- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
MDC
12/2002
Performance audit misses the mark in some areas but confirms Conservation Department's management practices are on target
JEFFERSON CITY - Despite misperceptions about how a state conservation agency should be run, the performance audit released today by State Auditor Claire McCaskill is full of good news, according to Conservation Department Director John Hoskins.
In some cases, said Hoskins, the audit mistook good news for bad management. As an example, he cited McCaskill's chiding the conservation agency for exceeding its waterfowl management goals.
In critiquing the agency's strategic planning, the audit report noted that duck populations have exceeded target levels in six of the last seven years. She also faulted the Conservation Department for not exercising more stringent oversight of Ducks Unlimited, the agency's most significant private waterfowl management partner.
"If this is poor planning, then we hope to see lots of it in the future," said Hoskins, who took over as Conservation Department Director in July. "To an auditor, exceeding goals may look like poor planning, but to waterfowl hunters and birdwatchers, who agonized over the two-decade decline in waterfowl numbers, this is a conservation triumph."
Hoskins said Ducks Unlimited - the world's leading private waterfowl conservation group - has poured two dollars into Missouri for every dollar the Conservation Department has spent on cooperative projects. "We have access to their books, and we can account for every penny spent. I doubt that DU's 24,000 Missouri members share Ms. McCaskill's dim view of our partnership with them."
The auditor also called the agency to task for what it characterized as cost overruns in developing an urban nature center. That, said Hoskins, isn't an accurate reflection of what happened.
He said the original cost estimate of $3.6 million for the Discovery Center in downtown Kansas City was the Conservation Department's planned investment in the facility. Contributions from private donors pumped an additional $3.4 million to the project, effectively doubling the price tag.
"Here's another case where I think the audit portrays good news as bad," said Hoskins. "Expanding conservation programs in Missouri's metropolitan areas has been a top priority for this agency for years. This public-private partnership enabled us to build a much better facility than the Conservation Department could ever have afforded on its own. We are as proud of this project as we are of anything we have done."
Hoskins said some of the facts in the audit were simply wrong. For instance, he said that the Conservation Department has added 448,000 to its land holdings in the past 24 years, not the 774,000 cited in the audit. He noted that nearly one-third of this land was purchased with federal matching funds, substantially decreasing the cost to Missouri taxpayers.
Hoskins also took exception with the audit's contention that the Conservation Department isn't managing its money wisely. The audit report said that the agency's operating costs increased 6 percent in 2002 and that at this rate operating costs would exceed projected revenues by 2010. But Hoskins said the report failed to mention that the agency's operating budget actually decreased by 1.4 percent in 2002, and it cut its capital budget drastically that year.
"The notion that the Conservation Department doesn't care about spending just doesn't stand up to facts," said Hoskins. "We have been conscientious in our use of taxpayer money, and we have examined and re-examined our management practices to keep it that way."
The Conservation Department agreed with many of the other findings in the audit report and said it already is doing most of the things recommended.
"To me, the biggest news here is that after examining our performance over the last several years, both the auditor and the agency came to the same conclusions in 10 out of 12 areas," said Hoskins. "We welcome the news that we are headed in the right direction, and that the auditor agrees with changes we are making."
McCaskill reported that Missouri spends more per capita for conservation than several other states, about $27 per person per year. Hoskins said this reflects Missouri citizens' strong commitment to conservation. He clarified that the Conservation Department performs a variety of functions handled by separate agencies in many other states. He also noted that the Conservation Department budget comprises less than 1 percent of the state's total revenues and that while the state's general revenue has increased 317 percent since 1979, Conservation Department revenues increased 204 percent during the same period.
"I think that makes our program quite a bargain," said Hoskins.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT
Areas where the Conservation Department said it agreed with the auditor's findings and recommendations include:
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Control future increases in operating expenses.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Conservation officials said they recognized some time ago that the agency's broad mission was contributing to acceleration in operating costs. The Conservation Department promised the citizens of the state that land acquisition would be its first priority under the Design for Conservation plan funded by voters in 1976. As the agency reached its land acquisition goals, those expenditures decreased. However, the decrease has been offset by the increasing cost of developing and maintaining the areas it has acquired. The Conservation Department now fully analyzes future operating expenses before approving any new acquisition or development project.
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Monitor private organizations to ensure requirements are met, state funds are used in accordance with agreements and results are achieved.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Hoskins said that the Conservation Department has built on its previous experiences with partnerships with not for profit organizations to develop a system for ensuring that contracts spell out clearly how state funds will be used. The agency's two deputy directors are responsible for monitoring all partners' compliance with those agreements. If questions arise, they report them to the director for immediate action.
"We recognize that agreements with partner organizations have not always included detailed provisions to ensure these organizations meet the Department's expectations," said Hoskins. He said an agreement with the Missouri Forest Heritage Center has not produced the intended results, to date.
"This project was undertaken to showcase Missouri's forest heritage, offer educational opportunities about the state's forest resources and promote natural resources tourism. It also will provide economic benefits in a region that is key to our conservation mission. We believe the project will succeed; however should it not, the department has already taken action to recover a substantial part of the financial commitment it made."
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Assessing the impact of other public, state or federal programs when determining department needs and planning strategies.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Agency personnel were emphatic in agreeing with this recommendation. As an example, they cited the ways - both positive and negative - that state and federal programs have affected wetlands in Missouri. More than 95 percent of Missouri's historic wetland acreage has been lost over the years. Quick response and close cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies after the Great Flood of 1993 enabled the Conservation Department to make enormous strides in restoring needed wetlands and reducing the threat of damaging floods along the Missouri River. The ability to combine its resources through partnerships with other agencies remains an important tool for the Conservation Department and an important planning strategy.
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Conducting valid market analysis to determine whether the public will support and utilize proposed projects or programs.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Since 1979, the department has conducted extensive surveys to learn what Missourians want from conservation programs. Surveys also track how citizens view department performance. These surveys are an important part of the agency's continuing planning process.
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT
Conservation officials strongly disagreed with the state auditor's recommendation that they organize their strategic plan parallel with the agency's organizational structure by division. The auditor said this would "enhance the link between the plan and the budgeting process." Conservation officials responded that their goal was to focus planning and budgeting on primary functional or program areas rather than on how the agency is organized.
Hoskins responded, "The department should focus more on project and program outcomes rather than on traditional division lines. We must continue to build diverse work teams instead of specialized individuals working alone, especially at the field level where the most important work gets done. Quality services must be delivered so that the public can walk into one office or make one phone call and get the answers they need. This doesn't mean the department minimizes the value of strategic planning. It means that our planning process must be compatible with the way citizens expect the department to operate."
12/2002
Performance audit misses the mark in some areas but confirms Conservation Department's management practices are on target
JEFFERSON CITY - Despite misperceptions about how a state conservation agency should be run, the performance audit released today by State Auditor Claire McCaskill is full of good news, according to Conservation Department Director John Hoskins.
In some cases, said Hoskins, the audit mistook good news for bad management. As an example, he cited McCaskill's chiding the conservation agency for exceeding its waterfowl management goals.
In critiquing the agency's strategic planning, the audit report noted that duck populations have exceeded target levels in six of the last seven years. She also faulted the Conservation Department for not exercising more stringent oversight of Ducks Unlimited, the agency's most significant private waterfowl management partner.
"If this is poor planning, then we hope to see lots of it in the future," said Hoskins, who took over as Conservation Department Director in July. "To an auditor, exceeding goals may look like poor planning, but to waterfowl hunters and birdwatchers, who agonized over the two-decade decline in waterfowl numbers, this is a conservation triumph."
Hoskins said Ducks Unlimited - the world's leading private waterfowl conservation group - has poured two dollars into Missouri for every dollar the Conservation Department has spent on cooperative projects. "We have access to their books, and we can account for every penny spent. I doubt that DU's 24,000 Missouri members share Ms. McCaskill's dim view of our partnership with them."
The auditor also called the agency to task for what it characterized as cost overruns in developing an urban nature center. That, said Hoskins, isn't an accurate reflection of what happened.
He said the original cost estimate of $3.6 million for the Discovery Center in downtown Kansas City was the Conservation Department's planned investment in the facility. Contributions from private donors pumped an additional $3.4 million to the project, effectively doubling the price tag.
"Here's another case where I think the audit portrays good news as bad," said Hoskins. "Expanding conservation programs in Missouri's metropolitan areas has been a top priority for this agency for years. This public-private partnership enabled us to build a much better facility than the Conservation Department could ever have afforded on its own. We are as proud of this project as we are of anything we have done."
Hoskins said some of the facts in the audit were simply wrong. For instance, he said that the Conservation Department has added 448,000 to its land holdings in the past 24 years, not the 774,000 cited in the audit. He noted that nearly one-third of this land was purchased with federal matching funds, substantially decreasing the cost to Missouri taxpayers.
Hoskins also took exception with the audit's contention that the Conservation Department isn't managing its money wisely. The audit report said that the agency's operating costs increased 6 percent in 2002 and that at this rate operating costs would exceed projected revenues by 2010. But Hoskins said the report failed to mention that the agency's operating budget actually decreased by 1.4 percent in 2002, and it cut its capital budget drastically that year.
"The notion that the Conservation Department doesn't care about spending just doesn't stand up to facts," said Hoskins. "We have been conscientious in our use of taxpayer money, and we have examined and re-examined our management practices to keep it that way."
The Conservation Department agreed with many of the other findings in the audit report and said it already is doing most of the things recommended.
"To me, the biggest news here is that after examining our performance over the last several years, both the auditor and the agency came to the same conclusions in 10 out of 12 areas," said Hoskins. "We welcome the news that we are headed in the right direction, and that the auditor agrees with changes we are making."
McCaskill reported that Missouri spends more per capita for conservation than several other states, about $27 per person per year. Hoskins said this reflects Missouri citizens' strong commitment to conservation. He clarified that the Conservation Department performs a variety of functions handled by separate agencies in many other states. He also noted that the Conservation Department budget comprises less than 1 percent of the state's total revenues and that while the state's general revenue has increased 317 percent since 1979, Conservation Department revenues increased 204 percent during the same period.
"I think that makes our program quite a bargain," said Hoskins.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT
Areas where the Conservation Department said it agreed with the auditor's findings and recommendations include:
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Control future increases in operating expenses.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Conservation officials said they recognized some time ago that the agency's broad mission was contributing to acceleration in operating costs. The Conservation Department promised the citizens of the state that land acquisition would be its first priority under the Design for Conservation plan funded by voters in 1976. As the agency reached its land acquisition goals, those expenditures decreased. However, the decrease has been offset by the increasing cost of developing and maintaining the areas it has acquired. The Conservation Department now fully analyzes future operating expenses before approving any new acquisition or development project.
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Monitor private organizations to ensure requirements are met, state funds are used in accordance with agreements and results are achieved.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Hoskins said that the Conservation Department has built on its previous experiences with partnerships with not for profit organizations to develop a system for ensuring that contracts spell out clearly how state funds will be used. The agency's two deputy directors are responsible for monitoring all partners' compliance with those agreements. If questions arise, they report them to the director for immediate action.
"We recognize that agreements with partner organizations have not always included detailed provisions to ensure these organizations meet the Department's expectations," said Hoskins. He said an agreement with the Missouri Forest Heritage Center has not produced the intended results, to date.
"This project was undertaken to showcase Missouri's forest heritage, offer educational opportunities about the state's forest resources and promote natural resources tourism. It also will provide economic benefits in a region that is key to our conservation mission. We believe the project will succeed; however should it not, the department has already taken action to recover a substantial part of the financial commitment it made."
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Assessing the impact of other public, state or federal programs when determining department needs and planning strategies.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Agency personnel were emphatic in agreeing with this recommendation. As an example, they cited the ways - both positive and negative - that state and federal programs have affected wetlands in Missouri. More than 95 percent of Missouri's historic wetland acreage has been lost over the years. Quick response and close cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies after the Great Flood of 1993 enabled the Conservation Department to make enormous strides in restoring needed wetlands and reducing the threat of damaging floods along the Missouri River. The ability to combine its resources through partnerships with other agencies remains an important tool for the Conservation Department and an important planning strategy.
AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: Conducting valid market analysis to determine whether the public will support and utilize proposed projects or programs.
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: Since 1979, the department has conducted extensive surveys to learn what Missourians want from conservation programs. Surveys also track how citizens view department performance. These surveys are an important part of the agency's continuing planning process.
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT
Conservation officials strongly disagreed with the state auditor's recommendation that they organize their strategic plan parallel with the agency's organizational structure by division. The auditor said this would "enhance the link between the plan and the budgeting process." Conservation officials responded that their goal was to focus planning and budgeting on primary functional or program areas rather than on how the agency is organized.
Hoskins responded, "The department should focus more on project and program outcomes rather than on traditional division lines. We must continue to build diverse work teams instead of specialized individuals working alone, especially at the field level where the most important work gets done. Quality services must be delivered so that the public can walk into one office or make one phone call and get the answers they need. This doesn't mean the department minimizes the value of strategic planning. It means that our planning process must be compatible with the way citizens expect the department to operate."
