State of Wisconsin
Department of Commerce
Madison
November 20, 1997
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
In accordance with s.
560.03(15), the Department of Commerce is required to submit an annual report to the legislature analyzing the use of IRB financing authorized under Section
66.521 of Wisconsin Statutes, and report on the benefits of that use. The Department of Commerce is also required to submit a summary of the employment impact estimates required under Section
560.034(2) of Wisconsin Statutes.
I am respectfully submitting the attached Industrial Revenue Bond Activity Report. If you have any question concerning ;the report or would like to obtain copies, please contact Deb Daly in the Division of Community Development at 608/267-3895.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. MCCOSHEN
Secretary
Referred to committee on Small Business and Economic Development.
__________________
Agency Reports
State of Wisconsin
Ethics Board
Madison
October 23, 1997
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
I am please to provide you with the accompanying report of the State of Wisconsin Ethics Board's activities for the year July 1996 through June 1997. This report provides information on the Board's operations and contains the texts of Wisconsin's Ethics Code and lobbying law. It also includes a description of complaints and investigations pursued by the Ethics Board, and summaries of advisory opinions issued by the Board during the year.
Sincerely,
R. ROTH JUDD
Executive Director
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
November 25, 1997
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, we have completed an evaluation of state corrections costs. Expenditures for incarcerating adults in state correctional facilities have increased 129.4 percent in the past ten years, from $121.6 million in fiscal year (FY) 1985-86 to $279 million in FY 1995-96. This increase accounts for a growing proportion of state general purpose revenue spending, and the Department of Corrections predicts both expenditures and adult inmate populations will continue to increase into the foreseeable future.
Wisconsin's per inmate costs are slightly higher than the national average but close to the average of other midwestern states. Security staff costs are the largest component of overall costs, and while Wisconsin's inmate-to-staff ratio of 4.5 to 1 was the same as the national average, it is slightly below the midwestern average of 4.8 to 1. Shortcomings in the Department's record-keeping systems prevent detailed analyses of other departmental costs, such as rehabilitation or social services programs, or comparisons of such costs and services among institutions. For example, although we estimate the Department spends approximately $16.2 million annually on non-work rehabilitation programs, neither the effect of these programs nor why some inmates' rehabilitation needs are met and others are not can be readily determined.
In an effort to reduce overcrowding and reduce expenditures, the Department is increasingly contracting both to house inmates in non-department facilities and for food, health, and other services within its own facilities. Daily costs to house inmates in Texas jails and federal prison are lower than the Department's housing costs, while daily costs to house inmates in Wisconsin county jails are higher. In addition, the cost of contracting for health and food services at the Prairie du Chien facility exceeds the Department's average cost for direct provision of those services at facilities of similar size. Because bids have not yet been sought for services at the new Boscobel facility, these contracting costs cannot be analyzed. We have included suggestions for contracting guidelines to ensure that future contracts better meet the goals of the State.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the Department of Corrections. The Department's response is the Appendix.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale Cattanach
State Auditor
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
December 2, 1997
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed an evaluation of the Department of Health and Family Services' handling of complaints of abuse, neglect, or theft by certified nurse aides, as requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. These aides provide routine care to nursing home residents and recipients of other health care services. Since 1992, the Department has had responsibility for investigating complaints of nurse aide misconduct to determine whether evidence shows "willful and wanton" misconduct, which the Department has found in 439 cases. Notation of such misconduct on a registry prevents the individual's future employment as a nurse aide by any nursing home in the state that receives federal reimbursement. Nurse aides are allowed to continue employment until cases are resolved.
The federal government requires the "timely review and swift investigation" of such complaints, and Wisconsin Administrative Code directs completion within 60 days of filing. However, of the 1,918 complaints investigated, the Department has resolved only 4.2 percent within 60 days; average disposition exceeded 11 months. By January 1997, the backlog of cases pending had reached 477.
The delay has resulted from inadequate management of the program, including understaffing and reliance on temporary staff as investigators, a lack of written investigative procedures for staff, limited staff training, inadequate supervision, and a time-consuming internal review process. The Department assigned additional staff in 1997 and could eliminate the case backlog by March 1998. However, the need for management improvements will become more important because the Department has been given, by
1997 Wisconsin Act 27, the 1997-99 biennial budget, responsibility for resolution of complaints of misconduct by more types of health care employes in a larger number of facilities and services.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the Department of Health and Family Services and by the health care providers we visited. The Department's response is the Appendix.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale Cattanach
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
December 4, 1997
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed an evaluation of consumer protection programs administered by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), as directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
1995 Wisconsin Act 27 consolidated most consumer protection activities in DATCP effective July 1, 1996, but DOJ retains responsibility for enforcing laws related to telecommunication and deceptive advertising and for litigating cases brought to it by DATCP and others. In fiscal year (FY) 1996-97, DATCP expenditures for consumer protection totaled an estimated $3.9 million. During the same period, DOJ expenditures for this purpose totaled an estimated $742,000.
DATCP and DOJ have different approaches to delivering consumer protection services. DATCP emphasizes providing information to assist consumers in resolving their complaints independently. If, however, disputes involve alleged illegal activities, DATCP emphasizes administrative actions such as mediation and warnings to businesses, an approach that has meant fewer complaints are resolved through court action. DOJ emphasizes strong enforcement action to halt illegal practices and recover financial losses on behalf of consumers. DOJ is concerned DATCP is not aggressively investigating and referring for court action telemarketing and other scams perpetrated by out-of-state businesses against Wisconsin consumers. In FY 1996-97, less than 5 percent of the investigations initiated by DATCP were in business areas for which DOJ had exclusive responsibilities before consolidation. Instead, more than 68 percent of DATCP's investigations were in six business activities, such as home repair, that have always been DATCP's responsibility. Each agency believes its own approach is most effective, but both need to do more to measure the effectiveness of their programs.
We attempted to measure the level of consumer satisfaction with state consumer protection programs by surveying 1,000 randomly selected consumers who filed complaints between October 1995 and September 1996. We found no significant difference in the level of satisfaction between those individuals filing complaints with DATCP and those filing with DOJ.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by officials of both agencies. Responses from DATCP and DOJ are Appendix IV and Appendix V, respectively.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale Cattanach
State Auditor
