Using Data to Evaluate and Improve Performance Gina Brown, Performance Audit Manager Melissa Barbato, Senior Performance Auditor 2 October 3, 2013

Using data as a management tool is key to improving programs You can have data without information, but you cannot have information without data. Sources: Daniel Keys Moran (BrainyQuote.com)

Study it, find patterns, make improvements A few of our examples: 1.Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health – Regulation of Food Safety in Retail Food Establishments 2.Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Department of Children and Family Services 3.Louisiana Tax Commission – Residential Property Tax Assessments

Issued November 2012 Permits, inspections, enforcement

Critical violations may directly contribute to food contamination or illness – Examples: no water, poor employee hygiene Non-critical violations are not directly related to the cause of foodborne illness, but if left uncorrected, could become critical – Example: no soap and paper towels in restroom Types of violations:

OPH issued permits to four (13%) out of 30 restaurants with critical violations OPH issued permits to 40 (33%) out of 122 restaurants with non- critical violations Pre-opening inspections and permits: Recommendation: Ensure that permits are not issued with uncorrected violations

Inspections and re-inspections: High-Risk Establishment Inspections Fiscal Years % high-risk establishments not inspected 4x/yr Source: Prepared by legislative auditors staff

OPH did not conduct 32% of required re-inspections to ensure critical violations were corrected Inspections and re-inspections: Recommendations: Inspect high-risk establishments in accordance with criteria Conduct re-inspections timely

OPH estimated 3,140 inspections were not uploaded Disclosure of inspection results: Recommendations: Ensure that all inspections are uploaded timely Grade/score restaurants, or post inspection results on-site Website did not contain all inspections for restaurants

Violations rarely addressed: Restaurants with Most Violations Regions 1, 2, and 4 FY NameRegionParishTotal Violations # and % Critical Mandarin House1Jefferson28288 (31.2%) Super China Buffet1Jefferson23381 (34.8%) The Great Wall Restaurant2EBR34576 (22.0%) King Buffet2EBR22059 (26.8%) Royal Panda Chinese Restaurant4Lafayette (19.4%) Charlies Seafood Restaurant4Lafayette (18.0%) Source: Prepared by legislative auditors staff using data from AIRS.

Nearly 450,000 violations statewide, FYs Violations rarely addressed: Four compliance orders Penalties assessed: $1,300 33% of restaurants statewide had repeat critical violations from FY 2010 to 2011 Penalties collected: $0

Improve use of enforcement Streamline compliance order process Develop consequences for repeat critical violations Consider charging a re-inspection fee Recommendations:

Issued May 2013 Formerly referred to as food stamps Federal role vs. state role Topics include participant eligibility and potential fraud

Data analysis results include: 84 drug felons - over $100,000 in benefits, FY instances, approximately $10,000 - benefits redeemed in Louisiana and a non-neighboring state within the same hour 1,761 incarcerated participants – approximately $1.1 million in benefits, FY 11-12

Recommendations: Ensure prison information verification is reliable, consistent, and timely Enhance use of data analytics and data mining

Using data as a management tool is key to improving programs Sources: Daniel Keys Moran (BrainyQuote.com)

Louisiana Tax Commission (LTC) Audit Report Issued July 2013

Does LTCs oversight of parish tax assessors ensure that residential property tax assessments are accurate?

We used data to analyze the following: 1.Accuracy of assessments 2.Number assessment changes LTC approved 3.Property reassessments 4.Multiple homestead exemptions

Important Data Fact – For this audit, we used data LTC already had Why is this important? – We were able to provide quick and easy evaluation methods for LTC to use to improve its oversight of parish tax assessors.

Analyzing LTCs data, we found: 2,568 (39%) of the 6,551 residential properties in LTCs most recent Ratio Study were not assessed at 10% of fair market value, as required by the Constitution Finding: LTC did not follow up with the parish tax assessors on these properties

Also using LTCs data, we found that properties in the same neighborhood, with similar fair market values, had significant differences in the assessed values of their homes. This resulted in some homeowners owing significantly more in property taxes than their neighbors.

Property A Living Area: 2,848 square feet LTCs Fair Market Value: $569,600 Assessors Assessed Value: $65,000 Percent of Fair Market Value: 11.4% 2011 Taxes Due: $8, Taxes Due: $8, Property B Living Area: 2,812 square feet LTCs Fair Market Value: $562,400 Assessors Assessed Value: $23,760 Percent of Fair Market Value: 4.2% 2011 Taxes Due: $2, Taxes Due: $2,469.72

Property C Living Area: 1,370 square feet LTCs Fair Market Value: $209,610 Assessors Assessed Value: $20,500 Percent of Fair Market Value: 9.8% 2011 Taxes Due: $1, Taxes Due: $1, Property D Living Area: 1,298 square feet LTCs Fair Market Value: $198,594 Assessors Assessed Value: $11,300 Percent of Fair Market Value: 5.7% 2011 Taxes Due: $ Taxes Due: $418.44

Using Data to Improve Performance: We analyzed LTCs data differently from how LTC staff analyzes the data to determine how the oversight of parish tax assessors could be improved.

Analyzing LTCs data we found: LTC approved over $118 million in assessment decreases for 20,822 businesses and residential properties from calendar years 2010 through 2012 without determining the accuracy of the new assessments.

Using Data to Improve Performance: Using this data, LTC should develop a risk-based process to ensure the proposed assessed values submitted by the parish tax assessors on change orders are accurate before making a recommendation to approve or deny the requests.

Analyzing parish tax roll data, we found: 130,212 (21%) of the 620,310 residential properties from the 33 parishes in our sample had the same fair market value in 2012 as in Finding: LTC does not ensure that parish tax assessors reappraise residential properties every four years.

Residential Properties with No Change in Fair Market Value Calendar Years 2007 and 2012 Parish Total Properties Properties with No Change in Market Value Number of Properties Percent 1. Madison3,0852, % 2. Ouachita43,04428, % 3. Ascension25,42516, % 4. Claiborne5,0223, % 5. De Soto6,8574, % 6. Red River % 7. Tensas3,1521, % 8. Jackson5,1432, % 9. Rapides31,67515, % 10. Allen6,1531, % Source: Prepared by legislative auditors staff using parish tax roll data.

Using Data to Improve Performance: LTC could use information such as this as a starting point to identify and investigate parish assessors that may not be reappraising properties every four years.

Analyzing parish tax roll data, we identified: Identified 1,304 instances of individuals with multiple homestead exemptions that added up to more than $7,500 resulting in $207,974 in potential lost tax revenue during calendar years 2011 and Louisiana Constitution provides that a residents homestead exemption should not be greater than $7,500 of the assessed value or on more than one residence.

Using Data to Improve Performance: We realized our results were not comprehensive by just using name and address. As a result, we recommended that LTC determine the feasibility of collecting a unique identifier for tax payers who receive a homestead exemption in order to use data for more comprehensive results.

Using LTCs data, we were able to make reasonable recommendations to improve LTCs oversight of parish tax assessors.

Cautions to keep in mind when using data: It can be difficult and time-consuming to obtain It may not be reliable It may not always tell the full story without program context

Questions about our three audits? What are some programs youd like to evaluate and improve? How would you start?

For these reports (and others), visit