The Rundown with Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit

Legislative Post Audit
  • 5.0 (3)
  • GOVERNMENT
  • UPDATED BIMONTHLY

The Rundown is your source for news and updates from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit including conversations with staff discussing the findings of performance audits released to the Kansas Legislature.

  1. APR 8

    Reviewing Admissions to the KSU College of Veterinary Medicine and KU School of Medicine [April 2026]

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

    31 min

  2. APR 8

    Reviewing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates and Benefit Card Transactions, Part 2 [April 2026]

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

    12 min

  3. APR 8

    Reviewing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’ Eligibility Processes and Spending, Part 1 [April 2026]

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

    15 min

  4. FEB 4

    2-Year Summary of Security Controls in Selected State and Local Entities (2024-2025) [February 2026]

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

    13 min

  5. JAN 21

    Reviewing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates and Benefit Card Transactions, Part 1 [January 2026]

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

    14 min

  6. JAN 21

    Reviewing Tax-Exempt Real Property and Property Donated to Universities [January 2026]

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

    29 min

  7. 11/10/2025

    Reviewing Available Options for Acquiring State Office Spaces [November 2025]

    The Rundown with Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit

    16 min

  8. 11/10/2025

    Reviewing Counties' Costs and Obligations to Meet State Requirements [November 2025]

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

    19 min
See All (30)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

The Rundown is your source for news and updates from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit including conversations with staff discussing the findings of performance audits released to the Kansas Legislature.

Information

You Might Also Like