1993.,.-,,',,"."" " ..... -""",.,REPORT" .. ",',. TO', ....•.. T GENERAL ASSEMB

ones: 20 Years of Ser . General Assembly (19 -1993)

• Evolving to Meet the Legislature's Needs

• Recent Agency and Program Reviews

• JLARC Medicaid Study Series

• Work in Progress CURRENT JLARC MEMBERS

Chairman Delegate Ford C. Quillen

Vice-Chairman Senator Stanley C. Walker

Senator Hunter B. Andrews (CI1RiI'm;m 1982-84, 1986-88) Delegate Robert cneumen. 1988-1990)

Alrlhi7,.r II

Delegate L. 1984-1986) Delegate Theodore Morrison, Jr. Delegate Thomas W. Moss, Jr. Senator William A. Truban Senator Edward E. Willey (Chairman, 1986) Delegate William T. Wilson Joseph S. James, Auditor of Public Accounts Charles K. Trible, Auditor of Public Accounts

Mr. Ray D. Pethtel (Director, 1974-86) September 13, 1993

To the Honorable Members of the Virginia General Assembly The State Capitol, Richmond, Virginia

My Dear Colleagues:

As Chairman of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commis­ sion, I am pleased to transmit to you JLARC's 1993 Report to the General Assembly. The statutes which empowered the Commission also required this biennial report, as a means of updating the full Assembly on JLARC's work, Herein you will find an explanation of our role, summaries of our recent reports, status reports on previous studies, and previews of ongoing and future projects,

In addition, this year's report marks the 20-year anniversary of JLARC's creation -- a good time to reflect on our activities and accomplishments, I have had the privilege of serving, along with two other current members -- Delegates Vince Callahan and Lacey Putney -- on the Commission from its beginning in 1973, It has been gratifying to witness JLARC's evolution into one of the top legislative oversight bodies in the nation, Along the way, there have been many notable highlights, some of which are briefly overviewed in a special "milestones" section of this report,

During my years of service on the Commission, I have been particularly proud of the way we have responded to the oversight needs of the General Assembly on significant and controversial topics: the equitable allocation of public education and highwayfunding, child day care regulation, corrections security, and Medicaid, Legislative actions in these areas truly affect many Virginians,

An important role of the Commission has always been that of economizing -- finding ways to spend less, cut losses, increase revenues, and generally get more for State dollars spent I am pleased to report that recently we reviewed the Tax Department, and our recommendations for strengthening tax compliance efforts are on course to close the tax gap by $65 million this biennium, In total, JLARC has saved the Commonwealth more than $260 million, a return of about $12 for every dollar spent on oversight efforts,

An equally important goal of JLARC's work is better, more efficient and effective govern­ ment Our work in this area is demonstrated by our recent studies of the executive budget process and the Administrative Process Act, as well as our proposal for the constitutionally­ based rainy-day fund which was approved by the citizens of Virginia last fall. These studies also show JLARC's ability to evolve and meet the changing needs of the Legislature, Finally, our achievements demonstrate the support and good faith of both the full Assembly and the executive branch agencies,

As I bring to a close my tenure as a Delegate, I am proud to have worked with the members and staff of JLARC and especially to have served these last three years as Chairman, The Commission's work, however, is a legacy of the entire General Assembly, and reflects the commitment of this body to public accountability and good government

"'"Respectfully Yours j-t-@ 2""...... -- Ford C, Quillen

The Commission 1 The Statutory Mandate 1 The Legislative Program Review and Evaluation Act.. 2 Fulfilling the Mandate: The Audit and Review Process 3 Objectives of Legislative Oversight 4 JLARC Staff Resources 5 Evolving to Meet the Needs of the General Assembly 6 National Recognition of JLARC 6 Savings to the Commonwealth from Legislative Oversight 7 Milestones: 20 Years of JLARC 8

Proposal for a Revenue Stabilization Fund in Virginia 10 Review of Virginia's Executive Budget Process 11 Review of the Department of Taxation 13 Study Series on Inmate Health Care 15 Review of Inmate Dental Care 16 Evaluation of Inmate Mental Health Services 16 Review of Virginia's Parole Process 17 Substance Abuse and Sex Offender Treatment Services for Parole Eligible Inmates 18 Study Series on State/Local Relations 20 Intergovernmental Mandates and Financial Aid to Local Governments 20 Catalogs of State and Federal Mandates on Local Governments 21 State/Local Relations and Service Responsibilities 22 Report on the Performance and Potential of the Center for Innovative Technology 23 Review of Virginia's Administrative Process Act 25

Interim Report: The Virginia Medicaid Program 28 Evaluation of a Health Insuring Organization for the Administration of Medicaid in Virginia 29 Medicaid Asset Transfers and Estate Recovery 29 Medicaid-Financed Long-Term Care Services in Virginia 31 Medicaid-Financed Hospital Services in Virginia 32 Medicaid-Financed Physician and Pharmacy Services in Virginia 34 Funding of Indigent Hospital Care in Virginia 35 Final Summary Report 36

Review of the Virginia Community College System 38 Publications Practices of Virginia State Agencies .41 Review of Information Technology in Virginia State Government 42 Management and Use of State-Owned Passenger Vehicles 44 Review of the Workers' Compensation Commission .45

Continues Regulation and Provision of Child Day Care in Virginia .48 Study Series on Constitutional Officers 50 The Reorganization of the Department of Education 51 Economic Development in Virginia 52 Follow-Up Review of Homes for Adults in Virginia 54

Local Taxation of Public Service Corporation Property 56 Review of Inmate Health Programs 56 Organization and Management of the State Personnel Function 57 The Virginia Retirement System/Group Life 57 Review of Involuntary Commitment 58 State/Local Service Responsibilities 58 Surplus Property Utilization and Disposal 59 Transportation Allocations and Funding 59 Prison and Jail Population Forecasting 59 Solid and Hazardous Waste Facility Siting 59 Virginia Department of Taxation -- Continuing Oversight 59 Higher Education Series 60 Internal Service Funds -- Rate Reviews 60

Annotated Bibliography of JLARC Reports 61 Selected Subcommittees Which Have Served With JLARC 70 JLARC Staff 72 The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) is an oversight agency for the Virginia General Assembly. It was established in 1973 to review and evaluate the operations and performance of State agencies, programs, and functions. The Commission is composed of nine members of the House of Delegates, of whom at least five also serve on the House Appropria­ tions Committee, and five members of the Sen­ ate, of whom two also serve on the Senate Senator Richard J. Holland (left) and Finance Committee. Delegates are appointed Vice-Chairman Senator Stanley C. Walker by the Speaker of the House, and Senators by the Privileges and Elections Committee. The 14 members in 1986, only 31 legislators have chairman is elected by a majority of Commis­ served on the Commission during its entire sion members, and traditionally the chairman­ history. Three of the current members, includ­ ship has rotated every two years between the ing the Chair, have served with the Commission House and Senate. The Auditor of Public since its inception 20 years ago, and twoother Accounts is a non-voting, ex-officio member. members have served 15 years or more. Fur­ The continuity of Commission member­ ther, the leadership of both houses of the Gen­ ship has been critical to JLARC's success. eral Assembly are represented on the Commis­ Even though JLARC was enlarged from 11 to sion, including the budget committee chairs, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Senate Majority Leader. The Commission has a full-time staff. A staff director is appointed by the Commission and confirmed by the General Assembly for a six-year term of office.

The duties of the Commission and the nature of its studies are specified in Sections 30-56 through 30-63 of the Code of Virginia. Report findings and recommendations are to be submitted to the agencies concerned, the Chairman Delegate Ford C. Quillen (left) Governor, and the General Assembly. These and Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. reports are to address:

1993 Report to the GeneralA5sembly------'------~ Page 1 Part One ------,------JLARC's Purpose and Rate I audit resources of the Office of the AUditor of Public Accounts are available to the Commis­ sion. The ability of the Legislature to assess agency performance is enhanced by this com- . bination of program and fiscal reviews. Section 2.1-196.1 of the Code gives JLARC authority to establish new internal ser­ vice funds and to discontinue those no longer needed. JLARC can also authorize the transfer of excessive retained earnings from internal service funds to the State general fund. To carry out these responsibilities the Commission reviews, on a continuing basis, internal service funds for graphics, systems development, tele­ Senator Hunter B. Andrews communications, central warehouse, computer services, central garage, building maintenance o areas in which functions of State agencies services in the Capitol area, and State and are duplicative, overlap, fail to accomplish federal surplus property. legislative objectives, errorany other reason should be redefined or redistributed,

o ways in which agencies may operate more economically and efficiently,

o ways in which agencies can provide better In 1978, JLARC embarked on a unique services to the State and to the people. approach to oversight underthe auspices olthe Legislative Program Review and Evaluation The Commission has also been assigned Act. The Act provides for periodic review and authority to make special studies and reports on evaluation of selected topics from among all the operations and functions of State agencies seven program functions of State government: as it deems appropriate and as may be re­ (1) Individual and Family Services, (2) Educa- quested by the General Assembly. In addition, the Commission isauthorized to preparesupple­ mental studies and reports relating to its evalu­ ations. Once each biennium, the Commission conducts a systematic follow-up of its work. From time to time, usually coinciding with this biennial report, agencies are requested to file "status-of-action" reports on their efforts to ad­ dress the Commission's findings and recom­ mendations. Special follow-up studies are re­ quired in cases where the Commission has cited waste, extravagance, fraud, or misuse of public funds. Under authority of Section 2.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, the Commission also serves I as the point of legislative focus for financial audit reports. The specialized accounting and Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr., (left) l and Delegate Lacey E. Putney

1993 Report ta the General Assembly------l------Page 2 Part One ------,------JLARCs Purpose and Role

To carry out its oversight responsibilities, JLARC issues several types of legislative re­ ports. Performance reports evaluate the ac­ complishment of legislative intent and assess whether program expenditures are consistent with appropriations. Operational reports as­ sess agency success in making efficient and effective use of space, personnel, or equip­ Delegate Alson H. Smith, Jr., (left) ment. Special reports are made on State op­ and Delegate Frankln P. Hall erations and functions at the direction of the Commission or at the request of the General tion, (3) Transportation, (4) Resource and Eco­ Assembly. Many of these special reports re­ nomic Development, (5) Administration of Jus­ quire elaborate statistical applications to as­ tice, (6) Enterprises, and (7) General Govern­ sess policy and program effectiveness. ment. To date, JLARC has issued about 150 While the principal function of the Evalu­ reports, which are annotated in the last section ation Act is the scheduling of functional area of this publication. In addition, numerous letter reviews, it also encourages (1) coordination reports have been prepared on specific topics with the standing committees, (2) agency self­ of interesttothe Commission. Six major projects studies, and (3) committee hearings on JLARC and several smaller studies are currently in reports. The Act does not require or restrict progress. standing committee activities in any way. A JLARC study begins when the Legisla­ ture identifies a topic for review. The Cornmis-

A meeting of the JlARC Subcommittee on the Administrative Process Act. From left to right: Senator Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr., Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., I Senator Robert E. Russell, Sr., Delegate Jay W. DeBoer, and Delegate lewis W. Parker, Jr.

L1993 Report to the General Assembly------O~------Page3 ______,- JLARC's Purpose and Role I , After the team completes its research, it prepares a report which is reviewed internally and subjected to quality assurance standards. SUbsequently, an exposure draft is distributed to appropriate agencies for their review and comment. A revised exposure draft, which also contains agency comments, is reported to the Commission. The Commission or one of its subcom­ mittees reviews the report, indicates any addi­ Me. Kucharski Mr, Leone tionallegislative concerns, and authorizes pub­ Auditor of Public Accounts Staff Director lication of the study as a legislative document. sion authorizes project iniliation, andthe project The printed report is distributed 10 all General is assigned to a staff team. A workplan is then Assembly members, the Governor, and other prepared which documents the research ap­ interested parties. proach to be used.

III Program andAgencySavings: Program cost , III An Informed Legislature: Oversight studies savings are frequently the product of legislative help inform citizen iegislators about agencies, oversight studies, and are usually the most vis­ programs, and activities. A primary objective for i ible of all possible outcomes. Savings directly JLARC is to gather, evaluate, and report infor­ related to JLARC studies total over $261 million mation and make recommendations that can be to date. Harderto pinpoint, butjust as important, used in legislative decisionmaking, Reports are the opportunities for savings which may provide informationthat may be usefulto legisla­ resultfrom the implementationof recommended tors during deliberation on iegislation, during efficiencies or adoption of program alternatives. committee hearings, and in responding to con- The amountofpotentialsav- stituent questions or requests ings depends on the extent Ongoing Savings for assistance. Oversight re­ towhichchangesaremade, A single recommendation can some­ ports are also valuable as a Insome instances,changes times iead to significant long-term long-term memoryof program may result in more spend­ savings for the Commonwealth. For information, and may be use­ ing to achieve greater ef­ example, set-ott debt collection ful to legislators and agency fectiveness. was recommended by JLARC and administrators as reference ' implemented in 1981. The cumula­ materials, III Improved Efficiency and tive savings from this recommendation Effectiveness: JLARC is for the first ten years alone have to­ l1li Compliance with Legis­ required by statuteto make taled more than $75 million. lative Intent: Writing and en­ recommendations onways acting legislation is the law- State agencies may making function of the Gen­ achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in eral Assembly. This establishes legislative in­ their operations. Achieving efficiency means tent. The oversight function helps ensure that finding ways to accomplish the same tasks at laws are being carried out as the Legislature reduced cost; achieving effectiveness means intended. In some cases, intent may not have findings ways to better accomplish program and been clearly understood by program administra­ agency objectives. Significant changes have tors; in other cases, statements of intent may been made in program efficiency and effective­ have been ignored. In those instances where ness in response to oversight reports and rec­ iegislative intent is not explicit in statute, an ommendations. The fact that a regularprogram oversight study can assess and report to the of legislative oversight exists also stimulates General Assembly on how an agency has de­ agency self-evaluation, which may bring about cided to implement its mission. improved operations.

1993 Report to the General AS5ejnbly------.L------~ Page4-.J - Part One ------,------JLARC's Purposeand Role

Commission, and through in-service programs. Emphasis is placed on enhancing technical, communication, and team management skills. The JLARC staff director is responsible JLARC's success over the past two de­ for preparing the budget, hiring personnel, cades has depended on the staff sharing a managing research, and long-range planning. common body of institutional norms relating to The staff is organized into two research such matters as standards of evidence, operat­ divisions, each headed by a division chief, and ing procedures, and rules of ethical behavior. three support functions. Project teams, typi­ Therefore, training and staff development ef­ cally ranging from two to four people, are as­ forts are designed to instill the JLARC ethic of signed to the divisions for administrative and accuracy, independence, and objectivity; an research supervision. Team leaders have re­ understanding of what these concepts mean in sponsibility for managing projects and directing the JLARC environment, and a recognition of teams on a day-to-day basis. The teams are how to apply them in the day-to-day work of the supported by specialists in research methods, organization. computerapplications, and publications services. Two measures of the staff's continuing The varied education, training, and pro­ reputation for excellence are awards of national fessional experience of JLARC's 28 research staff are important to the Commission. Since JLARC Staff 1973, the composition ofthestaff has continued Functional Organization to evolve. Today, while the largest single group still comes into JLARC with backgrounds in Director public administration or policy analysis and a ,- I strong base of quantitative skills, many other I O\!puty Director I ~------Executive Functions academic disciplines are also represented. Quality Assurance Training & Recruiting These fields include business administration, Planning & Follow-up Executive Assignments computer science, economics, education, En­

glish, philosophy, planning, political science, Research Support Administrative Support psychology, and urban systems. Most mem­ Methodology Business Marmgemenl Publications& Graphics Office Services bers of the researchstaffhavegraduatedegrees. Computer Resources Only one JLARC staff position - that of ResearchDivisionI ResearchDivisionn the Director - is filled through legislative ap­ Project Teams Project Teams pointment. All other positions - from new ~ entry-level recruits to senior management posi­ tions - are filled through a merit-based com­ petitive selection process. recognition received (see "National Recognition" Staff titles reflect formal education, train­ on the next page) and the significant number of ing, and experience at JLARC. The titles are staff who have, over the years, gone on to assistant, associate, senior associate, senior, positions of increasing responsibility in State principal, and chief analyst. Promotions are govemment. Currently,for example, nine former based on merit. Salaries are competitive with members of the JLARC staff are serving the those of similar types of executive and legisla­ Commonwealth at the Director level or above. tive employment, and each staff member par­ JLARC is housed on the 11th floor of the ticipates in State-supported benefit programs. General Assembly Building, adjacent to the Professional developmentis encouraged State Capitol. The close proximity of the other through membership in relevant associations. legislative staffs and support services encour- Training iscarried outthrough on-campus credit ages communication and contributes to instruction in fields related to the work of the JLARC's research efforts.

1993 Report to the General Assembly------"------~ Page5 J Part One ------,------JLARC's Purpose and Role

Over the past 20 years, JLARC has in support of special legislative commissions evolved in response to the changing needs of and committees created to review, for example, the General Assembly. New roles have been mental health programs and the Center for required as new tasks have been assigned, Innovative Technology. sometimes through statute (such as the Evalu­ Since the early 1980s, the Commission ation Act) and sometimes through a pattern of and General Assembly have become more committee or Commission study requests. actively involved in the follow-up of JLARC During the early years, JLARC staff car­ studies. Subcommittees have been appointed ried out performance audits and other studies by the Commission or the full Legislature to that were largely initiated by the Commission. implement staff recommendations. For ex­ By the late 1970s, however, statutorily-man­ ample, a joint select legislative subcommittee dated studies had absorbed almostall of JLARC was created in 1984 to develop statutory staff resources. Along the way, JLARC staff changes to the transportation funding for­ have frequently been called upon to testify at mula recommended by a 1983 JLARC study. meetings of the money committees and other Special subcommittees of JLARC have also standing committees of the General Assembly drafted and endorsed legislation to alter the on such diverse subjects as education and executive budget process, create a constitu­ transportation funding formulas, employee re­ tionally-based rainy-day fund, and revise the tirement programs, and mandateson local gov­ Administrative Process Act. Actions such as ernments. Staff have also conducted research these demonstratethe Legislature's confidence

The JLARC staff receive national award for "most distinguished research" from the Governmen­ tal Research Association for a review of the Virginia Community College System.

JLARC staff receive the annual "outstanding legislative research report" award from National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) for a review of Virginia's capital outlay process

JLARC staff receive award from the Executive Committee of NCSL's Legislative Program Evaluation Section for "outstanding contributions to the field of legislative program evaluation."

The Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University conducts a national study of legislative oversight, ranking JLARC as one of the best such groups in the country. The Commission and General Assembly are lauded for their strong commitment to legislative oversight.

NCSL's Legislative Program Evaluation Society recognizes JLARC for "excellence in research design and method" for a technical review of staffing standards for the funding of sheriffs.

JLARC is cited by the journal Education Evaluation andPolicy Analysis as an exemplary model for legislative oversight in state governance of education.

Financial World magazine ranks Virginia as the best managed state. Among the reasons listed are "unmatched" legislative and executive program evaluation and the constitutionally estab­ lished rainy-day fund.

1993 Report to the General As,;embly------Page 6 r-:Part One ------,------JLARC's Purposeand Role in JLARC leadership and the supporting staff accuracy, independence, and objectivity work. which have remained constant over the past An area where the evolution of the staff's two decades. The strong support of the over­ capabilities is evident is the use of computers. sight function by the General Assembly and Some of JLARC's recent studies have involved Commission membershasmadethis possible. large databases and complex methodological The table on the following two pages, approaches which "Milestones: 20 could not have been Rainy-Day Fund: An Example years 01 JLARC," undertaken in the of JLARC's Changing Role provides some indi­ 70s, before the ad­ cation 01 the range JLARC passed a new historical milestone in 1992: its vent of today's so­ lirst amendmenttothe ConstitutionofVirginia. AJLARC and importance of phisticated analytical proposal to create a "rainy day lund," after passing two JLARC's work for software. successive sessions 01 the General Assembly, was two decades. Ver­ It is difficult to overwhelmingly approved by Virginians in a general satility has been and trace or characterize election. See lull story under "Recent Reviews." will continue to be all the changes that critical to JLARC's have occurred during JLARC's first 20 years. ability to respond to the General Assembly's Their cumulative effect, however, has been to study requests - whether for a performance shape the organization into one which is adapt­ audit, a program evaluation, or a broaderpolicy able, rigorous, and creative. Versatility and analysis over a wide range of issues. Leg­ continuing development- in discipline, subject islative and executive use ofthese study efforts matter, analytical approach, datacollection tech­ demonstrates that JLARC can examine complex nique, and reporting method - have become issues affecting politicallysensitive programs, yet the norm. Yet it is a norm that operates within a maintain a position of objectivity and impartial­ set of organizational values - emphasizing ity.

Department of Taxation: Department's estimation of additional revenues for FYs 93 and 94 resulting from implementation of recommended compliance efforts to close the tax gap $65 million

Medicaid: Estimated savings from curtailing certain kinds of asset transfers and implementing an estate recovery program $9 to $15 million

Medicaid: Reduction in indigent care lunds for the U.Va. Medical Center that had previously been expended lor out-of-state patients $2 million

Subtotal 01 recent savings: $76 to $82 million

Cumulative savings documented in previous Reports to the General Assembly $185 million

Cumulative savings since JLARC's inception ...... • $261 to 267 million'

Ratio 01 JLARC's savings to its budget expenditures $12 : $1

*Cumulative savings are conservatively estimated based on one or two years of implementation. Many of these savings continue to accrue indefinitely.

1993 Report to the General Assemoly------Page 7 i Part One --- -rr- ILARC's Purpose and Role

f------Eil-----1 but many homes -- especially those housing auxiliary grant recipients or rnental health after­ Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission care clients -- continue to operate with significant established as a permanent legislative commis­ violations of licensure standards. sion by the General Assembly. Commission appoints subcommittee to hire Director. f------ED-----1

f------1mDf------1 A special study of deinstitutionalization and com­ munity services is prepared for the Legislative JLARC staffed and operational; first study re­ Commission on Mental Health and Mental Retar­ quested is of the Virginia Community College dation (the Bagley Commission). The report's ten System. recommendations are endorsed by the Cornmis­ sion.

f------1I&f------1 An evaluation of the Virginia Community College System is the first report prepared and accepted A study of federal funds finds that State agencies bytheCommission. Thereportdescribesacommu­ are consistently underestimating federal fund rev­ nity college system in which Virginians can take enues and, consequently, major portions of State considerable pride. At the same time, the review expenditures are not going through the legislative identifies administrative and educational issues appropriations process. Immediate responses that require the attention of VCCS and the Legis­ include $29 million added to the 1980 budget bill lature to ensure the Commonwealth receives as a result of last-minute agency-initiated arnend­ maximum returnfrom its publicexpenditures. ments. Long-terrn response is implementation of comprehensive new control procedures and im­ f------Ilmf------i proved fund managementbyexecutive agencies.

JLARC study uncovers numerous financial and f------,-Imt------J general management problems at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The JLARC assess­ In response to a 1980 JLARC special study, ment is the beginning of a series of legislative and Legislature creates set-off debt collection pro­ executive activities which eventually lead to VIMS gram, which is soon bringing in about $4 million i being merged with the Collegeof Williamand Mary. annually. As of 1992, this continuing program has netted the State over $75 million in real cash f------JIElf------I savings.

Study series on the "sunset" and zero-base bud­ f------Ilm!lf------I geting approaches in vogue across the country recommends an alternative strategy for legisla­ JLARC completes two comprehensive reports on tive oversight, which becornes the basis for the occupational and professional regulation under Legislative Program Review and Evaluation Act the Evaluation Act. passed by the 1978 General Assembly. The Act provides for periodic review of the programs in all f------1lmt------1 areas of State government. JLARC begins its continuing series on State/local relations that will eventually include assessments of local mandates and financial resources, local On-site assessments reveal that many homes for fiscal stress and State aid, and State/local service adults provide satisfactory quality of resident life, responsibilities.

1993 Report to the General Assembly------"------~ Page 8 PartOne ------,------JLARCs Purpose and Role

f-----mDf-----j I------Iml------I

JLARC studies of the equity of highway and A comprehensive follow-up study of homes for transportation fund allocations begin to reshape adults outlines a new blueprint for regulation, the funding structure of this "big ticket" item. which will subsequently be implemented with Recommendations ensure that funds will be allo­ strong support from the Joint Commission on cated on an objective, rational basis that includes Health Care, the full Legislature, and the Admin­ a clear relationship to needs. istration.

f------j!mDf------1

A JLARC-sponsored Conference on Legislative A Commission study series on State financial Oversight reviews and reaffirms the Legislative management has significant outcomes: Program Review and Evaluation Act. Cl A review oflhe Department ofTaxation estimates a tax gap of more than $500 million. The General Assembly directs the department to implement a $65 million revenue enhancement JLARC staff wrap up a two-year study series on program. Virginia's correctional system. Hundreds of rec­ Cl JLARC proposes a revenue stabiliza­ ommendations point the way to improvements in tion or "rainy-day fund" that is approved by the population forecasting, staffing, facility utilization, Legislature intwo successive sessions, then over­ community diversion, security procedures, and whelmingly approved by voters, becoming the capital outlay planning. first JLARC-originated amendmentto the Virginia Constitution. f------ilmlf------j

A three-year study is completed assessing the funding of the educational Standards of Quality. A major staff study effort is devoted to a compre­ The JLARC methodology for calculating SOQ hensive review of Virginia's Medicaid program, costs is adopted by the General Assembly. The producing a series of eight reports and over 100 study ultimately results in a restructuring of the recommendations. One study examines the ex­ school aid funding formula. tentto which applicants take advantage of legal "loopholes" to shift the cost of their care to the taxpayer while preserving assets for their heirs. As recommended, the General Assembly enacts In accordance with a proposal in JLARC's study legislationthat restrictssomeforms of asset trans­ of information technology in Virginia State gov­ fers and impiements an estate recovery program. ernment, the 1988 Generai Assembly creates the These actions will eventually result in an esti­ Council on Information Management, which is mated $15 million in annual savings to the Med­ responsiblefor statewide strategic planning, stan­ icaid program. dard selling, and procurement. -----iImDlf------i f------iEE'J-----i A study team, working closely with a subcommit­ JLARC's review of child day care in Virginia tee of the Commission, completes its reviews of identifies inconsistencies in the way regulation is the Administrative Process Act. The General As­ applied. The study recommendations are em­ sembly approves amendments to the Act that braced over the next two years by both the increase opportunities for meaningful public par­ I legislative and executive branches, effectively ticipation and provide for legislative suspension of doubling the number of children in day care who regulations. are subject to State regulation.

1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page 9 J the Commonwealth was experiencing during this time. Therefore, an early report in the series was focused exclusively on revenue forecast­ ing. A significant finding from that review was Inthe course of 20 years and 150 studies, that, simply stated, forecast error is a normally JLARC has made more than a thousand rec­ occurring part of the forecast process -- short­ ommendations. These recommendations have falls and surpluses are to be expected. Given resulted in extensive changes to the Code of the uncertainty of revenue forecasting, the Virginia, substantial savings to the State, and JLARC subcommittee examined "rainy-day" significant improvements in government ser­ funds as a means of coping with shortfalls. vices. JLARC passed a new kind of milestone This led to another report, entitled Pro­ in the fall of 1992, however, when its first posalfor a Revenue Stabilization Fund. Funds proposed constitutional amendment was over­ of this kind in 39 states were examined. The whelmingly approved by the citizens of Virginia. subcommittee then sought to adopt the best of The constitutional amendment was an out­ each and apply it to the Commonwealth's bud­ qrowth of the Commission's study series on the getary system. Several unique concepts were Commonwealth's budget process. also explored and adopted. The result was a JLARC was mandated by the 1990 Ap­ proposal for a revenue stabilization fund tai­ propriation Act to review the Commonwealth's lored to Virginia's needs. executive system of financial This fund was de­ planning, execution, and signed to skim off above-av­ evaluation. This mandate erage revenue grow1h in pros­ resulted in four reports, in­ perous years, and deposit cluding reviews of the De­ these monies in a fund where partment of Taxation, the De­ they will draw interest and be partmentof Planningand Bud­ available when forecast error get (see following articles), results in a revenue shortfall. and the processes and mod­ There are two benefits to this els used for revenue forecast­ approach. First, unsustain­ ing in the executive branch. ably high revenue growth is For this series of stud­ not built into the State's ex­ ies, a subcommittee of the penditure base. Second, Commission provided close when forecast error inevitably guidance to the staffin definingthe critical issues occurs, the fund provides a cushion for antici­ and scoping the research effort. The JLARC pated shortfalls. Subcommittee onthe Executive BUdgetProcess To accomplish the objectives of a rainy­ met numerous times along the way with JLARC day fund, the Constitution of Virginia had to be staff and staff of the Senate Finance and House revised. Ironically, while fiscally conservative in Appropriations Committees to brainstorm and whole, the Constitution required policy makers to explore possible solutions to long-standing to spend all revenues. Therefore, a State budgetary concerns. savings account for a rainy day was inconsis­ An added incentive to improve the bud­ tent with provisions limiting State retention of get process was the shortfall in revenues that revenues. 1993 Report to the GeneralAsscmbly------'------Page 10 Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

During the 1991 Session Senator John C. Buchanan, the late Chairman of the Com­ mission, introduced on behalf of the JLARC subcommittee a Senate Joint Resolution to establish a constitutionally-based rainy-day The budget process is the means used to fund. The resolution proposed a constitutional develop, execute, and evaluate Virginia's oper­ amendment to establish the fund on a perma­ ating budget. The General Assembly, recogniz­ nent basis. An amendment in the nature of a ing the importance of systematically assessing substitute was reported by the Senate Finance the efficiency and effectiveness of the State's Committee and approved budgeting policies and by the General Assembly. "In the course of20years and150 procedures, mandated a The amendment altered studies, JLARC has made more JLARC review of the mandatory deposits and than a thousand recommenda­ executive budget process provided a mechanism for tions. These recommendations --thefirst comprehensive exempting revenues from have resulted in extensive study since the Legisla­ tax increases. The other changes to the Code of Virginia, ture made majorchanges provisions of the fund re­ substantial savings to the State, to the process in the mid­ mained the same as de­ andsignificant improvements in 70s. This mandate ulti­ scribed in the staff report. government services. " mately resulted in four The proposal was reports, focusing on rev­ approved by the 1991 Session. Because it was enueforecasting, the executive budgetprocess, in the form of a constitutional amendment, it the Department of Taxation, and a proposal for a also required the approval of the 1992 General rainy day fund (see separate articles on the latter Assembly. Its second passage by the legisla­ studies). ture placed it on the public ballot statewide for Overall, the budget study found the ex­ the November1992election. Priorto the ballot­ ecutive process to be a sound one. It had been ing, the proposal was given considerable atten­ responsive to the revenue shortfalls of the early tion in State media, including endorsement in 90s, and it largely reflected the needsof boththe several newspaper editorials. In November, executive and legislative branches. During the the proposal received public approval by a review, many State agencies commented on three-to-one margin. the improved capabilities and professionalism The amendment provides that whenever shown by the Department of Planning and Bud­ revenues rise faster than the average of the get (DPB), the central agency with oversight of previous six years, half of that surplus goes into the process, during recent years. a stabilization fund. Conversely, if revenues The process needed strengthening, how­ drop more than two percent below forecasted ever, through changes to various elements. A levels, the legislature is authorized to use money major report recommendation was to increase from the fund to meet up to half of the shortfall. the time the Legislature had to make appropria­ The first deposit into the rainy dayfund will likely tion decisions. In addition, partly because ofthe be made during the FY 1993-94 fiscal year, as emphasis on incremental rather than program revenues are benefiting from a one-time corpo­ budgeting, insufficient evaluations were being rate income tax payment estimated at $80 conducted of programs in agency base bud­ million. The ability to deposit rather than spend gets. Estimating and reporting on nongeneral a portion of such non-recurring income fulfills funds remained a problem, though first identi­ one of the primary objectives of the revenue fied in a 1980 JLARC study of federal funds. stabilization fund. Also, the executive branch needed to routinely provide additional information for legislative decisionmaking. Further, more incentives for

1993 Report to the General Assembly -1- Page 11 Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews good financial management by agencies Language was also incorporated requiring a needed to be built into the process. study to identify sourcesof nongeneralfunds Members of JLARC took a proactive in­ that could be included in the general fund. terest in the results of the budget study, prefiling The results of these assessments are due a comprehensive budqet reform billfor the 1992 this December. Session to consider. The General Assembly enacted this budget reform package, which o Language in the Appropriation Act restrict­ incorporated numerous changes in line with ing executive branch authority to transfer study recommendations: appropriations was strengthened. o The General Assembly gave approval for o The Code of Virginia requirement for quar- agencies to carry forward funds between terly allotments of agency appropriations years. This im- was amendedto re­ proved financial flectthecurrentprac­ management tice of annual allot­ practice coun- ments. Quarterlyal- teredthe"spendit lotments, which re­ or loseit" mental- quired extra paper­ ity often associ- Budget Period worlkandtime,were atedwith govern- nolongerbeingused ment. by the executive

17.4 Weeks branch because o The Code was 15.8 Weeks automation andpro­ amended to re­ bud­ quire submis­ geting sion of the ginia: 8.5 Weeks) had Governor's bud­ made them unnec­ get by Decem­ essary. Language ber 20. The (21 States) (27 States) (9 States) (39 States) in the Code was 1992-94 budget also amended to was the first to be submitted under this allow higher education institutions to submit process change, which affords the General budget proposals in a different format from Assembly between 18 and 31 additional that required of other agencies, to reflect days to examine the executive budget. actual practice. o Formalre-estimations ofgeneralfundrevenues o DPB was required to develop guidelines and were required for the currentand next biennia processes for measuring the performance of wheneverbudgetarycuts are anticipated. programs in agencies' base budgets on a pilot basis. The results of the pilot will be o DPB and the Department of Accounts were reported to the House Appropriations and directed to examine ways of improving the Senate Finance Committees this fall. Alotal I reporting of nongeneralfund revenues and of 24 program activities across 21 agencies to ensure accurate comparisons of agency are being used for the pilot study. estimates against collections. The Appro­ priation Act was amended to require the o Legislation was enacted to require a state- I Governor to report to the House Appropria­ ment of the amount of each agency's budqet ~' tions and Senate Finance Committees an­ devoted to direct aid to localities. A new nually on nongeneralfund receipts in excess section wiii be added to the 1994-96 budget of the amounts specifically appropriated. document to address this requirement.

1993 Report to the General Assembly-- Page 12 ,part Two ------r------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

I DPB has also taken steps internally to deal 1991 Session amended and expanded the with several JLARC study concerns: study mandate to include a fuller review of the Department ofTaxation. The JLARC staff was o The JLARC review expressed concern that directed to review the organization, manage­ DPB analysts might not be giving a high ment, and operations of the department, focus­ enough priority to visiting the agencies as" ing on the effectiveness and efficiency of the signed them. DPB reports that it has re­ agency's compliance revenue collection efforts. cently experimented with different methods The findings of this report wereto have substan­ of formalizing this requirement, which will be tial financial implications for State government implemented at the start of the next em­ and taxpayer equity. ployee performance evaluation cycle. An initial study research effort was a statewide household survey of taxpayers. The o The department is placing greateremphasis survey indicated that 86% of the individuals on providing agencies with guidance about who had used the department's services were the budget process. After the 1992 and satisfied with them. However, the same survey 1993Sessions, DPB surveyed selected State also indicated that more than 17% of the re­ agencies to test the quality of written instruc­ spondents personally knew at least three indi­ tions, training methods, and analyst assis­ viduals who were underpaying their true State tance. tax liabilities. The difference between what taxpayers o The computing environment at DPB has owe and the amount that is actually collected is been significantly enhanced over the past commonly called the "tax gap." An important year. Every staff member has been pro­ aspect of this study was to find ways to better vided with a personal computer, appropriate identify and help close the tax gap. The review training, and access to the data-sharing, concluded that the gap probably exceeded storage, and printing features of a central $500 million in 1989. In a period of reduced mini-computer. Significant improvements to revenues and fiscal austerity, it was especially the on-line PROBUD system are also in important to find ways of collecting a higher progress. percentage of these funds. In addition to being a potential revenue source, the tax gap repre­ Together, the Governor and the General sented a problem in taxpayer equity. For every Assembly have acted to provide agencies with citizen avoiding paying his or her portion of the incentives to operate more efficiently. Addi­ tax gap, other taxpayers were "paying the price" tional recommendations and incentives are cur­ -- either in higher payments or diminished ser­ rently under review by the Secretary of Finance. vices. Manyofthe report recommendations were aimed at closing the tax gap. Others focused on operational aspects of the department. The more important findings and recommendations included the following:

The 1990 Appropriation Act required o The department needed to give a higher JLARC to study the executive budget process, priority to systematically estimating the tax a mandate which resulted in several separate gap, finding ways to close it, setting appro­ but interrelated studies. The initial study in the priate compliance revenue goals, and keep­ series, which focused on revenue forecasting, ing the appropriate legislative committees included a review of certain functions of the informed on the progress made in these Department of Taxation. Subsequently, the areas.

1993 Report to the General Assembly------'------~ Page13 ~ Part Two ------r------Recent Agency and Program RevieuJs

o The department needed to better analyze its compliance activities with the staff needed to abatementand accountsreceivable data with carry out those activities, and estimating the goal of collecting more of the taxes owed. expected revenue increases that should re­ sult. The department submitted this plan to o Compliance staff were not being utilized as the 1992General Assembly, which approved effectively as possible, as they were rou­ an additional 78 positions, most of which tinely used to provide services to taxpayers. have been filled. Based on the expected JLARC staff estimated that more than $10 productivity of these employees and related million was not being collected due to time programs, a net of $43 million in new rev­ spent providing taxpayer assistance. enues were available in the 1992-94 Appro- priation Act. o The department needed to improve its audit as­ o The Department has es­ sessments through a for­ tablished two new sections, malized strategy for se­ acompliance audit program lecting returns for audit. (CAP) and a Revenue This strategy needed to Analysis and Planning be built on standard and (RAP) group. These sec­ objective criteria to elimi­ tions are currently de­ nate inconsistency and veloping new compli­ subjectivity. Audits ofcor­ ance programstargeted porate and sales and use returns needed at reducingthe individual particular emphasis. income, corporate income, and sales tax gaps. The department is not, however, o The department needed to develop a sys­ attempting to calculate the tax gap on a tematic approach to evaluating all available regular basis. data that might help identify non-filers, such as those maintained by the Department of o Per a JLARC recommendation, the depart­ Motor Vehicles, the State Corporation Com­ ment has investigated strategies used by mission, and the Virginia EmploymentCom­ other states to improve compliance collec­ mission. tions efforts. The department has imple­ mented one such program, a method of o The department lacked sufficient controls to making phone calls to delinquent accounts prevent fraud and disclosure of confidential early in the collection process. During a tax information. three-month pilot period, this program made over 13,000 calls, of which more than 5,000 o External oversight ofthedepartmentneeded were successful, resulting in the collection of to be improved. over $500,000.

The Department of Taxation's recent sta­ o The department has assigned additional tus-of-action report on its responses to the resources to two problem areas identified in JLARC review notes a number of changes in the JLARC report: abatements and ac­ departmental procedures and some significant counts receivable. The department reports new compliance initiatives. Among them are that internal project teams have evaluated the following: the department's collections programs and have made corrective recommendations. In o The study recommended that the depart­ addition to the phone program described ment submit a staffing plan linking additional above, a number of new approaches are

1993Report to the General Assembly------'------Page14 Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

being tried, including an automated collec­ o Per a study recommendation, more atten­ tions system to enhance the use of financial tion is being paid to the ideas of department data and increasingly proactive collection employees. The department reports that a action for bills above specified levels. recent employee suggestion meeting involv­ ing 150 employees resulted in more than o Additional taxpayer assistance personnel 650 suggestions to improve compliance col­ have been added to district offices to relieve lections. Results are being evaluated for compliance personnel from routinely han­ incorporation intocompliance enhancement dling these duties, allowing more of their plans and other programs. time to be spent on collections activities. o The department reports that many of the o In line with a study recommendation, the security concerns raised in the study about department is testing computerized data access to the STARS system have been approaches to identifying high income addressed through implementation of an nonfilers and underreporters. In a recent automated "access trail," which identifies pilot exercise, the department identified 470 STARS users and information on the time, practicing Virginia accountants as nonfilers. location, denied access, etc. Similar efforts with other groups are ex­ pected to narrow the tax gap. One taxpayer The "bottom line" of the JLARC review of contacted by the department responded by the Department of Taxation was that more tax filing and paying six years of past due in­ revenues could be collected. The study esti­ come tax returns. mated that if all recommendations including new collection strategies were implemented, A study recommendation called for the de­ o more than $150 million could eventually be partment to reassess its audit selection pro­ added to the annual tax revenues. These cedures for corporate income tax. An inter­ revenues could help offset anticipated budget­ nalevaluationteam completedsuchananaly­ ary shorttatls and improve taxpayer equity by sis, and recommended a complete revision improving overall compliance with existing tax of the corporate income tax process. The laws. team recommended piloting an automated audit candidate identification process and that the selection of audit candidates be­ come a centralized function of the Office of Compliance. The department predicts that these and related changes will have asignifi­ cant impact on both revenues realized and In fiscal year 1992, the Virginia Depart­ resource efficiency. ment of Corrections (DOC) was appropriated nearly $30 million to provide health care to an o The department reportsthatprocedureshave inmate population of about 17,000. The been substantially expanded to ensure that department's appropriation funds health care the determination of doubtful collectibility is provided inmates in correctional institutions, in fUllysubstantiated priorto accepting offers in community hospitals, from private physicians compromise. and dentists, or at the Medical College of Vir­ o In line with a JLARC recommendation, the ginia. department's RAP unit has gained access to The United States Supreme Court ruled several State and local government data­ in the late 1970s that inmates have a Constitu­ bases for use in a nonfiler and underreporter tional right to health care. While the Court's pilot program. decision was directed at medical care, it is i L....1993 Report to the General Assembly------'------Page15 Part Two ------~------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

recognized that inmates' health care rights also o It appears that internal resources should be include mental health treatment and dental increasedforbettercosteffectiveness. How­ care. Questions remain, however, concerning ever, DOC needs to provide better cost data the appropriate level and quality of inmate to the Department of Planning and Budgetto health care. justify the needed staffing. Item 15 of the 1992 Appropriation Act directedJLARCto examine the increasing costs o DOC should prepare a dental care staffing of health care in corrections and to determine plan that links increased staffing with im­ the appropriate levels of that care. This man­ proved productivity and decreased reliance date is being fulfilled through a series of JLARC on private dentists. The plan should also: reports. The first, which was reported to the 1993 Session, focuses on dental care. The • addressthe costeffectivenessof expanding second, which was recently completed, focuses or establishing specific dental clinics, on DOC's mental health services. Future re­ • include quidelines which specify where ports will concentrate on medical care and the inmates who reside in facilities without den­ organization and management of inmate health tal clinics will receive dental treatment, services within the Department of Corrections. • delineate alternative means of meeting Interim Report: Review of the oral surgery needs of inmates. Inmate Dental Care The 1993 General Assembly, through the Appropriation Act, required the Director of Cor­ This review found that both central and rections to provide JLARC with quarterly institutional dental procedures adequately ad­ progress reports on efforts to address the find­ dress many of the important issues. However, ings and recommendations of the dental ser­ given the changing composition and needs of vices report. Inaddition, the General Assembly the inmate population, many improvements approved eight full-time positions -- a dentist, should be made, among them: six dental assistants, and a dental hygienist -- to help close the gap between needs and current o Dental-specific cost data and service provi­ levels of service. Funding for these positions is sion data should be centrally maintained to be generated through a reduction in the and reviewed. The current system does not purchase of outside dental services. effectively isolate dental care costs and ser­ vices from other medical categories. Evaluation of Inmate o DOC's Office ofHealthServices (OHS) needs Mental Health Services to take a more proactive role. Better OHS oversight of dental care, especially in the DOC provides three levels of mental field units, could minimize the use of private health treatment. Acute care for male inmates dentists and increase service efficiency. who are severely mentally ill and present a danger to self or others is provided at Marion o The chief dentist should devote half of his Correctional Treatment Center. Acute care for time, perthe job description forthis position, female inmates is provided by the Department to administrative duties. Currently, most of of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Sub­ the chief dentist's time is spent in providing stance Abuse Services (DMHMRSAS) at Cen- I direct services. This has contributed to tral State Hospital. Sheltered care units at five deficiencies in the monitoring of dental ser­ facilities provide treatment and housing for in- J vices. mates who are so mentally ill that they cannot l1993 Report to the General Page 16 Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

function in the general population, Outpatient would provide DOC an additional mecha­ treatment is provided at 15 facilities for inmates nism to improve the quality of treatment who need periodic mental health treatment but are able to function in the general population, o The department should address problems The JLARC staff's recent assessment of so that inmates who are clinically ready for inmate mental health services had two major discharge are transferred out of sheltered findings: first, the department has not fUlly and acute care units in a timely manner. developed a system of comprehensive mental Delays result in inefficient use of costly beds health care, Several problems with mental and staffing. health service delivery appear to resultfrom the lack of such a system, Second, the department Other recommendations are aimed at ascer­ hasnotdeveloped adequate costcontrol mecha­ taining the cost effectiveness of (1) the use of nisms, in part because it lacks data on the costs psychologists for providing outpatienttreatment, ofthe mental health services it is providing, The (2) the current contractual arrangement for department, which is planning to add new men­ providing sheltered care at Greensville, and (3) tal health staffing and beds during FY 1994, renovating existing facilities versus the cost of could also utilize its existing resources in a more new construction, cost-effective manner. While itappearsthat the new resources would help the department im­ prove its mental health services, it is also impor­ tant that DOC implement cost control mecha­ nisms and operate more efficiently, in order to use the existing and new staff to their full potential, Senate Joint Resolution 26 of the 1990 The recommendations from this report, General Assembly directed a study of Virginia's which was briefed to the Commission in July, parole review process. The JLARC review was include the following necessary actions: undertaken partly in response to other studies that had suggested Virginia's parole rate was o DOC needs to address identified deficien­ too low, thereby aggravating the State's prison cies in treatment planning, treatment imple­ overcrowding problem, mentation, and record keeping in sheltered The review focused on the activities ofthe care units, These deficiencies include lack Parole Board and the Department of Correc­ of individual written treatment plans, tions (DOC) in administering the parole pro­ cess. The study included an analysis of the o The department also needs to address se­ national parole data previously used for com­ curity issues in the sheltered care units, For parison to Virginia's parole rate, a review of example, current "Iockdown" policies at Virginia's parole laws and those of ten other Powhatan severely limit the access that states, an analysis of the efficiency with which inmates have to mental health services. the parole process was implemented, and a review of the decisionmaking practices of the o DOC should provide acute mental health Parole Board. care to female inmates. It is recommended This study found that, using more appro­ that the department proceed with the staff priate measures of parole, the State's parole plan to provide this treatment at the Marion rate was substantially higherthan the national Correctional Treatment Center. norm. Moreover, because of considerable varia­ tion in the factors that influence parole rates, o DOC needs to pursue DMHMRSAS licen­ conclusions about the adequacy of Virginia's sure of its sheltered care units. Licensure parole system should not be made strictly on

~1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page 17 Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

cross-statecomparisons of parole rates. Rather, DOC reports that, as recommended in the effectiveness ofthesystem should be deter­ the parole study, greater emphasis has been mined based on an assessment ofthe impact of placed on providing the Parole Board with the parole laws and the actual decisionmaking and post-sentence data itneedsfordecisionmaking. administrative practices of the Parole Board. The new parole guidelines have automated The review found and streamlined post­ that the Virginia Parole sentence reporting, and Board had made major parole eligible inmates improvements toitsmeth­ have been given the high­ ods for reviewing and de­ est priority. cidingcases. JLARC staff Another concern of noted that the Board was theJLARC study was the considering the use of a coordination of commu­ structured instrument for II nity resources to support determining an inmate's the Board's future plans risk of committing a new ~ to release more inmates felony. to residential treatment However, some beds. The 1993 General problems did remain. In Assembly required the particular,the parole laws Parole Board and the in Virginia allowed many inmates to establish Board of Corrections to ensure that treatment eligibility for parole much soonerthan the Board originated in prison continuesfollowing release. was ready to release them. This had produced The Parole board is assessing what needsto be inefficiencies in the review process. Addition­ done in order to increase availability of residen­ ally, many of the changes made by the Parole tial facilities for released offenders. Board to expedite the inmate interview and review process were being hampered by the inability of DOC to provide the Board with timely access to important inmate files. Finally, incon­ sistencies were found in the Board's decisionmaking process, becausethat process lacked the necessary policy base. The JLARC report recommended that the Parole Board adopt its structured instru­ In 1991, JLARC completed a year-long ment for determining an inmate's parole risk. In study of Virginia's parole system (see previous January 1992, the Board implemented guide­ article). During the course ofthat study, institu­ lines based on such risk criteria, along with a tional counselors within the Department of Cor­ procedural manual describing how the guide­ rections (DOC) expressed concern about the lines are to be applied. The Chairman of the level and quality of the rehabilitation programs Parole Board reports that since their implemen­ offered throughout the correctional system. tation, these guidelines have proved to be vi­ Prisoner rehabilitation effortscan have a signifi­ able decision-making criteria. Equally impor­ cant impact on the rate at which inmates estab­ tant, the time it takes the Board to make deci­ lish eligibility for and receive discretionary pa­ sions has been significantly reduced, from 45 role. Therefore, JLARC staff were asked to days to seven days. The Board was allocated extend the parole study to include an assess­ funding by the 1992 General Assembly to fur­ ment of DOC's system for deliveringcounseling ther refine the risk-predicting instrument by and treatment services to substance abusers updating the data on which it is based. and sex offenders.

1993 Report to the General Assembly,------L------Page 18 ~ Part Two ------.------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

The study found that, based on 1990 A recent status-of-action report from the data, a very high percentage of the inmates department listed the following study-related housed in State correctional institutions had activities: substance abuse problems or were convicted of some type of sexual offense. Overthe years, o In its "Standards for State Correctional Fa­ DOC had developed a loose network of institu­ cilities," implemented in January 1992, the tionally-focused services for educating andtreat­ Board of Corrections included new policy ing substance abusers and sex offenders. requirements that: However, the level of treatment needed in the prisons and field units was substantially beyond • there be a system of core programs (in­ the department's abilityto providethese services. cluding substance abuse and sex offender Due in part to a lack of DOC central programs) at each facility appropriate to the policymaking, a number of factors undermined needs of the inmates, the effective delivery of these treatment ser­ vices. For example, the lack of a standardized • treatment and professional services assessment tool for identifying inmates with should be provided by persons qualified by substance abuse problems, as well as inad­ either formal education or training, equate screening techniques for inmates with sexual deviancies, was causing counselors to • staff conducting substance abuse or sex overlook inmates in need of treatment. Also, offender programs should receive appropri­ the department had not developed guidelines, ate training policies, or standards to support the delivery of treatment services. Finally, many counselors o In May 1993, the Board of Corrections had little time to spend providing treatment adopted a resolution assigning a priority services and were not adequately trained to focus for 1993-94to therapeutic treatment of deliver them. substance abusers and The study noted sex offenders. that before considering any major expansion of o In accordance with substance abuse and theJLARC recommen­ sex offender treatment dation, DOC has de­ programs, DOC's cen­ veloped a six-yearplan tral office needed to put to identify resources in place a comprehen­ neededto phase insub­ sive policy and plan for stance abuse and sex use as a blueprint in offender services. The implementing treatment plan provides lor ser­ services in the institutions. The report pointed vices sufficient to treat 20 percent 01 the out that one approach the department could incarcerated population. This is the percent­ take for organizing such a treatment system age 01 the inmate population believed to be was the strategy it used to develop a mental suitable lor treatment at anyone time, in health delivery system. terms of their proximity to parole release and The 1993 Generai Assembly provided their amenability to treatment. The plan additional funding to assist the department in considers the department's needs in terms improving services to sex offenders and sub­ 01 assessment, two-tiered counseling staff, stance abusers. The Appropriation Act amend- training, multi-tiered program services, clini­ I ments totalling $674,000 were approved, in- cal supervision for staff, program evaluation, I cluding the addition of 19 FTE positions. and support services. Funding requests

! l1993Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page 19--..J Part Two ------,------~Recent Agency and Program Reviews

sufficient to fund the first biennium of the six­ State Mandates year plan have been submitted to the Gen­ on Local Governments eral Assembly. However, budgetary con­ and Local Financial Resources strictions have thus far prevented full imple­ mentation. In 1983, JLARC conducted a study of State mandates on local governmentsand local o DOC has improved the quality of substance financial conditions. This studyaddressed three abuse treatment services by adding addi­ primary objectives: (1) to identify State man­ tional treatment specialists at three thera­ dates and the extent to which they impose a peutic communities and at St. Brides Cor­ burden on local governments; (2) to examine rectional Center. the adequacy of the amount and type of State financial assistance to localities; and (3) to o DOC has provided 120 hours of substance determine whether local governments have abuse training to an additional 20 counsel­ sufficient local financial resources to fund the ors to prepare them for certification as sub­ public services they must provide. stance abuse counselors. This training is to The study found that, in general, local be continued with clinical supervision ser­ officials did not disagree with the substance of vices. State mandates, but were more concerned with the levels of State funding to meet those man­ o A 50-bed therapeutic community program dates. JLARC staff determined that State fund­ for sex offenders is being established at ing of mandates was substantial and that it kept Bland Correctional Center. pace with historical State commitments in all areas except the educational Standards of If improvements continue to be made to Quality, categorical aid for special education, DOC's treatment system, a stronger link to the and auxiliary grants. In these areas, State aid parole decisionmaking process will be pos­ was found to be inconsistent with levels of State sible. One potential benefit of such a linkage is control. the long-term reduction of prison overcrowding. As an appendix to the study, JLARC staff prepared an inventory of State mandates on local governments. Also as part of this study, JLARC staff developed a measure of relative local financial condition -- the fiscal stress in­ dex. Through this index, cities as a group Over time, the General Assembly has showed a higher level of fiscal stress than did focused considerable attention on improving counties. A 1985 update report showed little State/local relations. This is evidenced in part change in relative stress rankings. by a series of mandated JLARC studies, dating back more than ten years, which focus on various aspects of the State's relationships with Intergovernmental Mandates local governments. To some degree, each and Financial Aid study has grown out of previous ones, moving to Local Governments toward a clearer understanding of the State's role in, and impact on, local governments. The To address the continuing concerns of following summaries provide a brief overview local officials, the General Assembly in 1990 of the initial study and more detailed descrip­ directed JLARC to conduct a follow-up to the tions of the recent studies. 1983 study. The 1992 study focused on the major issues surrounding intergovernmental

L1993 Report to the General Assemblyl------L------Page 20 ipart Two ------,------Recent Agency andProgram Reviews

Funding Sources or eliminated, temporary suspension of se­ for Cities and Counties lected mandates, and the pilot-testing of man­ FY 1971 - FY 1991 dates prior to statewide implementation. In Shown as Percentage of Total Funds 70%,,---- ~ addition, JLARC recommended that a catalog High &;'% of mandates be maintained and periodically f updated to provide legislators with current, com­ 6O'%j------F~:.__--""""=--_I prehensive information about mandates on lo­ cal governments. 5<,,+- ---1 The General Assembly acted on several of these recommendations during the 1993 Session. Legislation was passed requiring all State agencies to review mandates imposedon local governments to determine if they should be altered or eliminated. State agencies are also required to consider whether regulations which impose mandates on local governments should be tried first on a limited basis to deter­ "O%f------i mine their effectiveness or impact. In a related action, the General Assembly extended the expiration period of the Governor's ability to suspend mandates for the purpose of alleviat­ ing fiscal hardship.

Fiscal Year Catalogs of State and Federal Mandates mandates and financial assistance, including on Local Governments the extent of local service responsibilities, the availability of local financial resources, and the As part of the study series, JLARC was adequacy of State financial and technical assis­ requested to identify the responsibilities of local tance to local governments, governments for provtdinq services in several Many of the concerns raised by local functional areas: education, mental health and officials during this study were similar to the mental retardation, public health, social ser­ issues discussed during the 1983study, These vices, and environmental protection. This was concerns included a lack of flexibility in the accomplished through a separate, comprehen­ implementation of mandates, inadequate fund­ sive catalog, which covered all current State ing for rnandates, unequal taxing authority for and federal mandates imposed on local gov­ cities and counties, and lack of adequate taxing ernments and the source of each mandate. authority for all localities, However, JLARC Although it built on the State mandates inven­ staff found that overall the State has played a tory from the 1983 report, the 1992 catalog stable role in providing revenues to local gov­ identified federal as well as State mandates. ernments, Conversely, the report noted that The catalog also identified concerns voiced by there had been a dramatic decline in federal local government officials about the mandates, revenues, despite the significant new federal as well as State agency responses to those mandates imposed on localities. concerns. The report presented alternative meth­ Mandates were identified through mail ods to reduce the adverse impact of rnandates surveys of State and local governments and in the short term, including: agency reviews of through a review of the Code ofVirginia and the mandates to identify those that could be relaxed Appropriation Act. On the State agency survey,

1993 Report to the General Assembly------.J------Page 21 Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

agencies were requested to list each State and A JLARC recommendation called for the federal mandate on local governments that catalog to be updated annually. The 1993 they monitored or administered. The survey Session passed legislation directing the Com­ also requested agencies to specify the type of mission on Local Governmentto undertake this each mandate -- whether a compulsory order, task. a condition of financial aid, or regulation of an optional activity. JLARC staff received re­ StatelLocal Relations and sponses from all of the agencies surveyed. Service Responsibilities: Forty-nine of the agencies reported administer­ A Framework for Channa ing mandates on localities. This process iden­ tified the majority of the mandates included in The 1991 Session directed JLARC to the catalog. examine the assignment of service and funding The catalog was a much-requested item responsibilities between the State and local upon publication, and supplies were quickly governments in order to determine whether depleted. Rather than reprint the original cata­ services are being provided by the appropriate log, the JLARC staff undertook an update, level of government In addition, JLARC was which was recently released (House Document requested to study the adequacyofthe local tax 2 of the 1994 Session). The updated catalog and debt structure in Virginia. showed an increase of 29 new mandates dur­ In conducting the study, JLARC staff ex­ ing the two-year period since the first edition. amined the trends and forces affecting the Brief discussions of the fiscal impact of the new Commonwealth to assess whether the current mandates are also provided. In addition, each assiqnment of responsibilities is appropriate in mandate's date of implementation is specified. today's rapidly changing environment The The catalog affirms that State and federal final report draws its findings and conclusions mandates on local governments are extensive, from a variety of sources, pulling together pro­ affecting most areas of local government activ­ posals from previous studies, along with the ity. As of April 1993, 391 State and federal expertise of State and local officials. This mandates on local governments were identi­ expertise was solicited through surveys and fied. Of these, 290 are solely State directives. through focus groups held across the Com­ Forty-five requirements are imposed solely by monwealth. the federal government The remaining 56 The study found that, overall, Virginia's mandates have both State and federal origins. State-local structure is sound. However, the The impact of these mandates varies from current climate of economic uncertainty,coupled minimal reporting procedures to significant ser­ with the federal government's unfunded man- vice requirements. I 1993 Report to the General Assem,bly------'-'------Page22 J Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews

dates on State and local governments, requires The report presents a long-term view of Virginia to re-examine the ways its service the critical choicesfacing the Commonwealth in needs are addressed. Service responsibilities lightof changing demographics, service needs, ofthe Stateand localities have evolved overthe and revenue availability at the federal, State, years in a sometimes piecemeal approach. As and local levels. The recommendations gener­ a result, some of the older service delivery ally identify long-range policy options or direc­ structures may no longerprovide services in the tions the General Assembly may wish to pur­ most efficient and cost-effective manner. sue. They could serve as a starting point in a JLARC staff reviewed the specific as­ dialogue with localities regarding the allocation signment of service responsibilities between of service responsibilities between State and the State and local governments to identify local governments. areas in which reassignment might be neces­ Additional study will be needed before sary. The report examines the following areas: any of the major options are enacted. Specifi­ administration of justice, transportation, educa­ cally, the methods of implementation and the tion, health and human services, environmen­ State/local costs will have to be determined. tal protection, general and financial administra­ Reflective of the General Assembly's continu­ tion, and the local tax structure. Broad options ing interest, a resolution (SJR 310) was passed are presented for the realignment of selected during the 1993 session to continue the JLARC service responsibilities. Options identified in­ review of State/local service assignments. A cluded: JLARC subcommittee has been named to co­ ordinate future study activities on a long-term o State assumption of local jail operations, basis.

o increasing State funding for construction of large, single-jurisdiction jails,

o requiring local governments toparticipate in the funding of secondary road and urban street construction,

o State assumption of local social services The General Assembly established the offices, Innovative Technology Authority based on rec­ ommendations from the 1983 Governor's Task o requiring an increased level of local govern­ Force on Science and Technology. The Center ment funding for local sheriffs' offices. for Innovative Technology (CIT) is a private, In addition, the report cites a number of non-profit corporation that serves as the oper­ overarching concerns with State/local relations. ating arm of the authority. CIT was formally Among the needs identified: incorporated on July 1, 1984. CIT's mission is to promote economic o improving communication between State and growth by enhancing the ability of Virginia uni­ local government officials, versities to develop and transfer technology to industry. It implements this mission primarily by o articulating a State vision and urban policy, co-sponsoring research projects with industry. CIT reports thatoverthe past seven years it has o focusing additional attention on regional funded more than 600 projects involving more service efforts and an integrated approach than 550 companies, 460 university profes­ to service delivery, sors, and 1,000 students. CITalso markets and licenses intellectual prope rty developed at the treatingcitiesand countiesmore alikegiventheir J o universities. In addition, some of CIT's pro- similar responsibilities and service needs. I L1.993 Report to the General Assembly ------Page23 PartTwo ------.------Recent Agency and Program Reviews l grams provide direct services to businesses strategies to promote economic growth in the , and industries across the Commonwealth. Commonwealth: maintaining its current efforts A review of CIT was mandated by Item to develop and transfer university-based tech­ 267 of the 1992 Appropriation Act. The act nology, increasing emphasis on efforts to sup­ directed that a review be conducted by an port high-technology industry, and aggressively independent committee comprised of mem­ pursuing research and development facilities bers from the Office of the Governor, the Sen­ and contracts in the federal government and ate, the House of Delegates, and the CIT Board private sector. of Directors. Representatives frorn business Substantial changes were recommended in and industry were appointed as industrial advi­ CIT's governance, administration, and account­ sors by the chairman. The Committee was ability. The Review Committee felt that the CIT jointly staffed by JLARC staff and Department Board should have greater industry represen­ of Planning and Budget staff. This was the first tation and include the Secretaries of Education comprehensive external review of CIT since its and Economic Development. The proposed inception. board composition would ensure the articula­ The Review Committee concluded that tion and coordination of industrial and State CIT has basically implemented the original interests. The CIT Board should be more legislative intent, despite some problems in the involved in setting policies, providing direction, areas of mission, governance, administration, and establishing strategic priorities. It should and accountability. Businesses sponsoring actively seek the involvement of key industry individual projects with CIT have been gener­ andtechnologyleadersth rough advisory boards ally satisfied with relationships and outcomes. and other mechanisms. The CIT President CIT also appears to have leveraged substantial should make substantial changes in the organi­ funds from industry and the federal govern­ zation, structure, and management of adminis­ ment. However, quantitative outcome mea­ trative functions. sures, such as the number of jobs Finally, the Review Committee concluded created and retained, have been that science and technology efforts should be limited. The Review Committee an integral part of an overall economic develop­ recommended that CIT continue ment plan for the Commonwealth. However, to develop its evaluation sys­ the Committee found that State stra- tem and that the CIT Board tegic plans for economic de­ of Directors approve an velopment and for evaluation process. science The Review and tech­ Committee recom­ nology I mended that CIT were expand its mis­ insuffici­ sion to in­ ent and clude three did not

1993 Report to the General Assembly------'------Page24 J Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program Reviews allow CIT to be an effective team player in report, containing the staff findings and recom­ meeting the objectives of the Commonwealth. mendations, was presented to the 1993 Ses­ The Review Committee recommended that the sion. 1993 General Assembly consider adopting a The review found that VAPA did not ap­ resolution requesting the Secretary of Eco­ pear to place an undue burden on agencies, but nomic Development to prepare a strategic plan needed strengthening to meet certain objec­ for economic development in the Common­ tives. The effectiveness of VAPA was limited wealth. It also recommended the creation of a because itfrequently did notapply to regulatory task force to coordinate the development of a activity, and because there had been executive statewide strategic plan for science and tech­ branch compliance problems in meeting exist­ nology. Both of these recommendations were ing requirements. These problems appeared to endorsed by the 1993 General Assembly. be due to a lack of knowledge, priority, or effort The 1993 Session also approved a number rather than to any unreasonableness of the of amendments to the CIT's enabling statutes, requirements themselves. It was found that in line with study recommendations. These State agencies needed to do a better job of included new mission language emphasizing explaining the basis, purpose, substance, and CIT's role in economic development, revised issues of their regulations, and to provide esti­ quidelines regarding the composition of CIT's mates of regulatory impact as statutorily re­ Board of Directors, establishment of a technical quired. advisory committee, and provision for continu­ The report emphasized the importance of ing external review. executive branch compliance with the Act, and The Review Committee recommended that recommended curtailingthe useof certainVAPA CIT be continued with the recommended exemptions. It also contained a number of changes and refinements. The Committee recommendations to promote meaningful pub­ further recommended that the current State lic participation in the rulemaking process and funding level be continued. fairness in the case decision process. Throughout the review, a subcommittee of JLARC met to receive public input and con­ sider the policy implications of the staff work. The subcommittee work resulted in two draft bills which were introduced during the 1993 Session. The first was an omnibus bill that The 1991 GeneralAssembly directed incorporated several revisions to VAPA. The JLARC to review the Virginia Administrative second bill provided a means for suspension of Process Act (VAPA). VAPA is the act which regulations by joint executive and legislative generally governs the regulatory proceedings action. of State agencies. It provides for public partici­ After some adjustments, both bills were pation in the regulatory process, as well as approved by the General Assembly and the certain forms of executive, legislative, and judi­ Governor. Among the changes in the Act cial review of regulatory actions. implemented by this legislation were the follow­ Issues raised in the study mandate in­ ing: cluded the efficiency and effectiveness of the Act and the meaningfulness of public participa­ o Guidelines for public participation have been tion. An interim report presented to the 1992 clarified and strengthened, inclUding those Session provided an overview of the Act and its related to public hearings, the opportunity to historical development, a discussion of study petition an agency to develop or amend a issues, and a summary of comments from a regulation, and the timetable for public com­ JLARC public hearing on the Act. The final ment after publication of intended regulatory

1993 Report to the General Assembly ------"------Page 25 Part Two ------,------Recent Agency and Program RCVieWS

action. Agencies are now required to send thorized under the act, for the purpose of to all public commenters on a proposed assessing whether such exemptions should l regulation the agency's summary response be discontinued or modified. to public comment o Specific time limits are placed on the render­ o To help improve the quality and consistency ing of decisions after informal and formal of agency statements describing the "basis, proceedings. New language provides for purpose, substance, issues, and estimated removal of, or possible disciplinary action impact" of regulations, specific definitions of against, hearing officers who fail to recom­ these concepts were added to the Act mend a finding within a reasonable period. o Regulations necessitated by an emergency o New language provides that the Governor situation continue to be excluded from the and the relevant standingcommittee of each Act Per a JLARC recommendation, how­ house of the General Assembly rnay sus­ ever, "emergency situation" has been de­ pend the effective date of a regulation until fined and clarified. Further, a standard regu­ the end of the next regular legislative Ses­ lation must be promulgated to replace the sion. This provides Virginia's elected offi­ emergency one if the agency wishes the cials with the ability to delay a regulation, if regulation to continue in effect after 12 necessary, until there is an opportunity to months. considerwhether a bill is needed to nullity all or a portion of the regulation. o JLARC is empowered to conduct periodic reviews of exemptions and exclusions au-

1993 Report to the General Assembly------'------Page26 The Virginia Medicaid program is a joint o assessment of the cost savings and health federal-state program authorized under Title policy implications of limiting the scope or XIX of the Social Security Act. It is the largest duration of optional services, or adjusting of the State's health care programs for indigent recipients' contributions to their care; persons. Total program expenditures for medi­ cal care were about $1.2 billion in FY 1991, o examination of the interpretation of federal representing a 30 percent increase from the requirements to determine ifthey have been previous fiscal year. In FY 1992, expenditures implemented in the most effective and least continued to grow, increasing by 16 percent to costly manner; about $1.4 billion. The number of persons receiving Medicaid services has also increased o review of budget and forecasting methods to significantly. In FY 1991, the number of recipi­ ensure that they adequately identify and ents grew by 17 percent to 428,650. Growth project the cost of policy changes, service continued in FY 1992, when the number of utilization, and new mandates; recipients grew about 16 percent to 495,516. In response to concerns aboutthe rapidly o determination of how the legislative branch escalating costs of the could increaseitscapacity program, the 1991 i "Interaction with the Joint Commis­ to more closely monitor General Assembly sion on Health Care and the budget Medicaidforecastsandex­ passed Senate Joint committee staffs was an important penditures; Resolution (SJR) 180. factor in the success of this study The resolution directed series. tt o exploration of the JLARC to conduct a costs of alternative ad­ comprehensive review of the Virginia Medicaid ministrative methods for implementing pro­ program and the indigent care appropriationsto gram requirements and options; the State teaching hospitals and the Medical College of Hampton Roads. The resolution o examination of the relationship with other targeted eleven specific areas for study: State programs to promote optimal utiliza­ tion of State funds; [J identification of options for using Medicaid funds for services currently supported with o review of eligibility, scope of services, and general funds; reimbursement rates for indigent care at University of Virginia Medical Center, Medi­ o determination ofthe sufficiency of reimburse­ cal College of Virginia Hospitals, and the ment rates to provide quality care at the Medical College of Hampton Roads, and a lowest required cost; determination ofthe appropriateness of gen­ eral fund and Medicaid allocation method­ o determination ofthe effectiveness of current ologies. utilization review procedures in controlling costs and exploration of additional options; Further, Senate Joint Resolution 91 re­ quested that JLARC assist the Joint Comrnis- , [J evaluation of reimbursement methods to sion on Health Care in determining the extent to I determine iftheyadequately encourage cost which Medicaid applicants used asset transfers I L effective delivery of services; to qualify for nursing home benefits. In addition, J 1993 Report to the General Assembly ....L ~ Page 27 Part Three -r-'- Medicaid Study seriesl

Item 13 of the 1991 Appropriation Act directed The preliminary findings from this report JLARC to evaluate the potential benefits of included the following: converting Virginia's Medicaid program to an insured arrangement, using a private insurance o Program costs had risen by 85 percent, from company to administer the program. $717 millionto $1.3billion, from FY 1987 to FY The range and specificity of the study 1991. Duringthistime,the number of Medieaid mandates necessitated a year-long, concerted recipients grew by 35 percent, from approxi­ staff effort focussing almost exclusively on Med­ mately 318,000to nearly 429,000. icaid. Interaction with the Joint Commission on Health Care and the budget committee staffs o The growth in the Medicaid program was was an important factor in the success of this largely attributable to deliberate program study series. Ultimately, eight Medicaid-related expansions at the federal and State levels. reports were produced, which are summarized These expansions, which appeared rea­ inthe following pages, along with legislative and sonable, included more services for indi­ executive branch responses. gent children and pregnant women.

o Program coverage of recipients in Virginia appeared modest, and the services pro­ vided did not appear extravaqant. Covered services were similar in scope to those that most other states provide. The first report in the Medicaid series provided a general description of the program o The report noted that although more people and presented information on expenditures, had become eligible for and were receiving eligibility, services reimbursed, service provid­ Medicaid-reimbursed services, access to ers, and the structure for funding services. primary care remained problematic for re­ Recent changes to the program were also ex­ cipients because of insufficient numbers of amined, along with their effects on program primary care physicians. costs and eligibility. In addition, the report presented preliminary research on the suffi­ o The Medicaid forecast and budget process ciency of reimbursement rates and reviewed appeared to be sound, and recent Medicaid the Medicaid forecast and budget process. forecasts had generally been accurate.

Medicaid Recipients Medical Care Expenditures by Recipient Groups Aged (65+) Blind and 71,493 Aged (65+) Disabled $431.5 million $417.3 million

Adults with Children 97,430 Children (Age 21 Children and younger) (Age 20 and younger) 192,646 5174.6 million Total Recipients = 428,650 Total Medical Care Expenditures: All graphics in this section are taken from the report series. $1,187,699,179

L1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page 28~ Part Three ------,------MedicaidStudy Series

Among the concerns noted in this report tinue to self-fund all but a very small propor­ were problems in the timeliness of Medicaid tion of benefit costs. eligibility determinations (a function of the De­ partment of Social Services), and lagging en­ o Market incentives in an HIO provide no rollmentsamong indigent pregnant women and apparent improvement in cost management children, which might be addressed through performance. The types of private market improved outreach efforts. The report also incentives associated with an HIO are al­ began to examine the issue of enrollees' ac­ ready in place in Virginia. cess to primary care, an area of concern to be further explored during the other studies in the o Program funding under an insured program series. might be less stable. TheHIO program used in Texas, for example, was not sensitive to the use patterns of recipient groups, making accurate estimates of premiums for the pro­ gram difficult and resulting insignificantfund­ ing shortfalls.

Under federal regulations for Medicaid, o Investment earnings associated with the states have some flexibility in how they admin­ use of an HIO have not proven strong in ister their Medicaid programs. Currently, three comparison to the performance of Virginia's basic administrative models are in use: the investments. Further, investment of such state agency model, the fiscal agent model funds by a contractor might be contrary to used in Virginia, and the health insuring organi­ existing State law. zation model. The models differ in the extent to which they use private contractors to perform The report recommended that Virginia some of the administrative functions of the retain its current administrative structure of the program. A JLARC special study examined the Virginia Medical Assistance Program. potential benefits of a health insuring organiza­ tion for the Virginia Medicaid program, and assessed the potential for program cost avoid­ ances. The health insuring organization (HIO) model is a variation of prepaid health insurance Although nursing home benefits are pro­ for Medicaid recipients. Under this approach, a vided to less than seven percent of the total state contracts with an insurance company for number of eligible Medicaid recipients, they the provision of health care services to the account for more than one quarter - $312 Medicaid-eligible population, andthe state pays million - of total program spending. The monthly premiums for each eligible recipient. growing cost of Medicaid-funded nursing home The insurance company reimburses Medicaid care has generated concernsabout assettrans­ providers for the services provided to insured fers and estate recovery. Anecdotal informa­ recipients. Only two states currently use the tion suggested that some program beneficia­ HIO model. ries were giving away assets in order to qualify The JLARC study concluded that the for this benefit. benefits of moving to an HIO arrangement were Senate Joint Resolution 91 (1991) re­ questionable, because: quested JLARCto assist the Joint Commission on Health Care in determining the extent to I 0 Little risk would actually be transferred to the which Medicaid applicants use asset transfers I insurance company. The State would con- to qualify for nursing home benefits. Inaddition,

LI 993 Report to the General Assembly ------'"------Page 29 Part Three ------,------Medicaid Study Serie the need for establishing an estate recovery ing for Medicaid benefits; restricting the use of program was examined. term life insurance policies as a method for This study found that a small proportion of sheltering assets; authorizing the recovery of Virginia's Medicaid applicants do take advan­ benefits paid on behalf of institutionalized Med- tage of loopholes in icaid recipients, to in­ thefederallawtoshift cl ude liens attached to thecosts oftheir care Total Resources Transferred real property; and to the taxpayer while by Type of "Loophole" Used implementing a preserving assets for proactive estate recov­ theirheirs. Morethan 21% Other ery program within the $14 million in assets 32% Departmentof Medical Delayed weresheltered inthis Application Assistance Services manner during fiscal and Multiple (DMAS). year 1991. Iffederal Transfer Several actions and State laws are have already been not adopted to dis­ 10% Combination~ taken in response to courage these prac­ study recommenda­ tices, the number of tions: 5% Paid Family persons who trans­ <, fer assets with the 20%Trusts 0 The 1993 General 10% Care Plans intentofqualifyingfor Assembly revised the

Medicaid nursing Applicants using loopholes =: 8% Code of Virginia to al­ home benefits could Average resources transferred e $25,265 lowliensto beattached grow significantly, Total transfers :;: to the real property of especially with the institutionalized Medic­ State's growing eld- aid recipients. DMAS erly population. reports that it is currently hiring staff to imple­ One strategy that could be used to defray ment this approach. a portion of the expenditures on nursing home care is an estate recovery program. Such a o Per a JLARC recommendation, the General program would allow the State to recover some Assembly limited the use of term life insur­ of the costs of nursing home care from persons ance policies as a divestiture strategy. (or from their estates) who have property at the time they are terminated from Medicaid. The o The Legislature closed another loophole, as JLARC staff's analysis showed that about 16 recommended, by voiding exculpatory percent of the Medicaid recipients terminated clauses regarding trusts which had rendered from nursing homes in Virginia did own prop­ trust principal and/or income unavailable to erty. It appears that the creator or the as much as two­ creator's spouse in the thirds of the cost of "According to national experts, these application for Medic­ providing nursing changesin Virginia's Medicaidlawscon­ aid. home care to these stitute one of the most comprehensive people could be re­ asset transfer and estate recovery pro­ o Legislation was al­ couped through es­ grams in the nation. " so passed requiring tate recovery. DMAS to implement a The staff recommendations from this proactive recovery program; however, no study included: requiring Clerks of Court to staff were provided. The Department is conduct property checks for all persons apply- requesting two additional staff for 1995. j

1993 Report to the General Assembly ------Page30 Part Three ------,------Medicaid Sl'udy Series

According to national experts, these to problems with expanded Medicaid eligibility changes in Virginia's Medicaid laws constitute policies, the increasing costs of care for per­ one of the most comprehensive asset transfer sons who are mentally retarded, effective use of and estate recovery programs in the nation. It community care, and the reimbursement sys­ is estimated that the asset transfer legislation tem for community-based care. will eventually reduce Medicaid expenditures Among the major conclusions of the 1992 by more than $5 million annually, while the study were the following: estate recovery legislation could eventually pro­ duce annual savings of around $9.7 million. o The current reimbursement system is well designed and appropriately considers most of the key factors which influence cost. However, payment ceilings need to be based on measures of efficiency in the nursing home industry. Also, the system does not adequately account for the higher operating costs faced by smaller nursing homes. Fi­ nally, reimbursement rates do not reflect Long-term care services, the focus of this costs associated with legislatively required study, are primarily targeted to elderly and criminal record checks and protection of disabled persons, and include nursing horne employees from bloodborne pathogens. I care, institutional careforthe mentally retarded, and a diverse array of community-based ser­ o Federal law requires that community care vices. Concerns about these areas are height­ programs target persons at risk of institu­ ened because of the changing demographics tional placement, and that community care of the State's population. With projected in­ costs not exceed the cost of institutional creases in Virginia's elderly population, the care. The study found, however, that over demand for many of the long-term care ser­ half of current recipients appear to be vices financed through Medicaid is expected to mistargeted, increasing Medicaid spending increase. by more than $16 million annually. JLARC previously reported on the status of long-term care in Virginia in 1978. At that o DMAS needs to take steps to expedite the time, the Medicaid payment rates were found cost settlement process. In addition, the to need revision, there was a lack of adequate department needs to strengthen its program cost controls, and there were serious concerns for the field auditing of nursing homes. about the quality of care in nursing facilities. In addition, the 1978 study found that rapid growth o The study affirmed that Virginia has the in the nursing home industry had been fostered discretionary authority to reduce the size at the expense of efficiency in many cases. and cost of its Medicaid program. However, Since 1978, the growth has continued, the outcome would be a reduction in ser­ with the number of licensed beds increasing vices to many elderly citizens who either live from about 14,500to more than 30,000 in 1991. at the economic margin or rely almost exclu­ However, the current issues in long-term care sively on Medicaid for support of their basic are notthe same as those in 1978. The creation health care needs. of the Department of Medical Assistance Ser­ vices (DMAS) to administer the Medicaid pro­ o In addition, the study explored a number of gram has promoted a stronger focus on im­ options for reducing the overall costs of proved management of the program. The Medicaid funded iong-term care services. issues facing the Commonwealth today relate I I L1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page 31 J Part Three ------,------Medicaid Study Series

DMASwas required by the 1993 General cal that policies which have the potential to Assembly to study ways to expedite the nursing contain the cost of these services be given home cost settlement, audit, and rate-setting serious consideration by the General Assem­ processes. In addition, funding was approved bly. However, even if some olthe cost contain­ for the additional cost of the criminal records mentmeasures recommended in this report are check. adopted, difficult decisions will haveto be made DMAS reports a number of recent re­ to significantly control long-term care costs. sponses to the study: o A detailed review of the higher indirect costs of smaller nursing facilities has been com­ pleted. o The department has implemented recom­ This study focused on Issues related to mended training for the screening commit­ Medicaid-financed inpatientand outpatient hos­ tees thatdetermine at-risk status of potential pital care, with an emphasis on program fund­ Medicaid recipients. ing and administration. The review found that these services are not extravagant. The pro­ o DMAS has established a work group to gram is conservatively managed and the ser­ study the low diversion rate by acute care vices provided are, with only a few exceptions, facility screening teams and to evaluate al­ those required by federal law. In fact, hospital ternative screening methodologies. providers have claimed that reimbursement has been overly conservative. In 1986, the o The department has eliminated some inappro­ Virginia Hospital Association (VHA) filed a law­ priate peer group distinctionsamong hospitals suit against the Commonwealth seeking to in­ and home heallh agencies which had previ­ crease inpatient reimbursement rates. ously been used in establishing fees and pay­ As a result of a 1991 settlement agree­ ment rates. The statisticalapproach for setting ment, no changes can be made to the hospital fees in each peer group has been revised. reimbursement systems until July 1996, except under specific circumstances. Moreover, this o To improve the post-payment review pro­ review did not identify problems which require cess, DMAS has hired additional staff posi­ immediate changes to the reimbursement sys­ tions and is currently developing new case tems. resolution procedures. While many of the issues cannot be ad­ dressed in the short term due to the lawsuit o Per another recommendation, a departmen­ settlement agreement, it is an appropriate time tal task force is reviewing troublesome as­ forthe General Assembly to begin preparations pects of the inspection-of-care process. for the possibility of reimbursement reform. Careful planning now will ensure that Medicaid o The department plans to expand its field hospital care can be provided effectively and auditing program as funding becomes avail­ efficiently in the future. Specifically, the Gen­ able. eral Assembly can set the goals of the Virginia Medicaid program and the hospital reimburse­ Recipients of long-term services consti­ ment systems to ensure that they: (1) promote tute just 10 percent of the Medicaid population, access to quality health care for recipients, (2) but they are already responsible for more than provide adequate reimbursementfor providers, 56 percent of its costs. Given the changing and (3) are cost effective for the Common- composition of the State's population, it is crtti- wealth. J

1993 Report to the General Assembly Page32 ,Part Three Medicaid Study seriesl I Among the major conclusions of the re- more cost effective. A prospective reim­ port are the following: bursement system could provide better in­ centives for hospitals to contain costs. o Medicaid hospital spending cannot be con­ trolled through Medicaid policy alone. o The hospital utilization review program ad­ Growth in spending has been driven by ministered by DMAS has saved consider­ multiple factors which are discussed in the able money, but could be expanded to report, including in- further reduce unnec­ creases in the price essary hospital proce­ of hospital care, an Medicaid Medical Care Expenditures dures. increasing number as a Percent of Total Medicaid Budget of recipients, and in­ FY 1980 and FY 1991 o DMAS' cost settle­ creased utilization. ment and audit pro­ The State's ability to Inpatient/Outpatient cess needs improve­ Hospital Services controlthese factors ment. JLARC staff is limited. Physician found evidence that Services six hospitals may o Reimbursement for Pharmacy have been over-re­ inpatient hospital Services imbursed by as much services has been Nursing Facility 33% as $1.2 million in FY generally cost effec­ Services 1986 and 87 because

tive. The current ap­ Menta! Health federal regulations proach isaprospec­ Services were not imple­ mented in the least tive payment sys­ Home Health and tem, as recom­ Personal Care Services costly manner. mended by JLARC Other 1s~] in 1979. Some spe­ Services A recentDMAS sta­ cific elements of the tus-of-action report system, however, (Key: !Iilll FY 1980 • FY 1991) included the following are cause for con­ activities relevant to cern: this study:

• Special treatment of State teaching hos­ o As recommended, DMAS has developed pitals inflates the Medicaid budget, but re­ procedures for automated cost settlement duces total general fund commitments. The and audit recordkeeping. long-term implications of this are unclear. o The department implemented a concurrent • Virginia has adopted a more generous utilization review pilot program at the Medi­ disproportionate share payment policy than cal College of Virginia Hospital in March. federal regulations require. o The department has completed an analysis • some rural hospitals do not fare as well as of the costs, benefits, and methodologies for other hospitals under the current inpatient conducting additional field audits of hospital reimbursement system. cost reports. Funding will be requested to support a greater emphasis in this area. o Reimbursement for outpatient hospital ser­ vices has ensured access, but could be

'---1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page33 Part Three "T" Medicaid Study Series

reimbursement for physician and pharmacy services was $406 and $322, respectively. The Virginia Medicaid program reim­ burses physician services on a fee-for-service basis, according to a fee schedule. This reim­ bursement is based on charges from a past In recent years, Medicaid expenditures claims year. Consequently, reimbursement for physician and pharmacy services have in­ may not keep pace with inflation in physician creased dramatically. These increases have practice costs and charges for services. Re­ been largely the result of growth in the number sponses to a 1992 JLARC survey of Medicaid­ of program recipients due to recent federal enrolled physicians support the conclusion that mandates expanding Medicaid eligibility. The Medicaid reimbursement of physician services U.S.Congress hasincrementallyextended Med­ is generally lower than reimbursement by other icaid coverage to larger numbers of uninsured third party payers. citizens by linking eligibility for certain catego­ Other findings from the study include the ries of individuals to the federal poverty income following: level. Consequently, the Medicaid program has become a de facto national health care o Patient cost-sharing through copayments program for many indigent persons. does not appear to be effective in controlling Medicaid reimbursement for ambulatory recipient utilization. care services (excluding hospital outpatient services) in FY 1991 represented about one­ o Educating recipients about patient responsi­ quarter ($280 million) of total Medicaid expen­ bilities and expanding Virginia's managed ditures for medical care. Of this $280 million, 80 care ("Medallion") program could improve percent or about $225 million was spent on physician participation. physician and pharmacy services. One of the reports in the JLARC Medicaid o Growth in pharmacy expenditures may be series was dedicated to an analysis of Medic­ slowing, due in part to the prescription drug aid-financed physician and pharmacy services. rebate program required by federal legisla­ In addition, this study overviewed other am­ tion. Some options exist for modifying phar­ bulatory care services provided through the macy reimbursement to allow the Medicaid program. An assessment was also made of program to more prudently purchase phar­ Medicaid efforts to contain program costs for macy services. These include imposing services through two specific mechanisms: (1) limits on pharmacy-related reimbursements post-payment review of program expenditures i inconjunction with the implementation of the and (2) activities to pursue third-party liability for prior-authorization program for high-cost services provided through the program. drugs. The study found that, despite the large increases in recipients andtheir attendant costs, o Utilization review activities to control fraud coverage through the Virginia Medicaid pro­ and abuse meet minimum requirements but gram employs a conservative reimbursement could be improved, and should receive methodology for physician services and is cost greater emphasis. effective. Recent increases in Medicaid physi­ cian reimbursement rates were necessary to o DMAS's third-party liability activities have maintain physician participation in the Medicaid been successful, but should incorporate program. In FY 1991, the program spent, on additional evaluative components. average, $688 per recipient to provide reim­ bursement for ambulatory care services. The Few actions have been taken to date on average cost per recipient to provide Medicaid this recent study. Per a report recommenda-

1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page34 PartThree ------,------Medicaid Study Series tion, DMAS attempted to obtain a waiver from need for the General Assembly to clarify its the U.S. Department of Health and Human position on certain of their reimbursement, eli­ Services to provide pharmacy services through gibility, and service practices. A significant selected pharmacies chosen in a competitive example was the use of indigent care funding process. However, thewaiverwasdenied. The for out-of-state patients. The review found that department reports it iscurrently collecting data State teaching hospitals were using their gen­ relevant to several other recommendations, eral fund appropriations to subsidize the indi­ and has placed increased emphasis on recipi­ gent care of non-Virginians, which cost the ent fraud detection activities. State about $2.6 million in FY 1992. Itwas found that the State needed a more comprehensive method for deciding indigent care funding levels at the teaching hospitals. Historically, these appropriations have simply been a percentage of the hospitals reported indigent care costs. A report recommendation This study addressed three specific di­ specified several additional factors that rectives contained in SJR 180, in the context of needed to be considered by the Department hospital care: of Planning and Budget. Other recommenda­ tions proposed strengthening the budget re­ o Review of eligibility, scope of services, and view process at the secretarial level. reimbursement rates for indigent care atthe The study uncovered several concerns University of Virginia Medical Center, the with the methods used by the Medical College Medical College of Virginia Hospitals of Vir­ of Hampton Roads to calculate its indigent care ginia Commonwealth University, and the costs. Several recommendations were made Medical College of Hampton Roads, and a to put this process on a more appropriate basis. determination of the appropriateness of gen­ The review found there were limited op­ eral fund and Medicaid allocation method­ portunities in the area of indigent care for opti­ ologies. mizing State funds. The State is already achiev­ ing major savings by using federal Medicaid o Examination of the relationship between funds to subsidize a portion of the non-Medicaid Medicaid and other State programs to pro­ indigent care provided at the State teaching mote optimal utilization of State funds. o Identification of options for using Medicaid funds for ser­ / Medicaid (51%) $117.2 million vicescurrentlysupported with SLH(1%) general funds. $1,6 million

The review showed that ~~ ICAP (41%) the State was the largest single $93.4 million source of indigent hospital care funding inVirginia. Furthermore, the two State teaching hospitals ',- Unsponsored were the major providers of this Indigent Care Spending Care (7%) care. These hospitals had been at State Teaching Hospitals $16.7 million accountable for the use of State in FY 1991 was $228 Million funds. However, there was a

1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page 35 Part Three ------,------l\1edicaid Study Series-. hospitals. New federal regulations and other o lowering the income standard for persons factors may make it difficult to expand this who establish eligibility as optional categori­ policy. However, the report presents the poten­ cally needy from 300 to 200 percent of the tial impacts of several options for consideration SSI benefit level ($14 million in savings if by the General Assembly, ranging from main­ initiated in conjunction with elimination of taining current funding levels and mechanisms benefits for the medically needy), to making significant funding reductions. Two legislative actions resulted from the o implementing a proactive estate recovery JLARC recommendations on indigent hospital program at the Department of Medical As­ care funding: sistance Services ($2 to $9 million in savings annually), o The Appropriation Act was amended to re­ quire that reimbursement of indigent care o eliminating mistargeting by improving the costs to the teaching hospitals be limited to screening process for persons seeking per­ costs incurred byVirginia patients only. This sonal care services ($4 to $16 million), amendment resulted in a reduction of $2 million from the University of Virginia's FY o adding staff at DMAS to conduct additional 1994 appropriation. Medicaid provider post-payment utilization reviews ($40,000 in savings per staff person o HJR 623 requested the Joint Commission added), on Health Care, in cooperation with the Govemor, to develop a long-term policy for o Add State Police staff to conduct additional the role of the State teaching hospitals and drug diversion investigations for Medicaid the Medical College of Hampton Roads in ($175,000 per staff person added), the provision of indigent care and medical education. Itisestimated that togetherthese recommended actions, some of which are already being imple­ mented, could save the Commonwealth $16 to $32 million annually. The final report also summarized a number of cross-cutting findings which had emerged from the series. Among the most important of these findings were the following: The final report of the Medicaid series summarized and reaffirmed the general con­ o Virginia'SMedicaid program is conservative. clusion of all the reports in the Medicaid series It provides for all federally-mandated ser­ -- that the State has very limited options for vices and many others that are optional, but controlling Medicaid costs. However, from the the program is not extravagant in the ser­ scores of recommendations made during the vices provided. Eligibility for the program is series, a few stood out in terms of the potential conservative largely because of its linkages to save money, among them: to other programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which have strict o implementing a prospective reimbursement eligibility requirements. system for hospital outpatient services, o Access to care is generally adequate, but o eliminating nursing home benefits for the problems related to the insufficient supply of medically needy ($10 million in savings), physicians in some parts of the State affect

1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page36J Part Three ------,------Medicaid Study Series

Medicaid recipients as well as all other Vir­ gram, Short-term cost containment would ginians, require benefit restrictions or eligibility limita­ tions, either of which would result in the loss o Medicaid spending in Virginia is not "out of of health care access to persons who live at control" - the increases are the result of the economic margins and are in need of inflation and decisions by the Congress and services. Long-term savings for the pro­ the General Assembly to expand eligibility gram can come only from general health and services covered, Cost containment care reform to control costs for all payers, practices implemented bythe Department of Medical Assistance Services have been Although JLARC's Medicaid study series successful in controlling hospital, long-term has now been concluded, further legislative care, and ambulatory care expenditures, and executive branch responses are expected over the coming biennium. The Joint Commis­ o The General Assembly cannot effectively sion on Health Care will play the lead role in control increasing Medicaid spending deciding how the findings and recommenda­ through restrictions on the Medicaid pro- tions in the report series should be acted upon,

l"" Report to the Cenerol'''"''''------l.------Page37 tion during the past two years. The following are excerpts from the VCCS Chancellor's status­ of-action report, highlighting some of the more important activities;

During the 1988 Session higher educa­ o In accordance with a JLARC recommenda­ tion was designated as the next functional area tion, a study was conducted to determine of State government to be reviewed by JLARC whether or nottuition increaseshad acted as under the Evaluation Act (see "JLARC's Pur­ a barrier to the enrollment of low-income pose and Role" for an explanation of the Act). students. To conduct the study, VCCS The 1989 Session further specified the studies convened a task force composed of State that should be undertaken, including a review of Board members, presidents, system office the Virginia Community College System staff, and other college representatives. The (VCCS). study results indicated that tuition was not JLARC had previously conducted an the single most important factor in determin­ evaluation of VCCS in 1975. That study com­ ing attendance; however, it was an impor­ mended VCCS for developing a comprehen­ tant factor. The study also revealed that sive system of community colleges that were students taking fewer than six hours (identi­ accessible throughout the Commonwealth in fied as a highly volatile group in the JLARC terms of location, admissions, tuition, and edu­ report) were disproportionately hurt by tu­ cational programs. However, the study also ition increases. VCCS responded to this found a lack of attention to day-to-day manage­ finding by successfully seeking a 50% in­ ment in both academic and administrative af­ crease in State discretionary aid and initiat­ fairs. ing a new financial aid program for students A portion of JLARC's 1990 study was taking fewer than six hours. Tuition contin­ dedicated to a follow-up of the earlier study. ues to remain a serious concern, given the Significant progress was noted in nearly all the trend of the last several years of shifting the areas identified in 1975; however, some opera­ burden of costs to students -- from an 80/20 tional improvements were still needed. For ratio in 1989-90 to 63/37 in 1993-94. example, curriculum oversightneeded strength­ ening, and system-wide articulationagreements o A JLARC report recommendation called for with senior institutions were lacking. The study VCCS to explore alternative strategies for also examined issues in mission and planning, instructional delivery, especially telecom­ organization of the system, resources, pro­ munications programming to serve multiple grams, personnel practices, and management service regions, and VCCS reports it is mov­ information systems. ing forward in this area. The Virginia Dis­ VCCS expressed agreement with the tance Education Network (VDEN) has is­ study findings and most of the 47 JLARC rec­ sued a directory concerning all distance ommendations. A number of the proposed education andtelecommunications program­ changes required self-study by the system and ming in the system. VDEN has also de­ its individual colleges before they couid be signed a memorandum of agreement which effectively implemented. Therefore, several of outlines financial, instructional, and support the study's major initiatives have come to frui- service arrangements between colleges. I 1993 Report to the General Assembly------~------Page 38~ Part Four·------,------S"tatus a/Previous Studies

The General Assembly funded a number of related initiatives for FY94. J. Sargeant • allowing VCCS to achieve decentralized Reynolds Community College will design a authority for maintaining public records of distance-education curriculum for delivering financial transactions, thereby reducing pro­ allied health programs throughout the Com­ cessing time monwealth. Old Dominion University will expand itscommunity college-based bacca­ • providing for the development of more laureateprograms (TELETECHNET)tothree comprehensive management reports forthe more colleges, bringing the total to five. With State Board for Community Colleges. funding from the Higher Education Equip­ ment Trust Fund, all 35 campuses will be o A JLARC recommendation encouraged de­ equipped with the technology to be a "re­ centralization, where appropriate, of per­ ceive site" for distance instruction. In addi­ sonnel functions. In February 1992, the tion, VCCS conducted a national search to Chancellor initiated a study of the locus of fill a newly-created position: Director of responsibility and authority below the State Instructional Technology. Board level. This study examined all system office functions, with a particular emphasis o To encourage systemwide uniformity in lo­ on the personnel functions. Initially the cal fund accounting, the JLARC study called college presidents submitted recommenda­ for colleges to operate with a single chart of tions for transfer of responsibility, along with accounts. InJUly1992, VCCS implemented their rationale for the changes, with the un­ a uniform system for local funds accounting derstanding that additional positions should at all of its colleges. InJuly 1993, this system not be expected. VCCS system office staff was implemented reviewed the recom­ for allStatefund ac­ "The results ofprojects related to the mendations and re­ counting. VCCS JLARC recommendations have led to fined them to a list of has, for the first improvements in the System's deliv­ responsibilities that time, all of itsfinan­ ery of academic Services and the op­ colleges could as­ cial resources ac­ erations of administrative services. sumeand have the au­ counted for under Also, a number of changes to VCCS thority to control. a single uniform policies have occurred because of Each college presi­ chart of accounts studies the System conducted in re­ dent then had the op­ and in a single au­ sponse to the JLARC review." portunity to request tomated account­ -- tram VCCS' status-at-action report delegated authorityfor ing system. The full a wide range of per- implementation of this accounting system sonnel functions: position classification for will afford the Community College System classifications in salary grades one through several advantages, including the following: seven currently in use at the colleges, clas­ sified starting pay, routine appointments and • allowing VCCS to discontinue paying the promotion for faculty employees, personnel Department of Accounts to key enter many system transactions, educational leave, and transactions that are automatically interfaced other miscellaneous areas of human re­ with CARS under the current system sourceadministration. Thirteen college presi­ dents requested the delegated authority and • enabling the VCCS system office staff to certified that they had qualified staff to as­ pull together information for financial state­ sume the additional responsibilities. ment preparation that, in the past, required The colleges are responsible for main­ substantial effort by each college taining documentation to support actions

993 Reportto the General Assembly------...L.------Page 39~ Part Four ------,------Status ofPrevious Studies

taken under their delegated authority agree­ o Another JLARC recommendation called for ments. These records will be subject to an SCHEY and VCCS to establish a standard annual post-audit by the office of human format for reporting student achievement resource services and affirmative action. data on former VCCS students, and to take Upon completion oftraining provided by an active role in assessingthat performance. systemofficestaff,the delegated This format was implemented, and se­ authority agreements niorinstitutionshavenow been wereimplemented inJuly reporting on student achieve­ 1993. ment of transfer students for The transfer of a two years. The program has considerable amount of rou­ been expanded into related ar­ tine personnel functions to more eas, and analysis of results has than half of the colleges, including begun. Preliminary assessment the two largest community colleges, indicates that community college will relieve the system office of a sizable students are performing well at administrative workload and has permitted senior institutions. Over 90 per­ the abolishment of a classification and com­ cent of the transfer students pensation supervisor position (salary grade tracked were found to be in good academic 13). After a review of the effectiveness ofthe standing. program in its first year, additional colleges are likely to request the authority. As the o The JLARC study found thatVCCS lacked a college human resource officers gain exper­ policy for managing off-campus instruction tise, the system will explore additional del­ and the use of part-timefaculty. InJuly 1992, egated authority. the State Board for Community Colleges revised the VCCS policy manual in regard to o JLARC recommendations required VCCS the employment of adjunct faculty. The to review its academic services and records revised statement requires each college to keeping. The internal audit section of VCCS develop and implement a management sys­ has scheduled an audit of the academic tem for adjunctfaculty including recruitment, activities for eight colleges during 1993-94. orientation, compensation, supervision, and General usage courses will be examined to evaluation. Further, each college must pub­ determine if they meet the criteria for audit. lish an adjunct faculty handbook. Course contact hours are also part of this audit. Fractional credit has been abolished, o Controlling VCCS student-to-faculty ratios per another JLARC recommendation. (within appropriate fiscal parameters) was a concern of the JLARC study. VCCS reports o To facilitate the transfer of community col­ it has established a methodology whereby lege students to senior institutions (a con­ mixed-funded (general fund plus tuition) re­ cern of the JLARC study), a joint SCHEV/ sources are allocated to a base enrollment VCCS Committee has produced a State for which the funding will support a reason­ policy on transfer. The policy includes state­ able configuration of resources. If colleges ments on acceptance and application of provide access to more than their share of credits, the transfer module, and communi­ this base enrollment, they do so with the cation and dissemination of transfer infor­ understanding that they must support the mation for community college students. Dur­ excess with only the tuition revenue thatthey ing the last year, the State Council appointed generate until such time as additional gen­ a Transfer and Articulation Advisory Com­ eral funds are made available to the system. mittee to act as a monitor and to support consistent transfer policies and practices.

1993 Report to the General Assembly------'------Page40 Part Four~------,------~tatus of Previous Studies o Another recommendation oftheJLARC study Further, both the number and costs of State was for VCCS to prepare a long-range facili­ publications were found tobe increasing sharply ties master plan which would address major -- a cause for concern, especially in a period of maintenance and renovation needs as well severe budget limitations. as new construction. A six-year capital The review found a lack of agency com­ outlay plan was completed in February pliance withState publications guidelines. Agen­ 1993, identifying all VCCS capital outlay cies seldom conducted assessments to ana­ needs forthe next three biennia. The priority lyze the need for their publications. Some order of the projects distinguishes between agencies were not utilizing the Office of Graphic immediate demands and long-term needs. Communications (OGC) as required for design All colleges will complete master site plans services. Distribution practices identified in the by January 31, 1994. Code of Virginia were not being adequately The VCCS is participating in a state­ followed, resulting in unnecessary costs. Fi­ wide study on the physical condition of nally, many agencies had no process in placeto Virginia's higher education facilities. A re­ gather agency-wide cost information on their port will be developed cooperatively with own publications. SCHEV. VCCS staff are currently partici­ The study recommended clarification and pating on a SCHEV committee formed for strengthening of printing guidelines by the Divi­ the purpose of reviewing the State Council of sion of Purchases and Supply (DPS) within the Higher Education's space guidelines. Department of General Services. Other recom­ mendations were directed to the Virginia State o VCCS's facilities planning and engineering Library and Archives (VSLA), which has impor­ office was reorganized effective August 1, tant oversight responsibilities related to agency 1992. The new organizational structure al­ publications. The study alsoencouraged greater lows more delegation to the colleges in attention to paper recycling efforts in State administering the capital outlay program, government. per a JLARC recommendation. Appropriate Shortly after the conclusion olthe JLARC capital outlay manager responsibilities have study, an executive branch study was under­ been delegated to those colleges which can taken as part of "Project Streamline." This study provide their own expertise. The use of made similar recommendations and reached contract services has been encouraged, and parallel conclusions. For example, in accord the five colleges in the southwestern region with a JLARC recommendation, agencies were have contracted with a facilities manage­ directed to identify specific and immediate op­ ment consulting firm. portunities for publication savings. By the fall of 1991, reported savings from this directive had amounted to over $13 million. To ensure continued savings and in­ creased cost-awareness amongagencies, DPS issued a significantly revised Agency Procure­ ment Manual in January 1993. The section on printing clearly explains the mandatory use of In 1989, JLARC staff followed up on an OGC by State agencies, and requires correc­ earlier study of State publication practices. The tive action for non-compliance. One-colorprint­ follow-up found that the majority of agency ing is required except for promotional publica­ publications were produced in an appropriate tions where the use of color is essential. The manner. However, some agencies were new guidelines also include a preference for inadvisedly using costly paper and multi-color recycled papers, and DPS has established printing, resulting in unnecessaryexpenditures. numerous contracts for recycled products.

993 Report to the General Assembly------L------Page41 Part Four ------,------Status of Previous Studies

VSLA reports that all the study recom­ needed to more efficiently and effectively pro­ mendations directed toward that agency have vide State agencies with computer services. now been implemented. These include revi­ DIT needed to expand and intensifyitstelecom­ sions to the "Agency Record of Publications" munications services. The study strongly sug­ form used for tracking publications cost data, gestedthat DIT'scomputerservices rates could and improved coordination and follow-up in be reduced through better financial manage­ collecting the required information from State ment In the area of staffing and organization, agencies. To accomplish these improvements JLARC conducted a detailed analysis of per­ a library committee, JLARC staff, and a repre­ sonnel, resulting in a number of recommenda­ sentative of the Council on Information Man­ tions aimed at reducing managerial layers, elimi­ agement worked together in recommending nating unnecessary positions, and reorganiz­ necessary changes to the Code of Virginia, ing the department more logically. which were adopted by the 1992 General As­ The study made a total of 65 operational sembly. recommendations. Previous editions of the Reportto the GeneralAssemblyhave provided considerable detail on departmental responses to these recommendations. Summarized be­ low are continuing DIT activities that have oc­ curred over the past two years:

o At the time of the JLARC study, DIT had 499 permanent positions, 19 in excess of its maximum employment level (MEL). This demonstrated that the merger which cre­ ated the departmentin 1985 had notachieved the expected economies in staffing. After the JLARC report, DIT instituted stronger staffingcontrolsand began downsizingwhere appropriate. The department reports that significant reductions have been accom- plished through an "Overall, JLARC'srecommendations were early retirement pro­ based on sound principles of manage­ gram, through some ment and fiscal controls which are unaf­ layoffs, and by not fill­ fectedbythe passageoftimeortnemyriad ing vacancies. For ex­ of changes which have occurred at DIT ample, of the 50 va­ since 1987. Agency management has in­ cancies occurring over corporated the substance of the JLARC the past two years, recommendations into itsphilosophyand only 18 were filled. In culture, and we continue to be gratified addition, the telecom­ with the enhancements that have been munications division achieved in the state's management ofits has been reorganized information technology resources. " and downsized (two - tram DfT's status-at-action report field offices were elimi- nated), and the sys­ tems development division has been further streamlined. Dlf's current MEL is 394. PartFour------~------Status of PreviousStudies o The JLARC study found that DIT's billing placed a higher priority on data security and rates were higher than necessary for recov­ contingency management, as recom­ ering expenses. This is no longerthe case. mended. While its workload has grown substantially (over 64% increase in Central Processing A major proposal included in the JLARC Unit time and 30% growth in customer study was to establish a State-level oversight transactions during the past two years), DIT board to set goals for information technology. has periodically decreased the rates it The responsibilities of this board - the Council charges State agencies on InformationManagement for computer services. (CIM) - were to include Ten rate reductions since statewidestrategicplanning, 1986 have cumulatively standard setting, and pro­ lowered CPU service curement. The CIM was to rates by about 85%, a to­ consistofseven publicmem­ tal savings of more than bers and the Secretaries of $314 million. Administration and Finance as ex-officio members. Ad­ o The department reports visory committees with rep­ major improvements in its resentativesfrom agencies, approach to competitive highereducationinstitutions, procurement, an area of and DIT would also be es­ concern in the JLARC re­ tablished. port. Through more strin­ The CIM was created gent oversight, the pro­ by the 1988 Session of the portionofsole-sourcepro­ General Assembly and was curements has declined functioning within a few significantly to about half months. The mission of the the 46% reported in 1987. The number of CIM is described in the Code of Virginia: "to vendor proteststocompetitive procurements promote the coordinated planning, practical has also decreased. Significant cost reduc­ acquisition, effective development, and effi­ tions have resulted from procurement-re­ cient use of information technology resources lated initiatives which promote competition serving the needs of agencies and institution of among equipment and software manufac­ higher education in the Commonwealth." To turers. In addition, DIT now works closely this end the CIM develops a comprehensive, with the Department of Minority Business statewide, four-year plan, which is updated Enterprise to ensure equitable contract so­ annually and submitted to the Governor. licitationof minorityfirms, another area ques­ The activities of the CIM are too numer­ tioned inthe JLARC report. ous to describe here, but are fully explained in the Council's annual reports. Sample activities o DIT reports it recently improved both the from the Council's recent work, as described by economy and the efficiency of its telecorn­ the Council's Director in a status-of-action re­ munications services when it migrated from port, are illustrated below: the old SCATS network to a vendor-pro­ vided "virtual private" network. This major o One of the more significant actions relating initiative is expected to save the Common­ to the Council is the incorporation of local wealth $6 million per year while enhancing governments into the statewide planning reliability and increasing opportunities for process. Local government representatives resource sharing. The department has also drafted legislation (enacted by the 1993

993 Report to the General Assembly------l------Page43 PartFour ------,------StatusofPrevious Studies

Session of the General Assembly) to estab­ o As directed by the 1992 General Assembly, lish an Advisory Committee on Local Gov­ the CIM has initiated a joint effort with the ernment. The Council is leading an effort to Commission on Population Growth and establish a high-speed "Information High­ Development. The two agencies are devel­ way" between State government and local oping a plan to implement a comprehensive governments,which would consolidate sepa­ data network that would support geographic rate agency data lines, reduce duplication information systems throughout the State. and costs, and improve services. Assisting in this effort is the Advisory Com­ mittee on Mapping, Surveying, and Land o In an effort to provide cost-effective "one­ Information Systems, which was added to stop shopping" for the citizen, the CIM's the Council in 1992. The plan is scheduled Agency Advisory Committee is working with for completion this fall. localgovernment representatives to develop a proposal for multi-agency, multi-govern­ o In cooperation with the Department of Ac­ mental kiosks. These kiosks would incorpo­ counts, the Department of Personnel and rate the features of an automated teller Training, and representatives from other machine, giving citizens a convenient way of agencies and universities, the CIM is devel­ paying traffic tickets, securing fishing li­ oping an Integrated Human Resource Infor­ censes, renewing vehicle registrations, mation System to replace the current CIPPS checking job opportunities, etc. and PMIS systems. The first phase, a con­ ceptual design and implementation plan, is o The Council is helping to develop an infor­ nearing completion. mation policy that balances the right to ac­ cess the government's electronic data banks with the individual's right to privacy. In an effort to formulate a rational government information policy for an electronic age, the 1993 General Assembly directed the CIM and the Institute of Bill of Rights Law to study four broad areas: access, a guaranteed under FOIA; public records; privacy, and In 1979, 1984, and 1988, JLARC per­ intellectual property. formed reviews or comprehensive follow-up studies of central garage fleet use and opera­ o The Council recently approved the Tele­ tions. Persistent problems found included un­ communications Tactical Plan for Virginia, derutilization of vehicles, improper commuting which addresses the development of a high­ practices, the need for better garage manage­ speed network capable to transmitting voice, ment, and the need for an improved rate-setting data, video, and images. Under the plan, methodology. universities will be asked to spearhead the Many of the continuing problems ap­ development of new communications con­ peared to result from confused authority and cepts forthe Commonwealth. The plan also responsibility for setting and enforcing fleet allows universities and qualifying State agen­ policies and regulations. JLARC therefore rec­ cies to purchase services directly from the ommended that the central garage car pool be vendor under the statewide contract negoti­ established as a division of the Virginia Depart­ ated by DIT. This option streamlines the ment of Transportation (VDOT), and that the process for a number of large universities Commissioner of Transportation have exclu­ while offering them a reduced rate. sive authority for managing fleet operations.

1993 Report to the General Assembly------L------~Page 44 Part Four·------~------Status of Previous Studies

The JLARC studies also made numerous other will result in a reportto the General Assembly on recommendations, including proposals for in­ fuel and maintenance cost savings as well as creasing user awareness and accountability, air quality benefits. revising vehicle assignment criteria, clarifying The vehicle replacement criteria estab­ and enforcing commuting regulations, limiting lished by JLARC set two measures for vehicle the garage's fund balances, revising vehicle replacement: odometer reading and life-to­ replacement criteria, and improving the collec­ date maintenance costs. The department re­ tion of vehicle assignment information. ports, however, that the replacement point es­ The 1989 General Assembly gave VDOT tablished for sedans andstation wagons (95,000 clear authority for fleet management, which is miles) has not been achieved, largely due to now accomplished by the department's Divi­ budgetary constraints. sion of Fleet Management Per JLARC recom­ VDOT has been working with JLARC and mendations, regulations regarding the assign­ the Department of Accounts to identify an ap­ ment of vehicles were tightened and more propriate level of fund balance for the central strictly enforced, resulting in significantly better fleet The model that has been developed vehicle utilization. Accountability over employ­ specifies a fund balance which is to be annually ees commuting in State-owned cars was con­ re-evaluated. It is anticipated that this ap­ siderably strengthened, and rate-setting and proach will eliminate further transfers of funds vehicle replacement criteria similar to those from the central fleet to the General Fund. recommended by JLARC were implemented. To reduce cash balances, excess funds were transferred to the General Fund. In addition, a JLARC recommendation that license plates for State and local public vehicles be redesigned was fully implemented by the Department of Motor Vehicles. VDOT's latest status report indicates that continued emphasis is being placed on several The Workers' Compensation Commis­ areas of study concern. VDOT recently com­ sion (WCC) is primarily responsible for admin­ pleted its own study of the justification for all istering and resolving claims under the Work­ State-owned passenger vehicles (including ers' Compensation Act The Act constitutes a those assigned to agencies), as well as an "no fault" type of insurance system though assessment of trip pool operation. New initia­ which employees receive partial wage replace­ tives have also been implemented in the areas ment and medical benefits for job-related inju­ of fuel conservation and vehicle procurement ries or disabilities. JLARC's 1990 review of Upon completion of its assignment study, WCC was part of a study series focusing on the the department recommended placing all State­ independent agencies of State government owned passenger vehicles under the same The review concluded that Virginia ap­ criteria for assignment as those pertaining to peared to be in satisfactory condition regarding central fleet vehicles. This recommendation workers' compensation rates. Further, active was implemented through a 1992 executive competition among insurance companies to order. Each State agency must now biennially write policies indicated that Virginia's system certify to the Secretary of Transportation that was healthy. However, numerous areas were the agency is in compliance with the assign­ found where changes to statutes or WCC man­ ment criteria. agement practices could strengthen the sys­ Per HJR No. 81 (1991), the department tem. is conducting pilot projects involving the use of Many of the report recommendations alternate-fueled vehicles. The 18-month trail concerned the Workers' Compensation Act as I L,993 Report to the General A55embly------'------~Page 45 Part Four------...,------StatusafPrevious Studies it appeared in statute. Following a lengthy o The adjudication of disputed cases was sub­ review by the Code Commission, the Act was stantially shortened through improved moni­ recodified effective October 1, 1991, incorpo­ toring, more efficient prehearing procedures, rating many of the JLARC-recommended and the use of alternative dispute resolution. changes. An emphasis was placed on clarify­ ing the Act through precise, user-friendly lan­ o Acting upon study recommendations, the guage. Commissioners began making internal or­ The statutory changes that were based ganizational changes to improve claims man­ on JLARC recommendations included achange agement. Improvements were also made in in the agency's name (it was formerly called the personnel orientation, training, manpower Virginia Department of Workers' Compensa­ planning, and the documentation of position tion); specification of the types of vocational responsibilities and procedures. rehabilitation services provided under the act; and authorization to recover expenses incurred The JLARC study has continued to gen­ underthe Birth-RelatedNeurologicalInjuryCom­ erate interest by the General Assembly and pensation Act, which is also administered by improvements by the Compensation Commis­ WCC. Limitations to the Uninsured Employer's sion. The 1992 General Assembly further Fund balance were revised to conform the fund amended the Code of Virginia, requiring the to current needs. The computation of the Commission to establish standards for approv­ statewide average weekly wage was revised, ing, certifying and regulating self-insurers. Af­ as recommended, to exclude federal employ­ ter public hearings in the summer of 1992, the ees. In addition, the Attorney General was Commission established and promulgated required to collect from uninsured employers detailed regulations in these areas. the amounts paid from this fund to injured SJR 54 of the 1992 Session referenced workers. the JLARC report and noted one of its principal Besides the codification changes, a num­ findings -- that the time frame for adjudicating ber of administrative, organizational, and inter­ disputed claims could be shortened. The reso­ agency changes were also implemented in lution established ajoint subcommittee to study response to study recommendations, among claims processing periods. At the conclusion of them: its study, the joint subcommittee directed the Compensation Commission by memorandum o Oversight of employers' and insurers' acci­ to issue "in a timely manner and with all due dent-reporting responsibilities was substan­ speed reasonable and practical "the formal tially increased. Improved communications, i opinions which result from its hearings and stricter enforcement of penalties, and a new reviews The Commission was also directed to automated system resulted in a marked take steps to ensure that the average weekly reduction in the average period for employ­ wage of a claimant is computed accurately and ers to file a first accident report. in a timely manner. The memorandum noted the success of o The Virginia Employment Commission es­ WCC initiatives promoting alternative dispute tablished necessary procedures for verify­ resolution, including the establishment of a ing the annual calculation of the statewide dispute resolution department to handle claims average weekly wage, a statistic that is vital short of litigation. The joint subcommittee to DWC's work with claimants. suggested that WCC continue pursuing such administrative initiatives to reduce claim pro­ o DWC's informational handbook for claim­ cessing times. The Compensation Commis­ ants was revised to assist claimants in ap­ sion regards this as a mandate to continue the plying for cost-of-living increases, an impor­ administrative initiativesalready begun inimple­ tant change to ensure equitable treatment. menting JLARC recommendations. ------~------pag"46J 1993Report to the General Assembly . <.- PartFour~------,------S'-'tatus afPrevious Studies

The joint review committee reported to claims against the UEF were being delayed the 1993 General Assembly via Senate Docu­ because the fund had the dual responsibility ment No. 42. This reportproposeda number of of both defending the claims and attempting legislative initiatives in line with JLARC recom­ to recover payments made by the fund. mendations, several of which were approved: o The 1993 General Assembly also provided o House Bill 1775 instituted civil penalties for an appropriation for the Commission to failure to have insurance or to file a First supplement its staff of hearing officers in Report of Accident or other required reports. order to help reduce the time for resolving The maximum penalty for failure to have claims. insurance was set Cooperative ef­ at $5,000. The bill forts between the also provided for "The JLARC review of 1990 contin­ Compensation Com­ paymentoHinesinto ues to be a basis for review of the mission and the De­ the Uninsured Em­ Commission's management policy partment of Rehabili­ ployers Fund. and operational procedure. It has tative Services (DRS) been three and a half years since have continued to im­ o House Bill 2175 is JLARC presented its recommenda­ prove services. Ac­ expected to help tionstothe General Assemblyand, as cording to DRS, these close the gap which may be seen readily from actions in joint efforts have re­ occurs upon non-re­ the 1993 session, its recommenda­ sulted in earlier and newal of policies. It tions continue to dominate changes more comprehensive prohibits nonrenewal in Virginia workers' compensation." screenings of poten­ ofworkers' compen­ -- From DWC's status-of-action report tial rehabilitation eli- sation insurance e nts, with an empha- policies or certificates of self-insurance un­ l sis on severe diShabilities and the neeDd fRoSr IonIg­ less the employer and the Commission re­ term or compre ensrve services. a so ceive 30 days prior notice. I reports that increased public relations activities have been initiated with insurance companies, o House Bill 1807called for the Compensation self-insured public/private groups, attorneys, Commission to promulgate rules conform­ and health care providers in order to promote ing as nearly as practicable to the discovery local awareness and appropriate referral rules of the Virginia Supreme Court. It was throughout the Commonwealth. also recommended that other rules and pro­ As a part of efforts to increase inter­ cedures to expedite processing of workers' agency cooperation, a new DRS representa­ compensation claims be adopted by the tive was assigned to the Compensation Com­ Commission. The Commission reports that mission. According to the Commission's status it has drafted rules to meet these require­ report, this has resulted in "aggressive and ments, and they are expectedto be adopted enthusiastic pursuit of the objectives recom­ in final form this fall. mended byJLARC." Computer programs have been developed to identify injured workers who o HB 1806 amended the Workers' Compen­ are potential subjects for rehabilitation. DRS sation Act so that the Commission may reports it is able to notify between 400 and 500 designate specific locations for hearings injured workers each month concerning avail­ without the previous statutory limitations. able rehabilitation services. As a result of o HB 1805 authorized provisional awards by orientation of Commission claims personnel the Uninsured Employers fund (UEF). This concerning rehabilitation requirements, the change was in response to a finding that availability of these services is made known to

I Y993 Report to the GeneralAssembly,------L------Page47 Part Four------,------Statusa/Previous Studiesl injured workers at an earlier time, when they are o application of minimum standards to an ex­ most needed. panded number of day care providers The Code changesthat were made to the Workers Compensation Act broadened the de­ In addition to the Secretary's actions, the scription of vocational rehabilitation services implementation of recommendations required available to injured workers, while at the same the cooperative efforts of several other entities, time providing a list of the specific services that including the General Assembly, the Depart­ are possible. Training and educational ser­ ment of Social Services (DSS), the Joint Sub­ vices are among those identified, as well as committee Studying Early Childhood and Day vocational evaluation, guidance, job develop­ Care Programs, the Virginia Council on Child ment and placement services. The Act now Day Care and Early Childhood Programs, and stipulates that services must take into account the Child Day-Care Council. During the 1989 the employee's vocational potential (i.e., apti­ and 1990 Sessions alone, the General Assem­ tude, pre-injury wage classification). This in­ bly considered about 35 pieces of day care creases the potential for involvement of DRS in legislation. The resulting statutory and regula­ vocational planning and the sharing of informa­ tory changes, many directly responsive to tion with WCC reviewers. JLARC recommendations, constitute a new system underwhich substantiallymore children and more providers are covered by State regu­ lation. During the past two years, child day care issues and the JLARC study recommendations have continued to generate responses in both the executive and legislative branches. The following actions were reported in a status-of­ JLARC's 1988-89 study of child day care action report from the Department of Social in Virginia was a major research effort involving Services: large-scale surveys of care users, care provid­ ers, and regulatory agencies; in-depth analysis o In line with a study recommendation, 1992 of the existing requlatory framework; and ex­ legislation established that licenses issued ploration of potential initiatives to improve care to child day centers and family day homes availability and quality. A full discussion of the may be issued for periods of up to three origin, issues, findings and impacts of this study successive years. This change was made to was provided in a special article included in allow flexibility in staffing and to reduce the JLARC's 1991 Report to the General Assem­ burden of paperwork on providers. How­ bly. ever, providers with a history of compliance Most of the study's 28 wide-ranging rec­ problems are to be closely monitored. ommendations were linked together in an over­ ture to the Secretary of Health and Human o Per another recommendation, DSS has de­ Resources. The recommended changes can veloped informational pamphlets for parents be briefly summarized as follows: about child day care. Over 7,000 of these pamphlets have been distributed in the past o revision of existing standards to focus on the year alone. health, safety, and well-being of children o As recommended, 1993 legislation allows o provision of information to parents to aid all school boards to establish day care pro­ them in locating and evaluating the appropri­ gramsoutsidetheregularschoolhours. School ate type of day care for their children. boards may contractfor care services.

L1993 Report to the General Assembly------'------Page48 PartFour~------,------0tatus of Previous Studies

o House Bill 1035 of the 1990 session had remain exempted, but must nowcomply with required the Child Day-Care Council to de­ expanded health and safety requirements, velop child care regulations for various cen­ including provisions related to criminal ter-based programs that were to become records checks. In addition, the statutes subject to licensure on July 1, 1992. How­ provide that DSS may perform on-site in­ ever, because of substantial concern and spections of religiously-sponsored centers confusion expressed by providers, as well for specified purposes and may investigate as the lack offunds to regulate the programs complaints. Examples of other programs newly subject to licensure, the General As­ now formally granted exemptions are orga­ sembly delayed implementation to give the nizedsportsleague activities, Sunday school Commission on Early Childhood and Child classes, and certain instructional or recre­ Day Care Programs time to resolve the ational programs. issues and make recom­ mendations. Subse­ • The new statutes delete quently, the 1993 Ses­ most of the old exceptions sion repealed HB 1035 to family day home licen­ and passed HB2380 and sure. The nursery school SB777,whichaddressed exception has been deleted both the provider con­ except under very specific cerns and many of the circumstances. Other de­ concerns of the JLARC leted exceptions applied to study. Among the more centers operated by public significant statutory Dil\! Care entities or hospitals. changes in line with Vaur Chlld's Second JLARC recommenda­ • The criminal records tions are the following: Game check law has been t\ GUide (0 SelecTIn(J amended to allow child care • "Child day program" t\nrJ IV1Ull1lfllnln(J Vour ChUd operators to review an CElre t\rrEln(jemel1l and other important care applicant's complete record categories and terms are by CIndl Smead and make a more informed Dr. Mal'lha Ross,,,"A...,!stamProfessor, formally defined, thereby JamesMadlwn Unive,~ decision about hiring staff. clarifying what kinds of services are subject to • New provisions encour­ licensure. These defini­ age the voluntary registra­ Cover of a pamphlet developed by DSS tions include clear lan­ tion of small family day guage regarding how children are to be homes. DSS will monitor at least 25 percent counted in determining SUbjectivity to licen­ of the registered homes every two years. sure. For example, "family day care home" has been changed to "family day home," and Proposed child day center regulations all children are included in the count except based on SB 777 and HB 2380 closed for public the provider's own children and children who comment on June 3, 1993 and are expected to reside in the home. Other exceptions to the be effective November 1, 1993. DSS plans to previous definition of family day care home begin issuing licenses to newly subject centers have been deleted. by the end of this year. The department has established a Child Day Program Oversight • Criteria for exemption and exception from Taskforce with representation from the diverse licensure have been clarified. Child day groups affected by the statutes. This taskforce , centers operated by religious institutions will provide guidance on implementing the laws

L993 Report to the General Assembly------~------Page 49....J Part Four -r-'- Status of Previous Studies in the most positive way for both children and for the Funding ofSheriffs, received the Legis­ providers lative Program Evaluation Society's 1991award for "Excellence in Research Design and Method." The standardsdevelopedduringthisstudy series could be used to objectively determine personnel costs. In addition, the final report of the series provides a numberof different choices for designing a new, systematic funding ap­ The five elected constitutional officers in proach. Among the most important consider­ Virginia localities are Commonwealth's attor­ ations are the share of costs to be borne by the ney, clerk of the circuit court, sheriff, commis­ State and local governments, the use of ability sioner of revenue, and treasurer. Directors of to pay as a factor influencing local shares, and finance are also recognized and funded by the adoption of a pre-payment system for distribut­ State as constitutional officers in five localities. ing State funds. For more than 200 years, constitutional officers The issues involved in funding the consti­ have provided a range of services to the citi­ tutional officers are complex and controversial. zens of Virginia. The General Assembly's interest in these is­ State funding for constitutional officers sues continues to be demonstrated: has dramatically increased in recent years, and presently amounts to one half billion dollars Senate Bill 248, introduced in the 1990 Ses­ each biennium. Yet the budgeting and reim­ o sion, provided a blueprint for the proposed bursement process used by the Compensation funding process and served as a starting Board has changed little overthe past 50 years. point for the discussion of the JLARC staff The 1988 and 1989 Appropriation Acts recommendations. directed JLARC to review the funding of consti­ tutionalofficers. The purpose ofthe review was o During the 1991 Session, the passage of to propose a more systematic and equitable House Joint Resolution 394 established the funding process for the General Assembly to Joint Subcommittee on Constitutional Offi­ consider. This review resulted in six separate cer Legislation to consider the JLARC staff but interrelated reports: a report on the status proposals and to work with representatives of part-time commonwealth's attorneys; four from the constitutional officerassociations in technical reports on statewide staffing stan­ recommending staffing standards and ad­ dards for sheriffs, Commonwealth's attorneys, dressing other issues raised by the JLARC clerks, and financiai officers, respectively; and report. a final report on the funding of all constitutional officers. o In the 1993 Session, bills in both houses The first phase of the review involved addressed specific quantifiablestaffing stan­ developing staffing standards using statistical dards for sheriffs' offices, based primarily models. These models are based on actual upon workload. HB 1870 passed the House staffing levels, and upon measures of workload but was not reported out of the Senate that have clear relationships to the staffing for Finance Committee. all constitutional offices in the State. Data collection through comprehensive surveys of The 1993 General Assembly also en­ these offices was a major study effort. This acted HB 1516, which relates to part-time review was the first such effort to methodically Commonwealth's Attorneys. A JLARC report consider funding for the more than 600 consti­ recommended that full- or part-time status of tutional offices in the Commonwealth. One of Commonwealth's Attorneys should be deter­ the reports from the series, Staffing Standards mined based on workload. Further, a locality's I 1993 Report to the General Assembly------"------~Page 50--1 -Part Four·------..,.------'>Ctatus of Previous Studies

population and crime rates could be used to by the new Superintendent of Public Instruc­ assess the need for full-time status. HB 1516 tion. Because DOE was to be reorganized, the allows for any Commonwealth's Attorney lo­ focus of JLARC's review was shifted to the cated inajurisdictionwitha populationof 10,000 reorganization plan and process. The study or greater to elect to move to full-time status assessed the formative stage of the new de­ when (1) the change is requested by the partment, one year after the effort to reorganize Commonwealth's Attorney and (2) the change was initiated. is approved by the Compensation Board under The scope ofthe reorganization was with­ criteria set forth in the legislation. The criteria out precedent in Virginia State government are based primarily on workload requirements, For example, 64 percent of the agency's 453 and include consideration of other factors that classified positions were abolished and 228 were assessed in the JLARC study, such as new positions created, for which department arrests and the presence of a penal facility employees had to apply and compete in an within the jurisdiction. open recruitment process. Also, in the new The State Compensation Board has de­ organization management initiated an effort to veloped a priority listing of jurisdictions poten­ shift most ofthe department's work from perfor­ tially impacted by the legislation. Jurisdictions mance by individual assignments to perfor­ on this list may request full-time status to be mance by multi-disciplinary project teams. effective July 1, 1994. The Compensation These teams were to "compete" for project Board is to indicate increased budget amounts workthrougha"request-for-proposal"approach. necessary to finance these changes in its bien­ The review found many of the reorgani­ nial budget request The number of jurisdic­ zation goals to be admirable, such as reducing tions permitted to move to full-time status will bureaucratic layers and improving service de­ therefore depend on the amount of money livery. However, the quick reorganization time­ appropriated by the General Assembly for that table, combined with the enormous scale of purpose. change that was attempted, created some po­ In its recent status-of-action report, the tentially serious management and organiza­ Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council tional concerns. There were also concerns expressed the need for accurate staffing stan­ about whether the reorganized department dards for full-time offices, so that adequate would be able to fully address its mission. funding may be provided for prosecutors' of­ DOE reports that over the past two years fices. The Council's administrator also ex­ a number of the concerns noted in the JLARC pressed concern about turnover in report have been addressed: Commonwealth's Attorney's offices, the result­ ing decrease in cumulative experience among o As recommended, DOE has developed a prosecutors, and shortage of training funds. detailed operational manual describing the work process of the department, including mission and goals, roles and responsibili­ The Reorganization of the ties, regional services, and technical assis­ tance. Department of Education , 0 The JLARC study team was concerned that The 1990 General Assembly directed several of the key work processes being JLARC, as part of its series on elementary and implemented by the department had never secondary education, to study the organization been tested. Of particular concern was the and management of the Department of Educa- concept of divisional competition as the ba­ . tion (DOE). Subsequently, however, a major sis for awarding project work. DOE's status­ 'reorganization of the department was initiated of-action report notes that a recent internal l 993 Report to the General Assembly------"------Page51 Part Four------,------Status of Previous Studies

study did find procedural inefficiencies in the process, and that modifications had to be made. The major change was from award­ ing the RFPs based on divisional competi­ tion to awarding them based on collabora­ tion between divisions. In addition, the divi­ The 1989 Session directed JLARC to sion chiefs and deputies have been given "review the Commonwealth's economic devel­ increased authority concerning performance opment policies and the organization, manage­ of the work, and new guidelines have been ment, operations and perforrnance" of the De­ developed for team composition and size on partment of Economic Development (DED). DOE projects. The two-year project resulted in three JLARC publications. An interim report, consisting of an o In line with another JLARC recommenda­ overview of study activities and the proceed­ tion, the department is developing a person­ ings of a workshop on economic development, nel directory based on individual areas of was presented to the 1990 Session. Two expertise, functions, projects, and activities. reports were presented to the 1991 Session: a This directory should facilitate referrals. Per review of economic development policy and another recommendation, the department programs, with major emphasis on DED; and a has developed several mechanisms for ob­ comprehensive catalog - the first of its kind in taining feedback and suggestions from em­ Virginia - of economic development organiza­ ployees. tions and programs throughout the State JLARC's review found that overall, the o Another cause for concern was the magni­ State has been relatively successful in its eco­ tude of departmental staffing cutbacks in the nomic development activities. However, since areas of vocational education and teacher the State has conducted these activities without certification. The department reports that a formalized written policy or policy develop­ the work process in teacher certification has ment process, these efforts have not been fully been reviewed by its internal audit unit and maximized. Recommendations from the study that numerous operational recommenda­ focused on improving the State's activities by tions are now being implemented with the establishing a comprehensive written policy goal of increasing efficiency without having and process. to hire additional staff. The changes are A major JLARC recommendation was scheduled for completion late this year. implemented by the 1991 General Assembly to A lead specialist for vocational educa­ ensure that State-level policy regarding eco­ tion has been hired, and the department nomic development will be clear and explicit in reports that, with new leadership, several the future. Statutes now require the Secretary innovative programs are now under way. of Economic Development, and a cabinet-level The department is also in the process of committee appointed by the Governor, to de­ assessing its progress in addressing the velop and implement a comprehensive eco­ vocational education needs identified in the nomic development policy during the first year current State Plan for Vocational Education. of each new administration. Further, a scheduled updating of the Plan for In its status-of-action report, the depart­ FY 95-96 will include input from the DOE ment noted several recent activities related to Management Council, the State Board of the JLARC report: Education, and public hearings around the State. o A study recommendation called for DED to increase the level and type of community development assistance available from the

L1993 Report to the General Assembly------L------Page 52 Part Four~------r------:otatus afPrevious Studies

Division of Tourism. The department re­ tions, ensure compliancewith State policies, ports that since the study, the division has and document activities. DEC reports that a launched a tourism accreditation program to policy and procedures manual has been assist communities in developing a viable developed for accounting, budgeting, and tourism/economic development program. procurement. A human resources proce­ According to the department, this program dures manual is under development. Fur­ has been well-received by the travel industry ther, in the industrial training program, uni­ and local officials. Sixteen communities form procedures have been established for have enrolled. Additional assistance has monitoring project budqets, conducting file also been offered in the areas of public maintenance, and completing project docu­ relations programming, tourism strategic mentation. In the industrial call program, planning, and sales promotion. visit reports have been standardized and new tracking procedures implemented. o As recommended DED has expanded the scope of its industrial call program to include When the Commission was initiallybriefed additional key basic industries. Regional on the economic development study findings, distribution centers andcorporate headquar­ Commission members expressed concern ters of basic industries have been added as about impending federal defense cuts and their targets. In addition, regarding visits to areas impact on the economy of Virginia. A task force which have business retention problems, organized by the Secretaryof Economic Devel­ DED has lowered the employment level opment released an interim report on this topic guideline to include smaller sized compa­ in May 1990. At the Commission's request, nies. Finally, routine joint visits to industries JLARC staff examined this report and the major have been discontinued, as recommended, issues involved. in favor of more productive individual visits. The analysis concluded that additional emphasis ought to be given to developing pro­ o Per another recommendation, the Depart­ files of the defense industry in Virginia and ment reports it has strengthened the ac­ military personnel stationed in the State. Other countability of the small business develop­ recommendations called for linking existing eco­ ment centers by clarifying the definitions and nomic development programs to areas of the reporting processes related to client ser­ State likely to be impacted by cutbacks, and vices and program impacts. Also, a policy examining the approaches of other states to and procedures manual aimed at further this problem. clarifying definitions and standards utilized The department reports that several de­ throughout the small business development fense conversion initiatives are under way. network is currently being written. DED is seeking federal funding in several pro­ gram areas defined by the Congress' 1993 o In line with another recommendation, cer­ Defense Authorization Act. For example, DED tain agency public relations functions have is proposing the creation of a Virginia alliance been consolidated. The Department also for manufacturing competitiveness, which would reports that recent initiatives have brought provide assistance to small and medium-sized about improvements in internal communica­ manufacturers negatively impacted by military tions, another concern mentioned in JLARC downsizing. Several other initiatives are also in review. the planning stages. o The study found the department lacking in written procedures to guide agency opera-

993 Report to the General Assembly------'------Pilge53 Part Four------,------Statusof Previous Studies

Increases in the Number and Capacity of Homes for Adults FY 1979 to FY 1990

In 1990, JLARC followed up on its 1979 evaluation of Virginia's adult home system, FY which had identified numerous problems af­ 1979 fecting licensing standards and procedures, the Auxiliary Grants Program, and the health and FY 1990 safety of residents. The follow-up review found -IC:::;::-----.-~------....----__,_____~~-~_ _t' that although improvements had been made, o '00 200 300 400 500 the problem of providing adequate care and protection had been exacerbated by a sharp increase inthe numberof residents with serious FY mental health or medical needs. Homes are 1979 now caring for a more diverse population of FY mentally and physically impaired adults. Some 1990 residents are receiving medical-type treatment !L=::::::::=::;===:=:::::;:::=:::::::==j to care fortheir impairments, whereas ten years o 10,000 20,000 30,000 ago this care would have been available only in nursing homes. The follow-up review concluded that the FY regulatory system did not adequately protect 1979 residents of adult homes. The report noted that FY system-wide changes were necessary, as the 1990 statutory and regulatory framework did not ad­ o 10,000 20,000 equately recognize the role into which adult homes have evolved: a primary source of long­ term care for disabled adults. The study made essary to implement this system, a Levels of numerous specific recommendations, which Care (LOC) Task Force has been created. were described in the 1991 Report to the Gen­ Chaired by Deputy Secretaries from Health and era/ Assemb/y, and which subsequently re­ Human Resources, the task force is staffed by ceived the support of the Secretary of Health DSS personnel and is composed of more than and Human Resources, the Long-Term Care 30 representatives from other state agencies, Council, the Department of Social Services, the advocacy organizations, local department of Department of Mental Health, Mental Retarda­ social services staff, and homes for adults tion and Substance Abuse Services, and the providers. Four subcommittees have been Department of Health. established in the areas of auxiliary grants, Several of the reforms recommended by services/special services, operations/plant, and the JLARC follow-up are still in the process of case management. being implemented. A major recommenda­ Many of the issues raised in the JLARC tion of the study was the establishment of a study and proposed solutions will be consid­ tiered system of care. The 1993 General As­ ered by the LOC Task Force. These include the sembly enacted House Bill (HB) 2280, creating development of standards for medical proce­ a two-tiered system of licensing for Virginia's dures, medication management, staffqualifica­ home for adults. tions, facility design, equipment, food service, To advise the Department of Social Ser­ and training for both home administrators and vices (DSS) in developing the regulations nee- staff. Final recommendations for proposed

1993 Report to the General Assembly------.J------Page54 Part Four·------r------Status afPrevious Studies regulations are expected inOctober 1993. The o A report recommendation called for staffing proposed regulations will be presented to the standards to be developed for homes pro­ State Board of Social Services for consider­ viding higher levels of care. DSS subse­ ation' and are to be implemented by June 1, quently adapted and piloted a method to 1994. predictstaffing needs accordingto caregiving The JLARC report recommended that, routines. The pilot results are being com­ once an LOC framework was established, aux­ piled for presentation tothe LOC Task force. iliary grant payments should be linked to the levels of care. HB 2280 established such a o Another study recommendation called for linkage, providing maximum reimbursement increasedmonitoringofcasedecisionmaking levels for "residential" and "assisted" living by the two field offices (which have since levels. been consolidated). DSS reports that a DSS reported several other report-re­ caseload management system has been lated activities in its most recent status-of-ac­ developed which provides staff with a struc­ tion update: ture for assessing facility performance. This system defines the levels of supervision o Per a JLARC recommendation, the depart­ required for each facility, and identifies facili­ ment has developed a uniform needs as­ ties that need special attention for risk reduc­ sessment instrument, which hasbeen tested tion. Faclltties with a history of compliance in three case management pilots. The in­ problems are now subjectto increased visits strument will be further honed by the LOC and monitoring. Task Force. HB 2280 requires a uniform assessment of each resident upon admis­ sion and at subsequent intervals.

993 Reportto the General Assembly------..l------Page55 used by otherstatesfortaxing PSC property. A final report is required prior to the 1994 Session.

Local governments use assessments by central State agencies as a basis for taxing public service corporations (PSCs). However, Item 15 of the 1992 Appropriation Act the extent to which local governments rely on directed JLARC to review the increasing costs revenue from the property tax on PSCs varies of inmate health care. The mandatedefines the greatly. In FY 1991, one county received over study objective as determining 'the appropriate 70 percent of its total revenue from PSC taxa­ level of inmate health care while developing tion, while one city received less than one mechanismsfor restraining the growth of costs." percent. Inmate health care includes dental care, Senate Joint Resolution 309 (1993) di­ mental health care, and medical services. Within rected JLARC to study local taxation of PSCs. the 37 major corrections institutions and field Specifically, the mandate requests JLARC to units, health care services are provided by examine the following issues: more than 335 full-time department employ­ ees, plus additional contract personnel when o the range of local property tax rates on PSC necessary. In addition, the department em­ property, ploys five health services staff in the central office. o the effect of local property tax rates on PSC An interim report on dental care was utility rates, reported to the 1993 Session of the General Assembly, and the study of mental health care o the relationship between local property tax was recently completed (see summaries of rates and the value of PSC property, these reviews on pages 15-17). Reports will be made to the 1994 Session on medical services o alternative methods of taxing PSC property, and the organization and management of in­ mate health care within the department. o the effects of modifying the current methods The reviews in this series will assess a of taxing PSC property. number of common areas:

Research on this study will include iden­ o the effects of legal requirements on the tification of local taxes and tax rates on PSCs, provision of services, State taxes and fees assessed against PSCs, revenues accruing to both the State and local o the adequacy of access to services, governments from these taxes, the roles of the State Corporation Commission and the Inter­ o the major cost components associated with state Commerce Commission in regulating rates the provision of the services, charged by PSCs, the factors affecting site selection of PSC facilities, and methodologies o the cost effectiveness of service delivery,

o the efficiency of current staff utilization. 1993 Report to the General Assembly------J------Page56 Part Five T'" Work in Progress

In addition, the studies are to identify and evalu­ areas of overlap with other State organiza­ ate cost containment options available for men­ tions, tal health treatment and medical services. The department has a decentralized o whether staffing and resource levels of OPT approach to inmate health care which results in are appropriate to the department's work­ budgetary and procedural decisions being made load and adequate to meet current service at the institutional and regional levels. Central requirements, office staff act primarily as advisors to correc­ tional health care staff working in the facilities. o to what extent OPT's main functions can be Preliminary analysis indicates that central of­ achieved while giving agencies greater au­ fice staff lack systematic, descriptive, statewide thority and accountabi Iityfor decisionmaking, information about many aspects of inmate health care. The lack of information hampers the o whether the State has an effective strategic effectiveness of the central office in controlling planning mechanism for its personnelfunc­ both the cost and the quality of inmate health tion. care. The JLARC study series will evaluate how inmate health care could be better orga­ A major research activity will be a mail nized and managed to more effectively control survey of all executive branch and independent costs, provide services, and ensure quality agencies to obtain information on personnel controls and accountability. staffing and agency perspectives on the organi­ zation and management of the personnel sys­ tem. The study findings will be reported this fall to both JLARC and the newly-created Joint Commission.

Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 279 of the 1993 Session established a Joint Commission on Management of the Commonwealth's Work The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) is Force. The Joint Commission is to study com­ a statewide retirement system established in pensation, personnel, and management poli­ 1952. At the end of FY 1992, VRS had more cies and recommend ways to improve Virginia's than 300,000 active members and retirees in personnel system. One provision of SJR 279 the system and assets totalling more than $14 requests JLARC to study the organization, billion. House Joint Resolution 392 and Senate management, staffing, and resource require­ Joint Resolution 251 directed JLARC to study ments of the State personnel function in con­ the VRS and the State's group life insurance junction with the Joint Commission. Much of program. A major focus of the study will be the this review will focus on the Department of investment policies of the Virginia Retirement Personnel and Training (OPT). System's Board olTrustees and the investment The JLARC research effort will assess operations and practices of the agency's pro­ the following areas: fessional staff. Overall, the study will assess seven ma­ o a "big picture" of the activities, costs, under­ jor issues: lying philosophies, and other characteristics of the State personnel function, to include o the structure of the retirement system fund,

1993 Report to the General Assembly ------"------Page57 Part Five ------,------Workin Progress o the structure and appointment process for Commitment Fund, which was appropriated the Board of Trustees, $17.1 million for the 1990-92 biennium. This fund covers the expenses associatedwith evalu­ o the role and appointment process for the ations, temporary hospitalizations, and fees investment advisory committees, associated with commitment hearings for indi­ viduals who are alleged to be mentally ill to an o the organizational relationship between VRS extent that may require hospitalization. The and its subsidiary corporations, fund, however, does not cover the costs of transportation or the hospitalization costs paid o the soundness of the system's investments, by Medicaid for these individuals. including the Board of Trustees' decision to The involuntary commitmentprocess has purchase the RF&P Corporation, been assessed by other study groups in recent years, but many issues still appear to be unre­ o the actuarial soundness of the pension fund, solved. Item 15 of the 1993 Appropriation Act directed JLARC to "examine fiscal issues re­ o the rate structure for the group life insurance lated to the Involuntary Commitment Fund and program. the operational and policy issues involving the involuntary commitment process." The study is The scope, complexity, and sensitivity of mandated to be completed prior to the 1994 this review promise to make it one of the most Session of the General Assembly. A JLARC demanding studies ever undertaken by the study team has been assigned, and the re­ JLARC staff. In addition to a sizeable staff search planning stage has been completed. research effort, this study requires contractual services in several important areas: an actu­ arial review of the soundness of VRS, a review of VRS' investment performance, a tax liability review of VRS' investment in the RF&P Corpo­ ration, and an actuarial review of the group life insurance program. Competitive selection of In 1992, JLARC staff conducted a review qualified consultants was a major first step in of the assignment of service delivery responsi­ the review process. The contracted work is now bilities between the State and local govern­ well underway, and assessment oftheconsult­ ments. Based on that review, several propos­ ants' reports will be another important phase of als for realigning service responsibilities were the study. The study will be reported to the presented. They are included in the report, 1994 Session. State/Local Relations and Service Responsi­ bilities: A Framework for Change (See pages 20-23 for summaries of the State/local relations series). SJR 310from the 1993Session requested JLARC to continue studying State/local service assignments. Specifically, the study is to focus Involuntary commitment is a complex on the developmentand examination of options process involving sheriffs, private mental health necessary to effect reallocations of service practitioners, the legal community, community responsibilities and the fiscal impact of those service boards, private hospitals, State mental options. An interim report is to be presented to health facilities, and the Virginia State Supreme the 1994 General Assembly Session, and a Court. The Court administers the Involuntary final report prepared prior to the 1995 Session.

1993Report to the General Assembly------'------Page58 Part Five ------,------Workin Progress

Senate Joint Resolution 239 of the 1993 House Joint Resolution 529 directed Session directed JLARC to inventory JLARC to study the practices that lead to the underutilized and unused State-owned prop­ siting of solid and hazardous waste facilities erty, and recommend methods for disposing of and the effect of these practices on minority such property. Proceeds from the disposal of populations. Various national and regional this property could be available as general fund reports suggest that there may be a greater revenue. An interim report is required for the propensity for these facilities to be located near 1994 Session, and a final report is to be submit­ minority communities. It has been suggested ted for the 1995 Session. that there is a relationship between the factor of race and the siting of the facilities even after accounting for other potential factors, such as income, and thatthe siting of these facilities has a detrimental effect on minority communities. JLARC is requested to study the past and present policies and processes used in siting, maintaining, and cleaning up these facilities in SJR 240 (1993) directed aJoint Subcom­ Virginia. The review is to examine whether mittee to review the allocation formulas and these practices have had a disproportionate sufficiency of revenues for the Transportation impact on minority communities, and to recom­ Trust Fund. Public hearings were held during mend steps that could be taken to address the summer to solicit the input of interested problems that may be found through the study. parties and the general public concerning allo­ The study is to be completed for the 1995 cation of transportation Trust Fund monies and Session. related issues. JLARC staff are directed to provide technical assistance for the Joint Sub­ committee.

The JLARC staff report on the Virginia DepartmentofTaxation (see pages 13-15) was JLARC's 1986 corrections series is still briefed to the full Commission in December influencing a number of corrections activities. 1991. Due to the complexity of the issues, the The studies included an assessment of prison Commission appointed a subcommittee to fur­ and jail population trends. To enhance correc­ ther examine the findings contained in the re­ tions planning,aJLARC recommendation called port. for the creation of an ongoing consensus com­ In addition, Item 270 in the 1992 Appro­ mittee of appropriate executive branch officials priation Act directed JLARCto assistthe Secre­ to review population forecasts. This committee tary of Finance in developing a plan to correct was created with both policy and technical the deficiencies identified in the JLARC report. functions, and the JLARC methodologist is The plan is to "include a process for monitoring currently providing technical assistance. new and expanded programs."

L1993 Report to the General Assembly ------'------Page 59 Part Five ------,------Work in Progress

Commission oversight of the department provides graphic design, layout, photogra­ is continuing. The department has been asked phy, and typesetting services to State agen­ to brief JLARC on its report-related activities cies; this fall. o The Bureau of Building and Grounds, (Department of General Services), which provides general building maintenance ser­ vices to the General Assembly, the Depart­ ment of Transportation, and the State Cor­ SJR 18 of the 1988 Session designated poration Commission, and assesses main­ Higher Education as a functional area of State tenance charges for services provided to government to be reviewed under the Program other State agencies; Review and Evaluation Act. Reports have been published addressing a number of the issues, o The Statesurplus Property Division, (De­ principally through JLARC's 1990 review of the partment of General Services), which man­ Virginia Community College System. Remain­ ages and disposes of surplus property for ing areas to be reviewed include: capital outlay, State agencies and institutions; land, and maintenance, and the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. These studies o The Federal Surplus Property Division, have been delayed with Commission acknowl­ (Department of General Services), which edgment because of other project priorities. procures and disposes of Federal Surplus property;

o The Computer Services Division, (De­ partment of Information Technology), which provides data processing services to State agencies; Internal service funds are monitored on a u The Systems Development Section, (De­ continuing basis. The Commission reviews the partment of Information Technology), which status of fund accounts, and evaluates re­ provides automated systems design, devel­ quests to change the nature and scope of the opment, and maintenance services to State services provided or the customers served. agencies; The Commission also approves in advance the rates employed by fund managers for billing u The Telecommunications Division, (De­ customer agencies. Funds of nine entities are partment of Information Technology), which currently monitored by JLARC: provides telephone and data transmission services to State agencies; o The Central Warehouse, (Department of General Services), which stores and distrib­ The Central Garage, (DepartmentofTrans­ utes various goods such as canned foods, o portation), which operates the State's car paints, paper products, and cleaning sup­ pool, and manages the fleet of passenger plies to State agencies, local governments, vehicles. and school divisions; On an ongoing basis, the Commission o The Office of Graphic Communications, considersand approves rate changes requested (Department of General Services), which by the internal service fund managers.

1993 Reportto the General Assembly------'------Page 60 Program Evaluation: The Virginia Community College The Sunset Phenomenon, December 1977 (authorized by System, March 1975 (authorized by Section 30 -58.1,Code House Joint Resolution 178), 89op. Third and final report of of Virginia) 151pp. Evaluated Virginia's Community College the HJR 178 study. Containslegislation recommended to the System, and identified administrative and educational is­ General Assembly. sues requiring attention by VCCS, the Council on Higher Education, and the Legislature. Long Term Care in Virginia, March 1978 (authorized by Section 30-58. 1,Codeof Virginia) 110pp. Assessed the cost Program Evaluation: Virginia Drug Abuse Control Pro­ and quality of nursing home care and Medicaidfunding. First grams, October 1975 (authorizedbySection 30-58. 1, Code in a series of reports on medical assistance programs. of Virginia) 201 pp. Evaluated education, law enforcement, adjudication, treatment, and other control functions of the Medical Assistance Programs in Virginia: An Overview, State's drug abuse programs. June 1978 (authorized by the 1978 Legislative Program ReviewandEvaluation Act) 95pp. A descriptive report which Operational Review: Working Capital Funds in Virginia, focused on the individual programsthat make up the medical February 1976 (authorized by Section 2.1-196.1, Code of assistance system in Virginia. Second in a series of reports Virginia) 70 pp. Assessed the use and management of on medical assistance programs. working capital funds by State agencies and institutions. Virginia Supplemental Retirement System Management Special Report: Certain Financial and General Manage-­ Review, October 1978 (authorized by Section 30-60, Code ment Concerns, Virginia Instituteof MarineScience, July of Virginia) 96 oo. Provided a management review of the 1976 (authorized by Section 30-58.1, Code of Virginia) 15 VSRS to complement a financial audit of the system con­ pp. A review of VIMS, focusing on financial and manage­ ducted by the State Auditor of Public Accounts. ment problems. Operational Review: The Capital Outlay Process in Program Evaluation: Water Resource Management in Virginia, October 1978 (authorized by Section 30~58.1, Virginia, September 1976 (authorized by Section 30-58. 1, Code of Virginia) 94 pp. Reviewed the planning, budgeting, Code ofVirginia) 178pp. Evaluated State laws and manage­ and implementing procedures ofthe capital outlay process in ment programs designed to provide protection against flood­ the State. Focused on authorized construction, and also ing, ensure adequate water supplies, and control pollution of reported on unauthorized construction activity. Virginia's water resources. Special Study: Camp Pendleton, November 1978 (House Program Evaluation: Vocational Rehabilitation, Novem­ Document No. 3 of the 1979 Session, authorized by House ber 1976 (authorized by Section 30-58.1, Code of Virginia) Joint Resolution 14of the 1978 session), 58 pp. Examined 130 pp. Evaluated the vocational rehabilitation programs the utilization of Camp Pendleton, the needs of the Virginia managed by the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation National Guard for training facilities, and the needs of adja­ and the Commission for the Visually Handicapped. cent communities for public-purpose land.

Operational Review: ManagementofState-Owned Land Inpatient Care in Virginia, January 1979 (authorized by in Virginia, April 1977(authorizedbySection 30-58. 1,Code Section 30~58.1, Code of Virginia) 118 pp. Reviewed State of Virginia) 64pp. Assessed the processes for management programs that provide hospital care to the indigent Third in and disposition of land owned by State agencies and institu­ a series of reports on medical assistance programs. tions. Outpatient Care in Virginia, March 1979 (authorized by Program Evaluation: Marine Resource Management Section 30-58.1, Code of Virginia) 73 pp. Reviewed outpa­ Programs in Virginia, June 1977 (authorized by Section tient health care programs provided to the poor by local 30~58.1, Code ofVirginia), 80pp. Evaluated State programs health departments. Fourth in a series of reports on medical for managing marine resources and the administrative effi­ assistance programs. ciency of agencies in implementing these programs. Management and Use of State-Owned Motor Vehicles, Sunset, zero-aase Budgeting, Evaluation, September July 1979 (authorized by Section 30-58.1, Code of Virginia) 1977 (authorized by House Joint Resolution 178) 84 pp. 68 pp. Evaluated the utilization of State-owned passenger Transcribed text of a two-day conference sponsored by vehicles and appropriateness of management procedures, JLARC on the concepts of Sunset, Zero-Base BUdgeting, and Legislative Program Evaluation. Certificate-of-Need in Virginia, August 1979 (authorized by Section 32-211.17, Code of Virginia) 105 pp. Examined Special Report: Use of State-Owned Aircraft, October the operation of the Medical Care Facilities, Certificate of 1977 (authorized by Section 30-58.1, Code of Virginia), 23 Public Need Law to determine if it has served the public pp. Assessed the cost, utilization, and management of interest State-owned aircraft. Recommended a needs assessment and the implementation of appropriate policies and guide­ 1979 Report to the General Assembly, August 1979 (au~ lines. thorized by Section 30-58.2, Code of Virginia) 32 pp. Pro­ vided general information about the Commission and sum­ zero-ease Budgeting?, December 1977 (authorized by marized studies conducted from 1974 through 1979. House Joint Resolution 178) 52 pp. Text of prepared remarks and taped testimony from a budget forum held in Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Ex­ August 1977 on Zero-Base Budgeting and its potential tension Division, September 1979 (authorized by Section relevance for use in Virginia. 30~58.1, Code of Virginia) 118 pp. Reviewed the operation

1993 Report to the General Assembly ---L Page 61 Part Six ------,------AnnotatedBibliography

and administration of the VPI&SU Extension Division, focus­ funding limitations on local welfare agencies, and the ad­ ing on program expansion, duplication of effort, and organi­ equacy of social service policy. zation and staffing. Organization and Administration of Social Services in Deinstitutionalization and Community Services ~ spe­ Virginia, AprJ11981 (authorized by Senate Joint Resolution cial Report, September 1979 (authorized by Section 30~ 133 of the 1979 Session) 126 pp. Assessed the effective­ 58. 1,Code of Virginia) 84 pp. Assessed release procedures ness of the Department of Welfare in providing support and at State institutions for the mentally ill and mentally retarded oversight of welfare programs. Evaluated child care centers and the linking of discharged clients with appropriate ser­ and family day care homes to determine the adequacy of the vices. One part of a comprehensive review of the State's licensing process. mental health care programs. 1981 Report to the General Assembly, July 1981 (2nd Special Study: Federal Funds - Interim Report, Decem­ Biennial Report, authorized by Section 30*58.2, Code of ber 1979 (House Document No. 16 of the 1980 Session, Virginia), 38 pp. Summarized studies conducted by JLARC authorized by House Joint Resolution 237 of the 1979 from its inception through 1981. Focused on agency re· Session) 42 pp. Provided background information on the sponses to oversight findings and recommendations. intergovernmental aid system. Reviewed the growth and distribution of federal funds in Virginia. Highway and Transportation Programs in Virginia: A Summary Report, November 1981 (Senate Document No. Homes for Adults in Virginia, December 1979 (authorized 6 ofthe 1982 Session, authorizedbySenate Joint Resolution by Senate Joint Resolution 133 of the 1979 Session) 73 pp. 50 of the 1980 Session) 57 pp. Summarized the studies Evaluated the State's homes for the aged, infirm, and dis­ conducted under SJR 50, which focused on the admlntstra­ abled. Examined the licensure and inspection process of the tion of the DHT, highway and transit need, revenues and State Department of Welfare and the administration of the methods of financing, and the fair apportionment of costs auxiliary grant program. among different vehicle classes. Highlighted the principal findings and recommendations of each study. Managementand Use ofConsultants by StateAgencies: Operational Review, May 1980 (authorized by Section 30­ Organization and Administration of the Department of 58. 1, Code of Virginia) 73pp. Assessed the need for and the Highways and Transportation, November 1981 (Senate use of consultants by State agencies. Made recommenda­ Document No. 7 ofthe 1982 Session, authorizedby Senate tions to increase competitive bidding and improve documen­ Joint Resolution 50 ofthe 1980 Session) 132 oo. Evaluated tation and accountability. the efficiency and effectiveness of DHT's management and administrative processes, the adequacy of the department's The General Relief Program in Virginia, September 1980 organizational structure, and selected operational issues. (authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 133 of the 1979 Session) 66 pp. Examined the accuracy of the eligibility Highway Construction, Maintenance, and Transit Needs determination process and assessed key aspects of case in Virginia, November 1981 (Senate DocumentNO.8 ofthe management in the Virginia General Relief Program. 1982 Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 50 of the 1980 Session) 78 pp. Assessed highway construction Federal Funds in Virginia: Special Report, October 1980 needs, including construction of new highways, mainte­ (House Document NO.6 of the 1981 Session, authorized by nance of existing roads, and public transportation. Provided House Joint Resolution 237 of the 1979 Session) 122 pp. funding options for consideration by the Legislature. Focused on federal influence over State and local programs and evaluated the procedures by which federal funds are Vehicle Cost Responsibility in Virginia, November 1981 sought, utilized, monitored, and controlled. (Senate Document No. 13 of the -1982Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 50 of the 1980 Session) 85 pp. Federal Funds in Virginia, January 1981 (authorized by Presented findings and conclusions of an analysis of high­ House Joint Resolution 237 of the 1979 Session) 20 pp. way tax equity. An empirical investigation of the relationship Summary study that assessed the impact of federal funds on between costs for construction and maintenance and rev­ State agencies and local governments. Provided tntorrna­ enues generated by various vehicle classes. tion on the implementation of recommendations from earlier reports on this subject. Highway Financing in Virginia, November 1981 (Senate DocumentNo. 14ofthe 1982 Session, authorizedbySenate Methodology for a Vehicle Cost Responsibility Study: Joint Resolution 50 ofthe 1980 Session) 103 pp. Analyzed Interim Report, January 1981 (Senate Document No. 120f methods of financing highway needs in Virginia by an exami­ the 1981 Session, authorizedby Senate Joint Resolution 50 nation of the State's highway financing structure and tax of the 1980 Session) 65 pp. Discussed the methodology to structure. Presented estimates of future revenues to be be used in carrying out JLARC's vehicle cost responsibility generated by taxes and offered financing alternatives. study. Methodology was based on Virginia's highway pro­ grams, construction and maintenance standards, and rev­ Publications and Public Relations of State Agencies in enue sources. Virginia, January 1982 (Senate Document No. 23 of the 1982 Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 166 of Organization and Administration of the Department of the 1981 Session) 115 pp. Assessed the value of the Highways and Transportation: Interim Report, January publications of State agencies, and other public relations 1981 (Senate DocumentNo. 14ofthe 1981 Session, eutnor­ efforts. Recommended changes in reporting requirements ized by Senate Joint Resolution 50 of the 1980 Session) 85 to achieve savings. pp. Examined staffing, equipment management, contract administration, construction planning, and fund allocation. Occupational and Professional Regulatory Boards in Virginia, January 1982 (Senate Document No. 29 of the Title XX in Virginia, January 1981 (authorized by Senate 1982 Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 50 of JointResalution 133 ofthe 1979Session) 103pp. Reviewed the 1980 Session) 163 pp. Examined occupational and the use and administration of Title XX funds in Virginia, professional regulatory boards in Virginia. Provided baseline including the types of clients and services provided, the data on each board and areas of special legislative interest. adequacy of financial controls for the funds, the impact of

1993Reportto the General Assembly------L------~Page 62 Pari Six ------AnnolatedBibliography

The CerA Program Administered by Virginia's Balance.­ or-state Prime Sponsor, May 1982 (House DocumentNo. till m¥ 3 ofthe 1983Session, authorizedby House JointResolution c& % 268 of the 1981 Session) 128 pp. Assessed the effective­ Proceedings of the ness of CETA programs through a review of adult training contractsand client follow-up. Conference Working Capital Funds in Virginia, June 1982 (House on Legislative DocumentNO.4 ofthe 1983 Session, authorizedbySection 2.1-196.1, Code of Virginia) 89 po. Reviewed Virginia's Oversight workingcapitalfunds and evaluatedselectedareasof man­ agement of each of the five funds in existence at that time: Computer Services, Systems Development, Telecommuni­ cations, Centra! Warehouse, and Graphic Communications.

The Occupational and Professional Regulatory System in Virginia, December 1982(Senate DocumentNO.3 ofthe 1983 Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 50 of the 1980 Session) 136 pp. Evaluated Virginia's system for occupational regulation, including 29 regulatory boards, the Board and Department of Commerce, and the Commission and Department of Health Regulatory Boards. Reviewed administrative rulemaking, enforcement of laws and regula­ tions, and selected aspects of agency management.

Interim Report: Equity of Current Provisionsfor Allocat­ ing Highway Construction Funds in Virginia, December 1982 (House Document No. 17 ofthe 1983 Session, autho­ rized by the 1982Appropriations Act) 183 pp. Assessed the reasonableness, appropriateness, and equity of statutory provisions for allocating highway construction funds among the various highway systems and localities. (See final report of June 1984, which enlarged this study).

Consolidation of Office Space in the Roanoke Area, December 1982 (Senate Document No.8 of the 1983 Ses­ sion, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 29 of the 1982 Session) 66 pp. Examined the feasibility, desirability, and I I cost effectiveness of consolidating State agency offices " located in the Roanoke area. Special attention devoted to a leasing proposal from the City of Roanoke. Cover from a JLARCspecial publication

Staffing and Manpower Planning in the Department of The Economic Potential and Management of Virginia's HighwaysandTransportation, January 1983 (House Docu­ Seafood Industry. January 1983(House DocumentNO.2 of ment No. 18 ofthe 1983 Session, authorized by Items 649.2 the 1982Session, authorizedby House Joint Resolution 59 and649.3ofthe Appropriations Actofthe 1982 Session) 120 ofthe 1982Session) 213pp. Analyzed the regulation of the pp. Reviewed the Department of Highways and commercial fishing and seafood industries in Virginia, as­ Transportation's manpower plan, the planning process, and sessed their economic potential, and suggested policy alter­ the resulting staffing actions. Identified staffing economies natives. possible through increased productivity and administrative improvements. Follow-Up Report on the Virginia Department of High~ ways and Transportation, January 1983 (House Docu­ Consolidation of OfficeSpace in NorthernVirginia, Janu­ ment No. 34 of the 1983 Session, authorized by House Bill ary 1983 (Senate Document No. 15 of the 1983 Session, 532 of the 1982 Session) 26 pp. Evaluated the progress of authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 29 of the 1982 Ses­ the department in implementing recommendations made sion) 64 pp. Examined the feasibility, desirability, and cost during the 1982 Session to ensure the efficient use of funds effectiveness of consolidating State agency offices located in for highway construction and maintenance. Northern Virginia. 1983 Report to the General Assembly, September 1983 Interim Report: Local Mandates and Financial Resources, (3rd Biennial Report, authorizedby Section 30-58.2, Code of January 1983 (House DocumentNo. 40 ofthe 1983 Session, Virginia), 38 pp. Summarized studies conducted by the authorized by House Joint Resolution 105 of the 1982 Commission through 1983. Provided a 10-year overview of Session) 38 pp. Provided background information and JLARC's work, organized according to the recurring themes, summarized progress toward the final report (see December and spotlighted the importance ofsound research methodol­ 1983). ogy.

Interim Report: Organization of the Executive Branch, The Virginia DivisionforChildren, December 1983 (House January 1983 (House DocumentNo. zrottne 1983 Session, Document No. 14 ofthe 1984 Session, authorizedbyHouse authorized by House Joint Resolution 33 of the 1982 Ses­ Joint Resolution 10 of the 1983 Session) 98 pp. A "sunset" sion) 15 pp. Provided background information on the execu­ study reviewing the operations of the Division and focusing tive branch, and summarized research activities for the on its administration, effectiveness, and possible overlap series of four final reports (see January 1984). with other agencies.

1993 Report 10the General Assembly ------...J..------Page 63 ______,- Annotated Bibliography PartSix

The Virginia Division of Volunteerism, December 1983 Equity of Current Provisionsfor Allocating Highway and (Senate Document NO.6 of the 1984Session, authorized by Transportation Funds in Virginia, June 1984(House Docu­ Senate Joint Resolution 36 of the 1983 Session) 60 pp. A ment No. 11 of the 1984 Session, authorized by the 1982 "sunset" study reviewing the operations of the Division and Appropriations Actandexpanded by the 1983 Session) 217 focusing on its administration, effectiveness, and possible pp. Updated the January 1983 interim analysis of construc­ overlap with other agencies. tion allocations, and reviewed county maintenance spend­ ing, urban street payments, and public transportation assis­ State Mandates on Local Governments and Local Finan­ tance. cial Resources, December 1983 (House Document No. 15 of the 1984 Session, authorized by House Joint Resolution Special Education in Virginia's Training Centers for the tosotme 1982Session and HouseJointResolution tzottne Mentally Retarded, November 1984 (Senate DocumentNo. 1983 Session) 218 pp. Reviewed the responsibilities of 3 of the 1985Session, authorizedbySenateJoint Resolution State and local governments for providing public services, 13 of the 1983 Session) 130 pp. Examined eight issues the State's procedures for aiding local governments, the concemed with the operation, funding, and quality of the sources of revenue that were or could be allocated to the educational programs for children and youths in mental various types of local governments, and their adequacy. retardation facilities operated by the Department of Mental included fiscal capacity and stress measures for all counties Health and Mental Retardation. (First of two reports). and cities. Special Education in Virginia's Mental Health Facilities, An Assessment of Structural Targets in the Executive November 1984 (Senate Document NO.4 of the 1985 Ses­ Branch ofVirginia, January 1984(House DocumentNo. 20 sion, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 13 of the 1983 of the 1984 Session, authorized by House Joint Resolution Session) 148pp. Examined eight issues concerned with the 33 of the 1982 Session andHouse Joint Resolution 6 of the operation, funding, and quality of educational programs for 1983 Session) 134 pp. Examined the organization of the children and youths in mental healthfacilities operated by the executive branch for the purpose of determining the most Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. (Sec~ efficient and effective structure. Included specific recom­ ond of two repcrts.) mendations regarding duplication, fragmentation, and incon­ sistent alignment. Special Report: ADP Contracting at the State Corpora­ tion Commission, November 1984 (House Document No. An Assessment of the Secretarial System in the com­ 4 of the 1985 Session, requested by the Speaker of the monwealth of Virginia, January 1984 (House Document House and authorizedby the Commission) 40 oo. Examined No. 21 of the 1984 Session, authorized by House Joint the SCC's compliance with the Commonwealth's Public Resolution 33 of the 1982Session andHouse Joint Resolu­ Procurement Act and related issues in contracting for auto­ tion 6 of the 1983 Session) 76 pp. Assessed the ex-tent to mated data systems. which (1) the responsibilities and activities of the Gov-ernor's secretaries are consistent with the purposes of the system Special Report: The Virginia State Library's Contract and (2) the structure is useful in effectively managing the with The Computer Company, November 1984 (House State's resources and administrative processes. Document No. 5 of the 1985 Session, requested by the Speakerof the House and authorizedby the Commission) 34 An Assessmentofthe Role of Boards and Commissions pp. Examined whether the State Library followed State in the Executive Branch of Virginia, January 1984 (House procedures in awarding the contract to TCC, and whether Document No. 22 of the 1984 Session, authorized by House public libraries were satisfied with the services provided. Joint Resolution 33 of the 1982 Session and House Joint Resolution 6 of the 1983Session) 90 pp. Assessed whether Special Report: The Virginia Tech Library System, the boards' involvements in agency operations are consts­ November 1984 (House Document No.6 of the 1985 See­ tent with statute and the managementneedsof the Common­ sian, requested by the Speakerofthe House and authorized wealth. Also addressed the relationships of boards, agency by the Commission) 34 pp. Examined the ownership of directors, and the Governor's secretaries, and the unique proprietary rights in the software of a computerized library contributions of board members. system, the sharing of royalties with a university employee, and the transfer of the system to the Virginia Tech Founda­ Organization of the Executive Branch in Virginia: A tion for marketing and distribution. Summary Report, January 1984 (House Document 44 of the 1984 Session, authorized by House Joint Resolution 33 Final Status Report: Recommendations Related to the of 1982 Session and House Joint Resolution 33 of the 1982 Equity of the Current Provisions for Allocating Highway Session) 36 pp. A synthesis of the preceding three reports. and Transportation Funds in Virginia, December 1984 Highlighted each principal finding and associated recom­ (Report to the SJR 20 Joint Subcommittee from the staffs of mendations, and included a statement of the actions taken JLARC and the Department of Highways and rmnepone­ on each. tion) 55 oo. Summarized results of meetings between JLARC and DHT staff regarding the highway funding equity 1983 Follow-Up Report on the Virginia Department of report (see above, June 1984) and proposed legislation. Highways and Transportation, January 1984(letterreport, authorized by House Bill of the 1982 Session) 25 pp. Docu­ Special Report: Patent and Copyright Issues in Virginia mented the department's progress in implementing previous State Government, March 1985 (House Document No. 31 Commission recommendations, especially in the areas of ofthe 1985Session, requestedbythe Speakerof the House manpower planning and maintenance operations. and authorized by the Commission) 54 pp. Examined intellectual property issues related to State agencies and Interim Report: Central and Regional Staffing in the institutions of higher education. Department of Corrections, May 1984 (House Document No. 41, authorized by Item 545. 1 of the 1983Appropriations The Community Diversion Incentive Program of the Act and amended by the 1984 session) 275 pp. Examined Virginia Department of Corrections, April 1985 (House the utilization and need within the departmentfor existing and Document 35 of the 1985 Session, authorized by the 1984 anticipated central office and regional staff. This was the first Appropriations Act) 174 pp. Reviewed the effectiveness of in a series of related reports examining corrections. the CDI programs designed to divert offenders from State prisons and local jails.

1993Report to the General Assembly------"------Page64 I Part Six --, Annotated Bibliography

I Virginia's Correctional System: Population Forecasting Special Report: Cousteau Ocean Center, January 1986 and Capacity, Apri/1985 (House Document 35 of the 1985 (Senate Document 13 ofthe 1986Session, authorizedbythe I Session, authorized by the 1984 Appropriations Act) 174 pp. Commission underSection 4~5. 07 ofthe AppropriationsAct) Calculated the capacity of State prisons and field units. 22pp. A special auditof the Cousteau Ocean Centerproject. Reviewed DOC's population forecasting mode! and proce­ Examined the reasonableness of the project's planning and dures. design, and the applicability of the Public Procurement Act.

Towns in Virginia, July 1985 (House DocumentNO.2 ofthe Staff and Facility Utilization by the Department of cor­ 1986 Session, authorized by House Joint Resolution 105 of rectional Education, February 1986(House DocumentNo. the 1982 Session and HJR 12 afthe 1983 Session) 120 pp. 32 of the 1986 Session, authorized by Item 618 of the 1985 An outgrowth of JLARC's earlier report on State mandates Appropriations Act) 134 pp. Evaluated the effectiveness of and local fiscal stress, focused on issues of particular con­ DCE's programs and the adequacy of staff and facilities to cern to towns. carry out these programs.

Security Staffing and Procedures in Virginia's Prisons, Funding the Standards of Quality M Part 1: Assessing July 1985 (House Document NO.3 of the 1986 Session, SOQ Costs, February 1986(Senate DocumentNo. 20ofthe authorized by the 1983 Appropriations Actandamendedby 1986 Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 35 of the 1984 Session) 300 pp. Examined stafflng practices and the 1982Session) 112 pp. First report in a series in response security procedures both at the system level and in each of to the findings of the HouseJoint Resolution 105 Subcommit­ Virginia's 15 major correctional facilities. tee. Assessed the costs of implementing existing standards. A comparison report will address concerns related to the Local Fiscal Stressand StateAid, September 1985 (House equity of distribution of State assistance to the school divi­ Document No. 4 of the 1986 Session, authorized by the sions. Commission as a touow-uo to the 1983 State Mandates report) 86 oo. Provides updated information on local fiscal Proceedings of the Conference on Legislative over­ stress (through FY 1983) and summarizes 1984 and 1985 sight, June 1986 (Conference was required under provi­ legislative actions impacting localities. sions of Chapter 388 of the 1978 Acts of Assembly) 86 pp. Record of conference examining the accomplishments of the 1985 Report to the General Assembly, September 1985 Legislative Program Review and Evaluation Act and over­ (4th Biennial Report, authorizedbySection 30-58.2, Code of sight issues in general. Virginia) 50 pp. Summarized studies conducted by JLARC since the 1983 biennial report, provided updates on agency Staffing in Virginia's Adult Prisons and Field Units, responses to previous studies, and spotlighted the Legisla­ August 1986 (House Document NO.2 of the 1987Session, tive Program Review and Evaluation Act. authorized by the 1983-85 Appropriations Acts) 166 pp. A report in a series on corrections issues, assessed nonsecurity The Virginia Housing Development Authority, October staffing in the 15 major institutions, and both nonsecurity and 1985 (Senate Document NO.6 of the 1986 Session. eutno­ security staffing in the 26 field units. rized by Senate Joint Resolution 7 ofthe 1984 Session) 110 pp. Evaluated programs, operations, and management of Deinstitutionalization and Community Services, October VHDA. Assessed the extent to which the Authority's pro­ 1986 (Hepott produced under the mandate of Senate Joint grams have benefited Resolution 420fthe 1984 Session. which persons of low and created the Commission on Dein­ moderate income. stitutionalization and di­ rectedJLARCstafftopro­ Economic vide technical assis­ i' tance) 92 pp. Exam-

Cover art from a JLARC special report

1993 Report to the General Asseli'lbtv------Pn'ge65J ,part Six ------,------AnnotatedBibliography

ined client management, community services, housing ser­ costs, and identified methods for distributing State and local vices, accountability, and the continuum of care in general. responsibility for program funding. l Followed up on JLARC's 1979 study of this area. Funding the State and Local Hospitalization Program, The Capital Outlay Planning Process and Prison Design December 1987 (Senate Document No. 17 of the 1988 in the Department ofCorrections, December 1986 (House Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 87 of the Document No. 12 of the 1987 Session, authorized by the 1986 Session) 74 pp. Reviewed the formulas used to 1983~86 Appropriations Act) 78 pp. A report in a series of distribute funds for the State and local hospitalization pro­ corrections issues, evaluated the effectiveness of DOC's gram. Identified program costs, methodsfor calculating local capital outlay planning process, prison designs, and mainte­ shares of the costs, and methods for distributing State and nance programs. local responsibility for program funding.

Organization and Management Review of the State Cor­ Internal Service FundsWithin the DepartmentofGeneral poration Commission, December 1986 (House Document Services, December 1987 (Senate Document No. 18 ofthe No. 15ofthe 1987Session, authorizedby Item 11ofthe 1985 1988 Session, conducted as pan of JLARC's oversight Appropriations Act) 112 pp. Examined the SCC's organiza­ responsibilities for internal service funds as defined in Sec­ tion and general management, financial management, per­ tion 2. 1-196. 1ofthe Code ofVirginia) 110pp. Reviewed both sonnel and staffing practices, and compliance with legisla­ financial and operational aspects of the five funds within tive intent. DGS: Central Warehouse, Office of Graphic Communica­ tions, State Surplus Property, Federal Surplus Property, and Local Jail Capacity and Population Forecast, December Maintenance and Repair Projects. Assessed rates and 1986 (House DocumentNo, 16 ofthe 1987 Session, eumo­ charges, fund balances, billinq procedures, operational effi­ rized by the 1983-86Appropriations Acts) 96 pp. A report in ciency, and user satisfaction. a series on correctional issues. Examines local and State inmate population forecasts, and alternatives for dealing with Funds Held in Trust by Circuit Courts, December 1987 growing prison and jail populations. Assessed the capacity (Senate Document 19 of the 1988 Session, authorized by of local jails. Senate Joint Resolution 147 of the 1987 Session) 96 pp. Examined funds held in trust by general receivers and clerks Correctional Issues in Virginia: Final Summary Report, of the court. determined the total amount of monies held in December 1986 (House Document No. 18,authorizedby the trust, assessed current practices of administering the funds, 1983-86Appropriations Acts) 48 pp. Ninth and final report in and made recommendations to modify and improve the the series, focused on the "big picture" in corrections, and system. synthesized the findings from previous studies, Follow-up Review of the Virginia Department of Trans­ Special Report: Collection of Southeastern Americana portation, January 1988 (Senate Document No. 23 of the at the University of Virginia's Alderman Library, May 1988 Session, conducted in response to Senate Joint Reso­ 1987 (Performed under the generalpowersandduties of the lution 7 of the 1986 Special Session) 36 pp. Assessed the Commission as laid out in Section 30-58. 1 of the Code of Department's response to previous JLARC study recom­ Virginia) 41 pp. Reviewed the procurement and manage­ mendations. An appendix to the study contains the ment of a special collection of books at the library, in Department's own status report. response to allegations that funds had been inappropriately spent. Funding the Standards of Quality ~ Part II: SOQ Costs and Distribution, January 1988 (Senate Document 25 of An Assessment of Eligibility for State Police Officers the 1988Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 35 Retirement System Benefits, June 1987 (House Docu­ of the 1982 Session) 104 pp. Second report in a series on mentNO.2 ofthe 1988 Session, authorizedby Item te otme elementary and secondary education in Virginia. Whereas 1986 Appropriations Act) 96 pp. Reviewed SPORS and the first study (February 1986) reviewed methods for calcu­ identified the criteria implicit in its establishment as a sepa­ lating the costs of the 800, this study broadened the review rate system. On the basis of these criteria, compared other to include distribution issues. Methods for calculating SOQ State-compensated law enforcement groups to the State costs were revised, and distribution options were explored. Police. Management and Use of State-Owned Passenger Ve­ Review of Information Technology in Virginia State nov­ hicles, August 1988 (House Document No. 2 of the 1989 ernment, August 1987 (Perlormed underJLARC's authority Session, conducted under authority of Section 2.1~196.1 of to monitorinternal service funds, as specified in Section 2. 1­ the Code of Virginia, which directs JLARC to monitorinternal 196 ofthe Code of Virginia, andauthorized by the Commis­ service funds) 104 pp. Reviewed progress made in imple­ sion) 400 pp. A joint executive and legislative initiative. menting the recommendations of JLARC's 1979 study of the Assessed the success of the consolidation of formerly frag­ Central Garage, and examined new issues related to the mented services into the Department of Information Tectmol­ Garage's 1984 designation as an internal service fund. ogy and reviewed management of the department. Pro­ posed improvements within both DIT and the user agencies. Technical Report: The State Salary Survey Method­ ology, October 1988 (House Document No. 5 of the 1989 1987 Report to the General Assembly, September 1987 Session, authorized by Item 13 of the 1988 Appropriations (5th Biennial Report, authorizedby Section 30-58.2, Code of Act) 106 pp. Reviewed methods used to compile and Virginia) 48 pp. Summarized studies conducted by JLARC evaluate data reported in the State annual salary survey, since the 1985 biennial report, provided updates on agency examined methods used to determine the annual salary responses to previous studies, and spotlighted the recently structure adjustment for State employees, and made recom­ completed corrections study series. mendations for improving these methods.

Funding the State and local Cooperative Health Depart- Review of the Division of Crime Victims' Compensation, ment Program, December 1987 (Senate Document 16 of December 1988 (House Document No. 17 of the 1989 the 1988 Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 87 Session, authorized by House Joint Resolution 184 of the of the 1986 Session) Reviewed the CHD funding formula, 1988 Session) 106 pp. Reviewed the Crime Victims' Com- I examined methods for calculating local shares of program pensation program within the Department of Workers' Com- i I L1993 Report to the General Assembly------'------Page 66~ I Part Six Annotated BibliOgraPhY l pensation, focusing on improving the administration of the on workload standards and staffing for constitutional officers l i eve Act, particularly the processing of crime victims' claims. in Virginia. Review of Community Action in Virginia, January 1989 Technical Report: Statewide Staffing Standards for the (House DocumentNo. 43 of the 1989Session, authorizedby Item 469 of the 1987 Appropriations Act) 134 pp. A perfor­ Funding of Commonwealth's Attorneys, March 1990 mance audit and review of the programs and activities of (House Document 70 of the 1990 Session, authorized by Community Action Agencies. Made recommendations to Item te ot me 1988 and 1989 Appropriations Acts) 71 pp. improve oversight by the Department of Social Services and Third report in a series on workload standards and staffing for accountability in individual community action agencies. constitutional officers in Virginia.

Vir~ Progress Report: Hegulatlon of Child Day Care in Technical Report: Statewide Staffing Standards for the ginia, January 1989 (House Document No. 46 ofthe 1989 Session, required by Senate Joint Resolution 41 and House Funding of Clerks of Court, March 1990 (House Document Joint Resolution 116 of the 1988 Session) 9 pp. Provided 71 of the 1990 Session, authorized by Item 13 of the 1988 background information on the nature of child day care in and 1989 Appropriations Acts) 71 pp. Fourth report in a Virginia. Summarized the main issues and research activi­ series on workload standards and staffing for constitutional ties that would be reported on in the full study, to be officers in Virginia. completed before the 1990 Session. Technical Report: Statewide Staffing Standards for the Interim Report: Status of Part-Time Commonwealth's Funding of Commonwealth's Attorneys, April 1990(House Attorneys, January 1989 (House Document 49 of the 1989 Session, authorized by Item 13 of the 1988 Appropriations Document 75 of the 1990 Session, authorizedby Item 13 of Act and Senate Joint Resolution 55 of the 1988 Session) 32 the 1988 and 1989 Appropriations Acts) 71 pp. Fifth report pp. First report in a series on workload standards and staffing in a series on workload standards and staffing for constitu­ for constitutional officers in Virginia. Addressed the issue of tional officers in Virginia. part-time Commonwealth's attorney status. Funding of Constitutional Officers, May 1990 (House 1989 Report to the General Assembly, September 1989 Document 81 of the 1990 Session, authorized by Item 130f (6th Biennial Report, authorized by Section 30~58.2, Code of the 1988 and 1989 Appropriations Acts) 71 pp. Final report Virginia) 48 pp. Summarized studies conducted by JLARC since the 1987 biennial report, provided updates on agency in a series, building on the previous studies of workload responses to previous studies, and spotlighted the recently standards and staffing for constitutional officers in Virginia. completed review of information technology. Proposes a more equitable and systematic funding process.

Regulation and Provision of Child Day Care in Virginia, Special Report: The Lonesome Pine Regional Library September 1989 (House Document 3 of the 1990 Session, System, September 1990 (Study approvedby the Commis­ authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 41 and House Joint sion after a request from the State Librarian) 110 pp. Ad­ Resolution t te ot tne 1988 Session) 172pp, ReviewsState dressed performance and management issues in the sys­ regulation of child day care as well as methods for improving tem, including communication problems, expenditure priori­ the availability and quality of child care in Virginia. ties, and personnel management

Security Staffing in the Capitol Area, November 1989 Review of the Virginia Community College System, Sep­ (House Document 17 of the 1990 Session, requested by the tember 1990 (Senate Document 4 of the 1991 Session, Speakerof the House and approvedby the Commission) 121 authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 135 of the 1989 pp. Examined alternatives to meet the security needs of Session) 133pp. FolloweduponJLARC's 1975 review of the agencies in the Capitol area, including a study of the effec­ vces, focusing on operational concerns and setting priori­ tiveness of the Capitol Police. ties for the future.

Interim Report: Economic Development in Virginia, Review of the Funding Formula for the Older Americans January 1990 (authorized by House Joint Resolution 262 of Act, November 1990 (House Document 9 of the 1991 the 1989 Session) 62 pp. One of three interrelated reports, Session, authorized by House Joint Resolution 130 of the this special publication consists of invited papers by national 1990 Session) 65 pp. Assessed the appropriateness of the authorities on economic development who made presenta­ current funding formula and examined alternative factors for tions to a JLARC workshop, plus an overview of the study use in the formula. activities leading to the other reports in the series. Follow-Up Review of Homes for Adults in Virginia, No­ Review of the Virginia Department of Workers' Compen­ vember 1990 (Senate Document 8 of the 1991 Session, sation, February 1990 (House Document 68 of the 1990 authorizedby Item 545 of the 1990AppropriationsAct) 89 pp. Session, authorized by Item 11 of the 1985 Appropriations Follows up on the 1979 JLARC study of the regulation of Act) 147 pp. Performance audit and review of the agency, homes for adults and funding provided residents through the including claims management and organizational concerns. Auxiliary Grants Program. Recommends system-level im­ Final report in a series on independent agencies of State provements. government. Publication Practices of Virginia State Agencies, No- Technical Report: Statewide Staffing Standards for the vember 1990 (Senate Document 9 of the 1991 Session, Funding of Sheriffs, February 1990 (House Document 66 directed by the Commission under Section 30-58.2 of the of the 1990 Session, authorizedbyftem 13 of the 1988 and Code of Virginia) 60 pp. Follows up on the publications 1989 Appropriations Acts) 71 pp. Second report in a series portion of a 1982 JLARC study of publications and public

1993 Report to the GeneralAssembly ~~~~~~~~'---~~~-~~~~~------~-~Page67J Part Six T'" ~Am70taledBibliography

relations. Recommends ways to reduce publications expen­ sion), 90pp. Assesses the reorganization of the department, ditures. including goals, planning, hiring effort, effect on morale, and proposed service delivery mechanisms. Review of Economic Development in Virginia, January 1991 (House Document 39 of the 1991 Session, authorized 1991 Report to the General Assembly, September 1991 by House Joint Resolution 262 ofthe 1989 Session) 139 pp. (7th Biennial Report, authorizedby Section 30-58.2, Code of Virginia) 66 pp. Summarizes studies conducted by JLARC Reviews Virginia's economic development policies and the since the 1989 biennial report, provides updates on agency organization, operations, management, and performance of responses to previous studies, and spotlights JLARC's child the Department of Economic Development. day care study and its results.

State Funding of the Regional Vocational Education Substance Abuse and Sex Offender Treatment Services Centers in Virginia, January 1991 (House Document 45 of for Parole Eligible Inmates, September 1991 (Senate the 1991 Session, authorizedby House Joint Resolution 100 Document8 ofthe 1992 Session, authorizedby the Commis­ of the 1990 Session) 41 op. Analyzes the funding of the sion as an extension of the July 1991 Parole Study), 60 pp. regional vocational centers, including disbursement meth­ Assesses the delivery and adequacy of treatment programs ods, expenditure levels, and the proportion of the State for sex offenders and substance abusers incarcerated in commitment. Virginia's prisons, including the assessment process, coun­ selor training, policy concerns, and linkages to parole. Interim Report: State and Federal Mandates on Local Governments and Their Fiscal Impact, January 1991 Review of Virginia's Executive Budget Process, Decem­ (Senate Document 23 of the 1991 Session, authorized by ber 1991 (Senate Document 15 of the 1992 Session, autho­ Senate Joint Resolution 45 and House Joint Resolution 156 rized by the 1990 and 1991 Appropriation Acts), 110 pp. ofthe 1990 Session) 6 pp. Outlines major research activities Third report in a series reviewing the Commonwealth's to be conducted and summarizes the past JLARC studies executive system of financial planning, execution, and evalu­ related to mandates ation, with a major focus on the Department of Planning and Budget. Revenue Forecasting in the Executive Branch: Process and Models, January 1991 (Senate Document 25 of the Interim Report: Review of Virginia's Administrative 1991 Session, authorizedbythe 1990 AppropriationsAct) 53 Process Act, January 1992 (House Document 32 of the pp. First report in a series on the executive budget process. 1992 Session, authorized byHouse Joint Resolution 397of Focuses on revenue forecasting issues, including accuracy, the 1991 Session), 33 pp. Provides an overview of the basic the effects of tax policy changes and judgemental inputs, and structure, features, and stages of the Act, including its legislative involvement in the forecasting process. historical development. Preliminary study issues are identi­ fied. Proposal for a Revenue Stabilization Fund in Virginia, January 1991 (Senate Document 24 ofthe 1991 Session, Special Report: Evaluation of a Health Insuring Organi­ authorized by the 1990 Appropriations Act) 53 pp. Second zation for the Administration of Medicaid in Virginia, report in a series on the executive budget process. Exam­ January 1992 (House Document 33 of the 1992 Session, ines "rainy day" funds as a means of coping with revenue authorized by the 1991 Appropriation Act), 30 pp. A report shortfalls. Proposes a revenue stabilization fund with char­ in a series on the Virginia Medicaid program. Evaluates the acteristics tailored to the Commonwealth. potential benefits of converting the Virginia program to an insured arrangement, administered by a private insurance Catalog of Virginia's Economic Development Organiza­ company, tions and Programs, February 1991 (Authorized by House Joint Resolution zee otme 1989 Session) 121 pp. Compan­ Review of the Department of Taxation, January 1992 ion document to Review of Economic Development in vir­ (House Document49 ofthe 1992 Session, authorizedbythe ginia. Compilation of information on the hundreds of State 1991 Appropriation Act), 154 pp. Fourth report in a series and non-State entitles involved in economic development. reviewing the Commonwealth's executive system of finan­ cial planning, execution, and evaluation, focusing on the Review of Virginia's Parole Process, July 1991 (Senate Department of Taxation's compliance revenue collection Document 4 ofthe 1992 Session, authorizedby Senate Joint efforts as a means to help close the "tax gap." Resolution 26 of the 1990 Session), 98 pp. Examines Virginia's parole rates and the activities of the Parole Board Interim Report: Review of the Virginia Medicaid Pro­ and the Department of Corrections in administering the gram, February 1992 (Senate Document 27 of the 1992 parole review process. Session, authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 180 of the 1991 Session), 118 pp. A report in a series on the Virginia Compensation of General Registrars, August 1991 (Sen­ Medicaid program. Provides an overview of the program, ate Document 5 of the 1992 Session, authorized by Senate including expenditures, eligibility, services reimbursed, ser­ Joint Resolution terotme 1991 Session) 55pp. Examines vice providers, the structure for funding services, and recent the compensation program for General Registrars, specific changes in the program. factors which should be used to determine compensation, and the appropriate State share of these costs. Intergovernmental Mandates and Financial Aid to Local Governments, March 1992 (House Document 56 of the The Reorganization of the Department of Education, 1992 Session, authorized bySenate JointResolution 45 and I ! September 1991 (Senate Document 6 ofthe 1992 Session, House Joint Resolution 156 ofthe 1990 Session, andSenate J' authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 57 of the 1990 Ses- Joint Resolution 235 ofthe 1991 Session), 172 pp. A report L1993 Report 10 the GeneralAssembly------"------~Page 68 Part Six ------,------AnnotatedBibliOgraPhY in a series on State/local relations. Follows up on JLARC's rized by House Joint Resolution 397 of the 1991 Session), l 1983 mandates report, examining issues related to man­ 140pp. Examines the efficiencyand effectiveness of the Act, dates and local financial resources. Presents short- and which governs the regulatory proceedings of State agencies, long-term policy options. and the meaningfulness of public participation in the regula­ tory process. Medicaid Asset Transfers and Estate Recovery, Novem­ ber 1992 (Senate Document 10 of the 1993 Session, Interim Report: Review of Inmate Dental Care, January authorized by the Senate Joint Resolution 91 of the 1991 1993 (House Document 52 of the 1993Session, authorIzed Session), 60 pp. A report in a series on the Virginia Medicaid by the 1992Appropriation Act), 54pp. A report in a series program. Examines the extent to which Medicaid applicants on inmate health care. Focuses on the dental care use asset transfers to qualify for nursing home benefits, and provided inmates by the Department of Corrections, the need for establishing an estate recovery program. including internal resources, service and cost rnonltor­ ing, use of outside providers, and central office over­ Medicaid~Financed Hospital services in Virginia, No­ sight. vember 1992 (Senate Document 11 of the 1993 Session, authorized by the Senate Joint Resolution 180 of the 1991 Funding of IndigentHospital Care in Virginia, March 1993 Session), 104 pp. A report in a series on the Virginia (Senate Document 36 ofthe 1993 Session), authorized by Medicaid program. Examines issues related to inpatient and the Senate Joint ResolutIon 180 of the 1991 Session, 118 outpatient hospital care financed through Medicaid, includ­ pp. A report in a series on the Virginia Medicaid program. ing program funding and administration. Examines indigent care appropriations to the State teaching hospitals and the Medical College of Hampton Roads, in­ Medicaid~Financed Lonq-Term Care Servicesin Virginia, cluding scope of services, eligibility, reimbursements rates, December 1992 (Senate Document tcottne 1993Session), and general fund and Medicaid allocation methodologies. authorized by the Senate Joint Resolution 180 of the 1991 Assesses options for optimizing the use of State funds for Session, 188pp. A report in a series on the Virginia Medicaid indigent hospital care. program. Examines those Medicaid services which are primarily targeted to elderly and disabled persons, including Review of the Virginia Medicaid Program: Final Sum­ nursing home care, institutional care for the mentally re­ mary Report, February 1993 (Senate Document 32 of the tarded, and a diverse array of community-based services. 1993 Session), authorized by the Senate Joint Resolution 180 of the 1991Session, 22 pp. Final report in a series on Review Committee Report on the Performance and Po­ the Virginia Medicaid program. Summarizes findings from tential of the Center for Innovative Technology, Decem­ the Medicaid reports and examines cross-cutting issues that ber 1992 (Senate Document 16 of the 1993 Session, emerged from the study series. eutnorized by the 1992AppropriationAct), 32pp. Reviewof CIT's mission, programs, governance, and accountability by StateILocal Relations and ServiceResponsibilities, March an independent review committee, which was provided sup­ 1993 (Senate Document 37 of the 1993Session, authorized port jointly by staff from JLARC and the Department of by Senate Joint Resolution 235 of the 1991 Session), 176 Planning and Budget. pp. A report in a series on State/local relations. Examines the assignment of service and funding responsibilities be­ Medicaid~Financed Physician and PharmacyServices in tween the State and local governments, and the adequacy of Virginia, January 1993 (Senate Document 29 of the 1993 the local tax and debt structure. Outlines options for improv­ Session), authorized by the Senate Joint Resolution 180 of ing service and funding structures to address future condi­ the 1991Session, 118pp. A report in a series on the Virginia tions and problems. Medicaid program. Presents an analysis of Medicaid physi­ cian and pharmacy services, overviews other ambulatory 1993 Update: Catalog of State and Federal Mandates on care services provided through Medicaid, and assesses Local Governments, June 1993 (House Document2 ofthe efforts to contain program costs through the post-payment 1994Session), authorized by the Senate Joint Resolution 45 review of program expenditures and the pursuit of third-party and House Joint Resolution 156 of the 1990 Session, 80pp. liability for services. A report in a series on State/local relations. Updates the first edition of the mandates catalog, and includes fiscal impact Review of Virginia's Administrative Process Act, Janu­ statements for new mandates. ary 1993 (House Document 51 of the 1993Session, eutho-

L1993 Report to the General AssembIY------L------Page 69 19n SunsetTask Force (HJR 178) Delegate V. Earl Dickinson Delegate Earl E. Bell Senator Clive L. DuVal 2d Senator Adelard L Brault Senator J. Harry Michael, Jr. Mr. Arthur R. Cecelski Delegate Theodore V. Morrison, Jr. Delegate J. Samuel Glasscock Senator Richard L. Saslaw Delegate Raymond R. Guest, Jr. Delegate Norman Sisisky Delegate Charles W. Gunn, Jr. Senator William A. Truban Mr. Julian J. Mason Senator L Douglas Wilder Delegate A. L. Philpott Senator Edward E. Willey Secretary Maurice B. Rowe Senator Elliot S. Schewel 1980-1981 Health Pilot Assessment Subcommittee Mr. A. Howe Todd Senator Peter K. Babalas Senator Stanley C. Walker Delegate Richard M. Bagley Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. 1978 Camp Pendleton Task Force (HJR 14) Senator Herbert H. Bateman Delegate C. Richard Cranwell Delegate Robert S. Bloxom Senator Joseph T. Fitzpatrick Senator Adelard L. Brault Mr. Clarence D. Fleming, Jr. Mr. Andrew Fogarty Senator William B. Hopkins Delegate J. Samuel Glasscock Mr. E. Ralph James, Jr. Secretary Jean L. Harris Delegate George W. Jones Delegate George H. Heilig, Jr. Delegate Benjamin J. Lambert HI Delegate Elise B. Heinz Delegate C. Hardaway Marks Senator Richard J. Holland Delegate Owen B. Pickett Commissioner James B. Kenley The Honorable Fred G. Pollard Commissioner William L. Lukhard Mr. George W. Straube Delegate Mary A. Marshall Senator Russell L Townsend, Jr. Senator Willard J. Moody

1978-1979 Health Pilot Subcommittee (S6 24) 1980 Public Hearings on Effect of Federal Senator John C. Buchanan Funds Cutbacks on Localitites Senator Elmon T. Gray Delegate Gerald L Baliles Delegate Mary A. Marshall Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Delegate Owen B. Pickett Senator Herbert H. Bateman Senator Elliot S. Schewe! Delegate L. Cleaves Manning Delegate W. Ward Teel Senator Edward E. Willey

1979-1981 Social services Subcommittee (SJR133) 1981-1984 Local Mandates Subcommittee (HJR105) Senator John H. Chichester Senator Hunter B. Andrews Senator Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr. Senator Peter K. Babalas Delegate Johnny S. Joannou Senator Herbert H. Bateman Delegate Norman Sisisky Delegate Archibald A. Campbell Delegate W. Ward Teel Senator Dudley J. Emick, Jr. Senator Stanley C. Walker Delegate Arthur R. Giesen, Jr. Delegate Franklin P. Hall 1980~1981 Occupational & Professional Regulation Senator Richard J. Holland Subcommittee (SJR50) Delegate Mary A. Marshall Delegate Ralph L Axselle, Jr. Senator Wiley F. Mitchell, Jr. Delegate Alan A. Diamonstein Delegate Lewis W. Parker, Jr. Delegate Calvin W. Fowler Delegate Vivian E. Watts Senator Ray L. Garland Senator Madison E. Marye 1983-1984 Division of Volunteerism Delegate C. Jefferson Stafford Subcommittee (SJR36) Senator Stanley C. Walker Delegate Willard R. Finney Senator Stanley C. Walker 1980-1981 Transportation Subcommittee (SJR50) Delegate William T. Wilson Senator Peter K. Babalas Delegate Earl E. Bell 1983-1984 Division for Children Senator Daniel W. Bird, Jr. Subcommittee (HJR10) Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Delegate Franklin M. Slayton Delegate Archibald A. Campbell Delegate Warren C. Stambaugh Delegate Qrby L Cantrell Senator Charles L. Waddell _ Delegate C. Richard Cranwell

1993 Report to the General Assembly------Page 70 Part Six ------,------Subcommittee Listing

1983-1984 Mental Health and Mental Retardation 1991 Administrative Process Act (HJR 397) Subcommittee (SJR13) Delegate Jay W. DeBoer Delegate Richard M. Bagley Senator Clive L DuVal 2d Delegate David G. Brickley Senator Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr. Senator John H. Chichester Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Delegate J. Paul CounciU, Jr. Delegate Lewis W. Parker, Jr. Delegate Alan A. Diamonstein Senator Robert E Russell, Sr. Senator Clive L. DuVal 2d Delegate Dorothy S. McDiarmid 1992 Center for Innovative Technology Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr. (1992 Appropriation Act) Senator Stanley C. Walker Senator Hunter B. Andrews Senator Edward E WllIey Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Delegate Robert S. Bloxom 1983 Seafood Industry Review (HJR 59) Thomas L Bowden Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Senator Charles J. Colgan Senator John C. Buchanan Delegate Alan A. Diamonstein Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Secretary James W. Dyke, Jr. Delegate Harvey B. Morgan Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Douglas S. Ingram Senator Edward E. Willey Secretary Cathleen A. Magennis James R. Sanderson 1984 Joint Subcommitteeon Highway John N. Saunders Allocations (SJR20) Secretary Paul W. Timmreck Senator Peter K. Babalas Eugene P. Trani Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. William C. Wiley Delegate V. Earl Dickinson Delegate J. Robert Dobyns 1993 Management of Commonwealth's Senator Clive L. DuVal2d Workforce (SJR279, HJR581, HJR677) Delegate Raymond R. Guest, Jr. Senator Hunter R Andrews Delegate L. Cleaves Manning Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Delegate Donald A. McGlothlin, Sr. Senator Joseph B. Benedetti Delegate Lewis W. Parker, Jr. Delegate Franklin P. Hall senator William T. Parker Delegate George H. Heilig, Jr. Delegate N. Leslie Saunders, Jr. Senator Richard J. Holland Senator Charles L. Waddell Delegate Lacey E Putney Delegate Vivian E. Watts Delegate John S. Reid Senator Lawrence Douglas Wilder Delegate Alson H. Smith, Jr. Senator Edward E. Willey Senator Stanley C. Walker

1990 Revenue Forecasting t993 VRSJRF&P (HJR 392) (1990 Appropriation Act) Senator Hunter B. Andrews Senator Hunter B. Andrews Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Mr. Matthew T. Blackwood Delegate C. Richard Cranwell Dr. Robert M. Conroy Delegate Jay W. DeBoer Senator Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr. Senator Clive L DuVal 2d Delegate George H. Heilig, Jr. Delegate Lewis W. Parker, Jr. Senator Richard J. Holland Delegate Ford C. Quillen Delegate Lewis W. Parker, Jr. Senator William A. Truban Delegate Lacey E. Putney Senator Stanley C. Walker Delegate Ford C. Quillen Senator Robert E. Russell, Sr. Delegate Alson H. Smith, Jr. Senator Stanley C. Walker

1993 Group Life Subcommittee (SJR251) Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Senator R. Edward Houck Delegate Alson H. Smith, Jr. Senator Stanley C. Walker

1993 State/Local Service Responsibilities (SJR310) Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Delegate Jay W. DeBoer Senator Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr. Delegate Franklin P. Hall Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Senator Robert E. Russell, Sr.

1993 Report to theGeneral Assembly ------.L------Page 71 RESEARCH STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Director Section Manager Philip A. Leone Joan M. Irby, Business Management & Office Services Deputy Director R. Kirk Jonas Administrative Services Charlotte A. Mary Division Chiefs Glen S. Tittermary Secretarial Services Robert B. Rotz Rachel E. Gorman Becky C. Torrence Section Managers John W. Long, Publications & Graphics':' SUPPORT STAFF Gregory J. Rest, Research Methods Technical Services Project Team Leaders Desiree L. Asche, Computer Resources Linda E. Bacon Betsy M. Jackson, Publications Assistant Charlotte A. Kerr Susan E. Massart Wayne M. Turnage

Project Team Staff James P. Bonevac Beth A. Bortz Julia B. Cole Mary S. Delicate Joseph K. Feaser Joseph J. Hilbert Jack M. Jones Brian P. McCarthy Laura J. McCarty Deborah L. Moore William L. Murray Rowena R. Pinto Ross J. Segel Anthony H. Sgro E. Kim Snead .:. Indicatesstaff with primaryassignment to this project

1993 Report 10 IheGeneral Assembly,------...... J------Page 72 JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION

Floor, General Assem I Square, Richmond, V.

Phone: (804) 786-1258 Fax: (804) 371·0101

© 1993, Commonwealth of Virginia This document was printed on recycled paper.