE THE POTENTIAL SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCIES FROM MERGING THE PARK AND RESOURCES AUTHORITY AND FISH AND GAME COMMISSION BEEN ACHIEVED? 1) This issue was researched in the scope of the department's data processing and accounting functions and through the KIPPS payroll function of the State, considering both the current payroll system and the yet-to-be-implemented system (SHARP). The following response is based on the current system status or reliable advice regarding the new systems' capabilities: If the Department were to implement the recommended procedure found on pages 74& 75 of the LPA audit report, the following would be required: 1. The current system and the new SHARP system will require manual key entry to adjust payroll transactions. That is the only option now, and with the advent of the new system, even though it is based on exception reporting, the LPA proposal could create the potential for an exception for each employee each month (pay for actual work time distribution, Which is different each month). considering 400 plus permanent employees being processed monthly now and twice monthly next year, and the addition of 400 pius summer employees, the following data entry/transaction demand would require a new entry station terminal. This additional entry time would require the addition of an intermittent position in payroll. 2. Under the proposed systems, all pay warrants would be processed "as worked" including supplementals (late or bonus or leave payoffs at retirement), which would cause some distortion, though not significant. There may be a reduction in effort under the new pay system, but the time between pay periods is reduced by half, requiring the same work to be done within a window of opportunity reduced by half. This would require double the personnel resources to accomplish the task. An interface between the department's cost accounting and State payroll will not address fund and allocation adjustments (two key items of the LPA 109.

116 recommendation). Additional time would be required of the department's data processing staff; but relief from less pressing duties could be initiated to accomplish this work. Due to volumes and multiple adjustments, human error will occur and require review for discrepancies and reconciliation of "before and after" reports. Upon implementation of SHARPS, these demands double due to going to twice-monthly payroll processing. The estimates above were made with point-in-time knowledge of existing and future systems. 2) The Acting Secretary of Wildlife and Parks has made improving employee morale a primary goal. The Secretary recognized the lack of confidence in former administrators and that frequent disruptive reorganizations were having a negative impact on the employees of the agency. In addition, the ongoing controversy over the federal aid audit contributed to low morale by fostering doubts over job security. Recognizing the significance of this problem, the Acting Secretary is taking immediate steps to re-involve all levels of regional and field staff in KDWP processes. In addition, he has stated his intention to improve communication with all personnel within the agency as a primary goal of the new administration. These efforts will continue and will be fortified under the permanent Secretary and with the further implementation of KQM. -ARE THE PRIMARY MISSIONS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STATE'S PARKS AND FISH AND GAME AREAS BEING MET, AND IF NOT, HOW CAN THESE OPERATIONS BE IMPROVED? 1) Department staff will redevelop the Strategic Plan during the next year, and this plan will have more succinct goals and objectives. In addition, the goals and objectives will have priorities attached to them. In future years, this plan will be utilized to develop budget priorities for a particular fiscal year. However, as stated elsewhere in this response, progress toward specific goals is dependent upon resources provided by the Governor and Legislature through the annual appropriation process. The Department will also develop a system that measures progress towards meeting goals. 2) The KDWP is currently completing management plans for area and state parks with the assistance of public task force groups. The five-year management plans for each department property will be completed by April The annual work plans will allow the department to determine if it is meeting public demand and management requirements efficiently, to improve those areas identified as insufficient, and to discard those items deemed unnecessary. The five-year plans involve direct interaction with 110.

117 public task force groups for each area. It is important to note, as stated on page 45 of the draft audit report, that the majority of the respondents have indicated they are satisfied with department services. The KDWP will provide to the public in March, 1995, survey forms that have been developed which will measure the KDWP's performance on the public land areas for FY 1995 and future years. A Parks and Public Lands Management Plan has been developed for ; it will be reviewed annually and appropriate changes implemented. The organizational structure is currently being reviewed to determine effectiveness, as directed by management and business plans. 3) The KDWP utilizes trend estimating for predicting wildlife populations because it is cost effective. The KDWP could obtain more information on the management of wildlife populations if additional agency support in the form of personnel and fiscal resources were provided. Another option is to utilize contractual services and/or temporary employees to collect data on wildlife population. However, as stated before, this option would require additional resources. 4) This recommendation was addressed above and the KDWP concurs with the intent that performance of the agency should be measured in the terms of goals, objectives, and its overall mission. HOW CAN THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS BE STRUCTURED MORE EFFICIENTLY? 1a) The KDWP does not recommend at this time that a separate Fisheries Division be established within the Department. In addition, the Law Enforcement Division should continue as a separate Division within the Department. The Acting Secretary of Wildlife and Parks will be reviewing the organizational structure of the Department and providing recommendations for the permanent Secretary to consider. The recommendations contained in this K GOAL audit will be considered as any decisions regarding organizational changes are developed. The creation of a Fisheries Division will not assist in the management of a fisheries program unless the Parks and Public Lands subprogram for public land is also divided into fisheries and game sections. The manpower and fiscal resources to manage the state fishing lakes must come from the Public Lands section of the Parks and Public Lands Division. Also, additional positions would be required to provide supervision of a Fisheries Division. 111.

118 The Law Enforcement Division is responsible for the enforcement cof state laws and regulations pertaining to natural resources. In addition, the Conservation Officers can be utilized within the state Parks in the event of an emergency. 1b) The KDWP has addressed the position of Assistant Secretary for Operations earlier in this response. This position is an essential point of management for the KDWP, providing oversight for front line and field programs. This position was recognized in the early stages of Department development as being critical to the KDWP's viability. The ERO 22 which created the KDWP and State Law authorized the Assistant Secretary for Operations position. The LPA has made numerous comments regarding the organization structure of the KDWP. It should be noted that in discussing the supervisory layers prior to the merger and after (chart p. 33), one important element was not mentioned. The two agencies that existed prior to the merger were supervised by appointed boards who had administrative authority to approve personnel actions, annual budgets, etc. The current KDWP is administered by the Secretary and the Commission of Wildlife and Parks is advisory only. In addition, it should be noted that the career ladder on p. 34 is misleading in that the Fisheries Biologist is equivalent in both education and salary to the Wildlife and Park Area Manager class of positions, not the Conservation Worker. 1c) The KDWP has continuously reviewed the use of employee resources available to perform the duties assigned to the agency. Since July 1, 1993, the KDWP has "lost" four positions to the provisions of State law pertaining to retirement positions. The loss of these positions has required the review of their need and the options available to continue the functions being performed. In addition, the KDWP has had to maintain positions vacant in order to maintain the shrinkage rate approved by the Legislature. The need to review which vacant position to fill and the need to consider when to fill the position due to limited resources has also required the KDWP to review the allocation of employees. COMMENTS ON APPENDIX B "Accounting Solution to the Diversion of Payroll" The KDWP has commented earlier in this response regarding its willingness to review appropriate methods to improve the accounting of employees activities with the intent of allowing employees to assist each other through job sharing arrangements. As has been stated, the KIPPS and proposed SHARP payroll systems will require manual payroll adjustments to account for 112.

119 "exceptions" to established payroll groups. These exceptions would occur for example as employees normally paid from park funds were utilized on wildlife areas. The KDWP would require additional personnel and operating resources to implement the required payroll adjustments. In addition, any utilization of wildlife Fee Funds for activities not in compliance with USFWS federal aid requirements could not occur. The USFWS has been contacted in regards to the LPA recommendation to "borrow" from restricted funds to pay personnel costs with the "loaned" repaid in the same or next fiscal year. The response received was that this procedure was not in compliance with federal aid guidelines and would result in a diversion. In addition, it should be noted that Iowa, South Dakota, and Texas are subject to the same guidelines as Kansas for "job sharing" or "cross over" work activities. In emergencies, wildlife staff can function in parks, and parks staff can respond outside park areas. These states do not routinely allow cross-over and they do not pay wildlife employees out of park funds or park staff out of wildlife funds. In fact, Texas has imposed the same rules as Kansas. The last two recommendations in Exhibit B will require Legislative action. The establishment of a "working capital" fund would require the appropriation of funds other than the Park Fee Fund or Wildlife Fee Fund and would represent an amount that would be continuously used by the Department. The use of "addition,alre'venues,would require 'approval of revenue sources and > expenditure authority,both actions not under the control of the KDWP. 113.

120 III. SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND CORRECTIONS Page 1, Para. 1. Department has 406 employees for FY also page , see page 3, Para. 1. The Governor, Secretary of Transportation, Chair of the-fish and Game Commission, and Secretary of Economic Development were EX-Offico members without full authority. Page 4, chart. The organization chart indicates that the Personnel Section is located in the Topeka Office, it is actual located in the Pratt Office. In addition, preceding paragraph has the Personnel section reporting to the Director of Administrative Services and not the Assistant Secretary for Administration. (see attached organization chart) Page 5, chart. of 54. Fish & Wildlife Division has 79 employees instead Page 5, chart. Additional duties of wildlife biologists include analyzing data collected, making management recommendations based upon that analysis, acting as liaison between the department and state and local governments on terrestrial issues, budgeting and planning. Under wildlife biologists, trapping and transplanting wildlife is a more complete description than "trapping and transplanting geese and turkey." Page 7, Para. 2. At the time of the merger, the KDWP had 391 positions. page 7, Para. 8. This may be misleading. While the percentages of license and permit revenues have decreased and federal aid and other funds have increased from 87-94, the dollar amount for licenses and permits may be the same because the amount of other non-general Fund sources (including EDIF and Water Plan monies) have increased. Page 17, Para. 2. The KDWP requested expenditures of $1,108,112 in FY 1996 from the Boating Fee Fund of Which, pursuant to Division of BUdget Instructions, $292,012 was only at the C level. Page 22, Para. 5. The fisheries and wildlife division has made significant savings and efficiencies from merging because the division maintained the same amount of programs along with the new programs, while sustaining a major reduction in work force. This was accomplished with fewer FTE'S, fewer O&M dollars, better equipment, computer technology, and better communication networks. These efforts also took middle management and directed the FTE to the field positions. In 1988, 18 positions were available a Pratt HZ combined in both the old fish and wildlife divisions. Thirteen were technical staff, six fisheries, and seven wildlife, Which included two division chiefs. Now, the fisheries and wildlife division has eight total permanent 114.

121 positions with six technical staff, including one Director of Fisheries and Wildlife Division. Page 26. Para. 1 of table. The internal reorganization that created unit managers divided into five regions and numerous units for FY 1989 not FY Page 30. been able positions The officers who were transferred to parks in 1994 to transfer back to Law Enforcement Division as have been vacated. Page 32, Table. It is important to note that law enforcement positions should, in no way, be considered support staff. Law enforcement positions are critical field-level public service components of the department's staff. The Law Enforcement Division itself maintains only four full-time administrative and support positions -- the same number as prior to the merger. The number of Pratt Parks and PUblic Lands office staff has been reduced 50 percent, from ten FTE to five FTE since July The number of full-time office assistants in the field has increased by five since 1994 and three more 50 percent FTE intermittent office assistants were added to the field in Page 34, Table. The Parks and Public Lands Division does not have assistant managers between managers and conservation workers. have The line of supervision is manager to conservation worker or assistant manager; no area has both. The division has only two assistant managers. page 35, Para. 6. Nine Region Supervisors are performing more functions than the five previous supervisors, because the unit supervisor position has been eliminated. Each of the nine present supervisors supervise a minimum of five employees and up to eight employees. Unit supervisors provided this coordination and supervision previously. Page 41, Para. 6. The department has not met its objectives in purchasing land for wildlife uses. This is, in part, a management decision to concentrate on appropriately managing the department's present properties before purchasing additional lands. It also stems from legislative opposition to State land acquisition. Page The department is not meeting its objectives in the maintenance of the facilities, due to the lack of adequate financial resources. The department does not have a policy to defer maintenance until it is absolutely necessary; it is strictly a matter of inadequate operational funding. Preventive 115.

122 maintenance is impossible when the vast majority of the total operating budget is committed to fixed costs, such as utilities, fuel and repairs. Under current budget restraints, no capital improvements or equipment replacements will take place in parks for FY95 or FY96. Page 49, Para. 2. The department has made a conscious effort to operate its state parks more like a business. Portions of parks are periodically closed to the public for vehicle access when costs exceed demand. High-operational-cost buildings are closed during portions of the year, as costs exceed demand. When practical, portable buildings are utilized if there is a "minimum" need. All park lands have remained open to walk-in visitors. Additional park lands have been opened to nontraditional uses, such as hiking and hunting. Page 49, Para. 3. The figures on flood repairs for Glen Elder reveal only part of the situation. Several different fund sources are being used, which total almost $1.2 million for flood repairs. Over $600,000 from all funding sources has been expended, with another $250,000 in current awarded contracts at Glen Elder. Page 50, Para. 2. More wildlife habitat on private land can be obtained with more direct technical assistance, agency support, alternate funding sources, more budgeted dollars, better planning, and more private donations. Budgeting and planning the contractual services, and/or utilizing temporary and seasonal employees is also an option. Planning the use of other division employee's (LE) time and mileage is also an option. More information to better manage wildlife populations could be obtained with agency support, more budgeted dollars and planning the use of other division employee's (PPL and LE) time and mileage for better surveys of fish and wildlife populations on private and public land and water. BUdgeting and planning with contractual services, and/or utilizing temporary and seasonal employees is also an option. Page 50, Para. 3. The department has revised the policy and guidelines concerning agricultural leases in 1995, which will correct any perception that funds from this source could be expended incorrectly. There will be no leases of this type on state park operated lands in FY96. All leases are currently under review. Agricultural leases are made a part of the management plans for areas that are under scrutiny of public task force groups. page 53 and 54. The Department agrees that long-range planning can be improved, and intends to prioritize goals and objectives. Projects QQ reflect the strategic plan, but the goals and objectives are so broad that almost any project will address some 116.