Performance audit, Arizona Department of Agriculture state agricultural laboratory, report to the Arizona Legislature

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
September2000
Report No. 00-14
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT
OF
AGRICULTURE
STATE
AGRICULTURAL
LABORATORY
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee
composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impar-tial
information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government
entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the state and political
subdivisions and performance audits of state agencies and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Representative Roberta L. Voss, Chairman
Senator Tom Smith, Vice-Chairman
Representative Robert Burns Senator Keith Bee
Representative Ken Cheuvront Senator Herb Guenther
Representative Andy Nichols Senator Darden Hamilton
Representative Barry Wong Senator Pete Rios
Representative Jeff Groscost Senator Brenda Burns
(ex-officio) (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dale Chapman—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Jay Dunkleberger—Team Leader
Matthew Winfrey—Team Member
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.auditorgen.state.az.us
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553 -0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 19, 2000
Members of the Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Mr. Sheldon Jones, Director
Arizona Department of Agriculture
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Arizona
Department of Agriculture’s State Agricultural Laboratory. This report is in response to a
June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit
was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq. I am also
transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a quick
summary for your convenience.
This is the fifth in a series of reports to be issued on the Arizona Department of Agriculture.
As outlined in its response, the Department does not agree with our finding that it can
transfer most of its brucellosis testing to a more cost-effective regional laboratory. The
Department generally agrees with our finding that it should recover the full costs of testing
pesticides for the Structural Pest Control Commission.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on September 20, 2000.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Program Fact Sheet
Department of Agriculture
State Agricultural Laboratory
Services: The State Agricultural Laboratory (Lab) provides the following services: 1) Scien-tific
analysis of samples—Analyzes samples collected from meat and dairy products; fruits
and vegetables; feeds, fertilizers, and pesticides; and insects and plants to provide authorita-tive
identification and detection of biological organisms and residues that affect the public
and the environment, and to ensure agricultural products meet labeling specifications; 2)
Brucellosis testing—Tests all slaughtered cattle two years of age or older, other than steers
and spayed heifers, and certain live cattle for brucellosis; and 3) Pesticide testing on behalf
of the Structural Pest Control Commission—Tests and identifies pesticide residues in sup-port
of the Commission’s regulatory duties.
Program Revenue: $1.7 million
(fiscal year 2000)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
1998 1999 2000
General Fund Intergovernmental Other
$1.8 $1.8 $1.7
Personnel: 29.5 full-time staff
(fiscal year 2000)
Administrative
Product Control Section (5)
Section (9)
Chemical Residue
Analysis Section
(7)
Biological
Identification
Section (8.5)
Facilities: The Lab maintains its offices and
laboratory facilities at 2422 W. Holly in Phoe-nix.
The facility houses the Lab’s administra-tive
offices and laboratory space. The Lab also
maintains a mobile trailer at its Holly Avenue
facility that was previously used to conduct
field tests for Karnal Bunt, a wheat infestation
that the Department is working with the
USDA to eradicate. The trailer is not currently
being used, but the Department anticipates it
will use the space for food safety testing.
Program Goals (fiscal years 2000-02):
1. To increase customer satisfaction with
laboratory services.
2. To improve the quality of sample identi-fications
and analysis performed for
regulatory enforcement and other cus-tomers.
3. To improve the quality of regulatory
samples received.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Adequacy of Performance Measures:
In general, the Department’s goals and per-formance
measures for the State Agricultural
Laboratory appear appropriate. However, two
improvements could be made.
n The Department should consider eliminat-ing
the second goal for this program. This
goal overlaps with the Department’s third
goal, which contains measures that track the
Department’s performance against its qual-ity
assurance plans. Because of this overlap,
the Department should combine these two
goals and their associated performance
measures into one goal.
n The Department should consider adding
efficiency measures to track its testing costs.
Currently, the Department evaluates its ef-fectiveness
and service quality by measur-ing
customer satisfaction and sample proc-essing
time. However, it has no formal
measurements reviewing the Lab’s cost-efficiency.
Much of the information needed
to track cost-efficiency is available from the
Laboratory Information Management Sys-tem
that became operational in January
2000.
Equipment: The Lab maintains and uses a
variety of equipment, with estimated replace-ment
costs of approximately $3.2 million. The
equipment used includes:
4 mass spectrometers,
with a total replacement
value of approximately
$450,000. They identify
the quantity and quality
of chemicals such as pes-ticides
and drugs.
12 gas chromatographs
with a combined value of
approximately $440,000.
They help measure con-tamination
caused by pes-ticides,
and check the label
accuracy of pesticide for-mulations.
A $52,000 somatic cell
counter used to determine
the amount of white
blood cells in unpasteur-ized
dairy products to en-sure
product quality.
5 germinators with a total
estimated replacement
value of $45,000. The
germinators control the
growth of seed specimens
to measure seed quality.
2 autoclaves, valued at a
total of $70,000, used to
sterilize laboratory
equipment.
i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Arizona Department of Agriculture’s State Agricul-tural
Laboratory pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as
part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq, and
is the fifth in a series of audits conducted on programs within the
Arizona Department of Agriculture.
The Department’s laboratory provides agricultural and envi-ronmental
analysis, identification, certification, and training ser-vices
to the Department and others as provided by law. As part
of this function, the Department tests cattle for the presence of
brucellosis, a disease that can cause cattle to be slow breeders,
miscarry, or become sterile. Further, the Department helps the
Structural Pest Control Commission regulate licensed pesticide
applicators by testing to determine if pesticides were correctly
mixed and applied.
To improve the laboratory’s ability to carry out these responsi-bilities,
the Department has pursued various technological ad-vancements.
These include implementing an automated system
that tracks samples throughout the testing process and allows
the Department to track its testing performance, processes, and
costs more effectively. This automated system should also im-prove
customer service by expediting test results. Additionally,
the Department has installed digital imaging technology at some
of Arizona’s ports-of-entry. This technology significantly reduces
the time it takes for the Department to identify potentially haz-ardous
insects found on trucks entering the State and thereby
reduces the time a truck waits at the port while this identification
process occurs.
Summary
ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Department Should Pursue an
Agreement to Shift Most
Brucellosis Testing to the USDA
(See pages 9 through 14)
The Department has an opportunity to shift most of its brucello-sis
testing responsibility to the United States Department of Ag-riculture
(USDA). Since brucellosis threatens livestock produc-tion,
the USDA maintains a Brucellosis Eradication Program to
eliminate the disease from the United States. Under its current
agreement with the USDA, the Department’s laboratory will
conduct an estimated 105,000 brucellosis tests in 2000, over 80
percent of which will be blood tests conducted on animals
slaughtered at Arizona slaughterhouses. The State pays for one
lab technician to conduct brucellosis tests, while the USDA sup-plies
the Department with testing materials and pays for collect-ing
blood samples. However, some states send blood samples to
state/federal cooperative agricultural laboratories that provide
brucellosis testing.
Transferring brucellosis testing of slaughtered cattle to a regional
laboratory appears to hold several advantages for the State and
the USDA. Regional agricultural laboratories have the capacity to
conduct more conclusive tests at a rate that is approximately $.80
per test cheaper than the State Agricultural Laboratory. Shipping
samples to a regional lab may not result in any additional costs
to the State and would allow the Department to avoid antici-pated
increases in brucellosis testing. Further, taking this step
would permit the Department to shift staff resources to conduct
more food safety and other testing. Representatives from both
the USDA and regional labs indicated that such an agreement is
a viable option. Therefore, the Department should pursue an
agreement with the USDA that would allow the USDA and a
regional laboratory to assume brucellosis testing responsibilities
for slaughtered cattle in Arizona.
Summary
iii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Department Does Not Recover
Pesticide Testing and Training Costs
(See pages 15 through 19)
The Department’s annual agreements with the Structural Pest
Control Commission for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 have not
covered all of the Department’s costs for carrying out these
agreements. These agreements reimbursed the Department
$47,500 annually for 290 pesticide analyses, and an additional
$7,500 for training. However, the agreements underestimated the
number of actual tests conducted, particularly for the most ex-pensive
kind of tests. Further, while the agreements used test
fees that appeared to cover the Department’s personnel and
supply costs, these fees did not include the Department’s equip-ment
costs and thus underestimated the actual cost per test. As a
result, the Department has absorbed more than $45,000 annually
in costs not covered under the agreements. In addition, the ser-vice
agreement may not accurately account for the training pro-vided
for in the agreement.
The Department should take several steps to recover all of its
costs associated with testing and training services for the Com-mission.
First, the Department should determine the actual costs
of tests provided to the Commission, and then apply these costs
in a fee-for-service agreement that bills the Commission monthly
based on the Department’s actual costs and number of tests con-ducted.
Further, the Department should ensure that this agree-ment
accurately reflects its training costs.
iv
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
v
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Background............................ 1
Finding I: The Department Should Pursue an
Agreement to Shift
Most Brucellosis Testing
to the USDA...................................................... 9
Little Opportunity for
Privatizing Lab......................................................................... 9
Opportunity Exists to Transfer
Brucellosis Testing to Regional/Federal
State Laboratory ...................................................................... 10
Shifting Most Brucellosis Testing
to a Regional Laboratory Would
Have Several Advantages..................................................... 12
Recommendations.................................................................. 14
Finding II: The Department Does
Not Recover Pesticide
Testing and Training Costs ........................... 15
Background .............................................................................. 15
Department’s Service Agreement with
the Commission Is Inadequate ............................................ 16
The Department Should Take
Steps to Recover Its Costs...................................................... 17
Recommendations.................................................................. 19
Agency Response
Table of Contents
vi
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concl’d)
Page
Tables
Table 1 Arizona Department of Agriculture
State Agricultural Laboratory
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Transfers
Years Ended June 30, 1998,
1999, and 2000 (Unaudited) ............................. 5
Table 2 Arizona Department of Agriculture
State Agricultural Laboratory
Comparison of Contracted to Actual Tests
and Related Costs
Year Ended June 30, 1999.................................. 16
Photo
Photo 1 State Agricultural Laboratory.......................... 2
1
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Arizona Department of Agriculture’s State Agricul-tural
Laboratory pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as
part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq, and
is the fifth in a series of audits to be conducted on programs
within the Arizona Department of Agriculture.
In 1981, the Legislature created the State Agricultural Laboratory
when it combined the separate laboratories that existed within
the Arizona Agriculture and Horticulture Commission, State
Chemist, and Livestock Sanitary Board. The State Agricultural
Laboratory was a division within the Commission until January
1, 1991, when the Legislature created the Arizona Department of
Agriculture (Department). Several separate state agencies, in-cluding
the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticul-ture,
Arizona Livestock Board, the State Dairy Commissioner,
and the State Egg Inspection Board, were combined to form the
current Department.
State Agricultural
Laboratory Activities
As defined in the Department’s Annual Report, the State Agri-cultural
Laboratory’s purpose is to efficiently provide quality
agricultural and environmental analysis, identification, certifica-tion,
and training services to the Department and others as pro-vided
by law. To carry out this purpose, the Laboratory employs
29.5 FTEs. Five employees provide administration, support, and
quality assurance and the other employees work in the following
sections:
n Biological Identification (8.5 FTEs)—The Biological Identi-fication
section is responsible for correctly identifying insects,
snails and slugs, plant pathogens, and weeds, and for provid-ing
seed germination and purity data. This section provides
Introduction and Background
2
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Photo 1: State Agricultural Laboratory
Two chemists engaged in testing at the State Agricultural
Laboratory.
testing services predominantly to the Department of
Agriculture’s Plant Services and Environmental Services Di-visions
to help protect Arizona’s crops from harmful pests
and to ensure the quality of seed products. For example, in-sect
and plant samples are analyzed to identify potentially
dangerous pests or noxious weeds that the Department’s
staff discover during vehicle inspections at ports of entry or
at interior locations. This section also analyzes samples to en-sure
the quality of seed products. Further, Biological Identifi-cation
staff serve as consultants for many of the Department’s
regulatory programs and provide Department personnel
with training in pest identification, sample submission, and
field detection.
n Chemical Residue Analysis (7 FTEs)—The Chemical Resi-due
section provides regulatory pesticide analyses to the De-partment
of Agriculture and the Structural Pest Control
Commission. Most samples are analyzed to assist in investi-gations
of alleged misuse of pesticides. Further, this section
performs analyses for mycotoxin residues for both the De-partment
of Agriculture and the Department of Health Ser-vices.
Mycotoxins are highly toxic and/or carcinogenic
Introduction and Background
3
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
chemicals produced under certain environmental conditions
by fungi found in cottonseed, corn, animal feeds, peanuts,
and other products. This section also plays a key role in pro-tecting
Arizona’s milk supply by testing milk samples for
aflatoxin (a type of mycotoxin), drug, and pesticide residues.
n Product Control (9 FTEs)—To help ensure food safety, the
Product Control section verifies the contents of various
products consumed by humans and livestock, and tests food
samples for the presence of certain diseases and contami-nants.
For example, the section analyzes feed and fertilizer
samples to ensure that they are labeled correctly. Addition-ally,
this section tests livestock blood and milk for the pres-ence
of a bacterial organism, which causes brucellosis in live-stock
and undulant fever in humans. Further, the Depart-ment
recently initiated a program to test meat, eggs, and
dairy products for foodborne pathogens, such as e-coli and
salmonella.
To ensure that the Lab provides quality testing services, federal
agencies and national associations accredit, certify, validate, and
provide official approval to the Lab’s testing services and per-sonnel.
For example, testing services for aflatoxin, animal dis-eases,
feed, fertilizer, milk, meat, pesticide, and seed receive
some form of accreditation from several federal agencies or pro-fessional
organizations. These agencies and organizations in-clude
the American Association of Feed Control Officials,
American Oil Chemists Society, Association of American Plant
Food Control Officials, Association of Official Seed Analysts, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Further, responses from Lab customers indicate that it operates
efficiently and effectively. For example, in the past some custom-ers
reported delays in receiving test results. However, recent
interviews with Lab customers indicated that they were satisfied
with the quality and timeliness of the testing services the Lab
offered.
Introduction and Background
4
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Budget
The State Agricultural Laboratory relies upon General Fund
revenues to fund the majority of its testing activities. As seen in
Table 1 (see page 5), the Lab received $1,490,100 in General Fund
revenue in fiscal year 2000, and approximately $200,000 from
charges for services, licenses, permits, fees, intergovernmental
aid, and other revenue. Included in this amount is $55,000
charged to the Structural Pest Control Commission for the pesti-cide
testing and training services the Lab provided.
Program Changes
and Improvements
As a result of technological advancements, the State Agricultural
Laboratory has recently undergone and continues to undergo
several changes. Many of these changes offer an increased em-phasis
on customer service and enhanced efficiency. For exam-ple,
n Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)—In
January 2000, the Lab started to implement the Laboratory
Information Management System (LIMS). LIMS facilitates
Department efforts to track samples throughout the testing
process and collect basic information, such as staff time spent
conducting tests, and the number and types of sample analy-ses
performed. This information will allow the Department
to track its performance, processes, and costs more effec-tively.
Before implementing LIMS, laboratory data was not
uniformly recorded and reviewed. Additionally, LIMS
should assist the Department with efforts to improve cus-tomer
service by posting test results on the Lab’s Web site
and by electronically mailing test results to customers.
n Digital Imaging Technology—The Department has imple-mented
digital imaging technology at some of Arizona’s
ports of entry. Digital imaging allows port staff to send im-ages
of potentially hazardous insects found on trucks to Lab
staff for identification and significantly reduces the time a
truck waits at the ports while the Lab identifies the pest and
determines the threat and/or risk posed. Currently, the ports
Introduction and Background
5
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 1
Arizona Department of Agriculture
State Agriculture Laboratory
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Transfers
Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1999, and 2000
(Unaudited)
1998 1999 2000
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations $1,393,100 $1,447,400 $1,490,100
Charges for services:
Structural Pest Control Commission
testing 55,000 55,000 55,000
Other department program testing 1 105,590 114,651 87,227
Other 2 38,406
Licenses, permits, and fees 7,756 27,531 20,859
Intergovernmental 3 184,499 114,334 3,008
Other 7,582 626 1,339
Total revenues 1,753,527 1,759,542 1,695,939
Expenditures:
Personal services 807,205 792,913 774,443
Employee related 184,674 175,495 160,503
Professional and outside services 36,524 15,327 24,025
Travel, in-state 8,932 7,475 4,354
Travel, out-of-state 15,354 11,961 20,698
Other operating 472,006 487,384 483,389
Equipment 208,800 251,633 277,914
Total expenditures 1,733,495 1,742,188 1,745,326
Excess of revenues over (under)
expenditures 20,032 17,354 (49,387)
Operating transfers out      7,949 561
Excess of revenues over (under) expendi-tures
and transfers out $ 20,032 $ 9,405 $ (49,948)
1 Consists of monies received from the Nonfood Quality Assurance and Pesticide Compliance and Worker
Safety programs for feed, pesticide, and fertilizer testing the Lab performed.
2 Consists of Administrative Program inspection fee monies allocated to the Lab in FY 2000 to pay for modifi-cations
to its Laboratory Information Management System (LIMs), and LIMS-related activities.
3 The significant decrease in intergovernmental revenue between 1998 and 2000 is due to the reduced need for
federal assistance in the testing of Karnal Bunt.
Source: The Arizona Financial Accounting System Accounting Event Transaction File for the years ended June 30,
1998, 1999, and 2000.
Introduction and Background
6
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
at San Simon and Ehrenberg have digital imaging systems.
This tool is especially useful in screening for Red Imported
Fire Ants (RIFA), a pest considered to be a major threat to
Arizona. In the past, an ant specimen had to be delivered to
the Lab for identification, which could take up to 24 hours.
With the implementation of digital imaging, Lab staff can re-ceive
an image of the specimen electronically and identify it
in less than an hour. Lab staff provided port staff with train-ing
on how to screen for RIFA, and are examining other pests
that could be identified through the digital process.
Audit Scope
and Methodology
This audit focuses on the State Agricultural Laboratory’s efforts
to provide brucellosis testing services for the USDA and pesti-cide
testing services for the Structural Pest Control Commission.
To evaluate the Lab’s performance in providing these services,
several methods were used, including:
n Reviewing the Lab’s fiscal year 1999 annual report to docu-ment
the number of brucellosis tests conducted in fiscal years
1997, 1998, and 1999; Department LIMS reports to document
the number of brucellosis tests conducted from January to
July 2000; and the Lab’s 1995 Program Authorization review
to determine the Department’s costs for brucellosis testing;
n Reviewing and analyzing Department costs for conducting
pesticide testing in fiscal years 1996 through 1999 and the
Department’s yearly agreements with the Structural Pest
Control Commission for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 to de-termine
whether the fees provided for in these agreements
adequately reimburse the Department for the testing and
training services provided;
n Interviewing experts involved in the agricultural laboratory
industry, State Agricultural Laboratory officials, and other
stakeholders to obtain their perspective on the benefits and
drawbacks of the testing services provided by the State Agri-cultural
Laboratory. Interviewees included multiple officials
from the Department, United States Department of Agricul-
Introduction and Background
7
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ture, Federal Drug Administration, Arizona Department of
Health Services, state federal cooperative agricultural labora-tories
in Colorado and Kansas, private agricultural laborato-ries,
and the Structural Pest Control Commission;
n Documenting assessments of Lab performance by reviewing
staff accreditations, certifications, official approvals, and vali-dations
of Lab staff and services; the Department of Agricul-ture
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2000-2002; the 1995 Pro-gram
Authorization Review of the Lab; and the 1984 Auditor
General’s performance audit of the Lab (Auditor General Re-port
Number 84-8); and
n Observing the blood sampling process for brucellosis test-eligible
cattle at an Arizona slaughterhouse.
This report presents findings and recommendations in two areas:
n The Department should seek an agreement with the USDA
that would allow the USDA and a regional lab to assume re-sponsibility
for conducting brucellosis tests on slaughtered
animals.
n The Department should fully recoup the costs associated
with the testing services it provides to the Structural Pest
Control Commission (SPCC) by regularly determining these
costs and establishing a fee-for-service agreement that
charges the Commission for the actual services provided.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government audit-ing
standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Direc-tor
and staff of the Department of Agriculture for their coopera-tion
and assistance throughout the audit.
8
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
9
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING I THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
PURSUE AN AGREEMENT TO
SHIFT MOST BRUCELLOSIS
TESTING TO THE USDA
While privatizing the State Agricultural Laboratory (Lab) as a
whole may not be efficient, the Department could shift much of
its brucellosis testing responsibility to the United States Depart-ment
of Agriculture (USDA). Under its current agreement with
the USDA, the Department tests thousands of cattle blood sam-ples
monthly for brucellosis. However, the USDA has estab-lished
cooperative state/federal regional brucellosis laboratories
that also conduct brucellosis tests. These laboratories can per-form
brucellosis testing at much less cost. Shifting the testing to
these facilities would also free up laboratory resources for other
testing and may not result in any additional shipping costs.
Therefore, the Department should seek an agreement with the
USDA and a regional lab to conduct these tests.
Little Opportunity for
Privatizing Lab
The possibility of privatizing the State Agricultural Laboratory is
limited. In 1995, the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and
Budgeting and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee con-ducted
a Program Authorization Review (PAR) of the Lab. The
PAR concluded that privatizing the entire Lab would not result
in cost savings. However, the PAR indicated that privatization
might be a cost-effective alternative for tests verifying the com-position
of animal feed and fertilizer, since the Lab’s costs to
perform these tests appeared higher than a private lab’s costs. As
a result of the PAR, in 1997 the Department issued a request for
proposal to privatize these tests; however, the proposal was can-celed
when the Department received no bids. Department offi-cials
attribute the lack of interest to the low volume of these tests
and the rigorous quality standards required.
Finding I
10
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
To follow up on the PAR, auditors assessed the possibility of
privatizing Lab services by contacting customers and potential
contractors and reviewing current Lab testing performance. Cus-tomers
generally were satisfied with the quality of Lab testing
services, noting that some services were more convenient and
cheaper than they would be at other laboratories, and the Lab’s
service quality could not be exceeded by the private sector.
While one potential contractor suggested privatizing the same
feed and fertilizer testing submitted for bid in 1997, recent up-dates
to the Department’s operations and increasingly stringent
federal testing requirements have made it even less likely that
this function could be privatized.
Opportunity Exists to Transfer
Brucellosis Testing to
a Regional/Federal
State Laboratory
While privatization possibilities appear limited, there is an op-portunity
to shift brucellosis testing to the USDA and a network
of new federal/state laboratories. Currently, the Department
conducts thousands of brucellosis tests for both slaughtered and
live animals under an agreement with the USDA. In contrast,
some states ship their brucellosis samples to a regional labora-tory.
The Department conducts thousands of brucellosis tests—Under
an agreement with the USDA, the Department conducts thou-sands
of brucellosis tests annually on both live and slaughtered
cattle. The Department estimates that it will conduct an esti-mated
105,000 brucellosis tests in 2000 with over 80 percent of
these tests to be conducted on samples from slaughtered cattle.
The Department and the USDA share the costs for these tests.
Specifically, the Department funds and maintains one lab techni-cian
who conducts brucellosis tests, while the USDA supplies the
Lab with brucellosis testing materials, and pays for two employ-ees
who collect blood samples from cattle slaughtered at a large
Arizona slaughterhouse. While the Lab conducts testing for all
eligible cattle from all Arizona slaughterhouses, this slaughter-house
accounts for an estimated 78 percent of all brucellosis tests
conducted at the State Agricultural Lab, while most of the other
The Department will test an
estimated 100,000 cattle for
brucellosis this year.
Finding I
11
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
USDA Requires
Brucellosis Testing
Brucellosis is a disease that causes some livestock, such as cattle and
swine, to be slow breeders, miscarry, or become sterile. The USDA
maintains a Cooperative State/ Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program
to eliminate the disease from the country. Cattle are checked for brucel-losis
by blood-testing when they are slaughtered or sold, and before
they are transported out of state. At slaughter, all cattle 2 years of age or
older are tested, except steers and spayed heifers. Additionally, cattle
are required to be tested for brucellosis before they enter Mexico or
states that require brucellosis testing. Certain live cattle entering Ari-zona
must also be tested.
Arizona is currently one of 44 states that the USDA has designated
brucellosis free. In the last three fiscal years the Lab identified 50 blood
samples that were potentially infected with brucellosis. However, more
definitive testing by a national laboratory indicated that none of the
animals were infected with brucellosis.
testing is conducted on samples taken from live cattle being sold
or shipped to states that require brucellosis test results.
Some states ship brucellosis samples to a regional agricultural
laboratory—In contrast, other states send brucellosis samples to
regional laboratories that provide testing services. For example,
both Iowa and Nebraska ship their brucellosis samples to a co-operative
state/federal brucellosis laboratory in Topeka, Kansas.
The State of Iowa no longer conducts brucellosis testing at its
state agricultural lab, and as a result, sends approximately 90,000
live and slaughter brucellosis blood samples annually to the
Kansas laboratory for testing. While Nebraska sends approxi-mately
750,000 brucellosis samples annually to Kansas, it only
sends slaughter samples. Since livestock owners must wait for
brucellosis test results before transporting their animals, tests for
live animals require a faster turnaround time. As a result, Ne-braska
tests blood samples for live animals locally.
The USDA typically pays for the costs associated with testing
blood samples at regional laboratories. In addition to paying for
the testing costs, the USDA reimburses slaughterhouses for the
time they spend collecting blood from test-eligible cattle in Iowa
Finding I
12
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
and Nebraska. Furthermore, the USDA pays the costs of ship-ping
brucellosis samples from the Iowa and Nebraska slaughter-houses
to the regional agricultural lab in Kansas.
Shifting Most Brucellosis Testing
to a Regional Laboratory Would
Have Several Advantages
Shifting the responsibility for most brucellosis testing to a re-gional
laboratory has several advantages. Regional laboratories
can conduct brucellosis testing for slaughtered cattle more effi-ciently
and conclusively, and the State Agricultural Laboratory
staff currently devoted to this activity could be freed up for other
types of testing. USDA and regional laboratories appear willing
to discuss such an arrangement. Therefore, the Department
should pursue an agreement with the USDA that would allow
the USDA to assume the brucellosis testing responsibilities for
slaughtered cattle in Arizona.
Testing would be more efficient and conclusive—Sending tests to
regional labs could be more efficient and conclusive than testing
at the Department’s laboratory. The 1995 Program Authorization
Review of the State Agricultural Laboratory reported that it costs
the Lab approximately $1.00 per sample to perform a brucellosis
test. Regional laboratories in Kansas and Colorado noted that
they could conduct the tests for approximately $.20 per sample.
These regional laboratories use a semi-automated testing process
that can perform brucellosis tests more efficiently and at less cost
than the process used at the State Agricultural Laboratory.
Moreover, both regional labs have the ability to conduct confir-mation
tests on-site, and do not need to send samples requiring
confirmation to the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in
Iowa.
Also, shipping the samples to a regional agricultural lab may not
result in any additional costs to the State. In Iowa and Nebraska,
the USDA pays for sampling and shipping costs. Representatives
from the USDA indicated that there is no reason to believe that
the USDA would not pay for shipping costs if an agreement
The Department could ship
most tests to a cooperative
state/federal laboratory.
Finding I
13
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
were reached between Arizona and a regional agricultural lab.
Thus, the Department might not be responsible for shipping
costs under a similar agreement.
Testing of live samples could be retained—While the Depart-ment
should transfer slaughter brucellosis testing to the federal
government, it could retain the testing responsibilities for live
samples. Private veterinarians in Arizona indicated that test turn-around
time is important when testing live animals since ranch-ers
may have to wait for the results before they can transport
their cattle. As a result, the Department should continue to con-duct
brucellosis testing for an estimated 17,000 samples from live
animals each year. Based on the Department's staffing require-ments
for this testing activity, approximately one-half FTE
would be needed to perform these tests. Further, the Lab has the
necessary equipment and trained staff to continue conducting
these tests, and a USDA representative indicated that it could
continue to provide testing supplies for the State Agricultural
Laboratory.
Staff savings could be used elsewhere—Transferring the De-partment’s
brucellosis testing responsibilities to the USDA
would allow the Department to save staff resources and respond
to potential changes in food safety testing requirements. To carry
out the 105,000 tests projected for 2000, the Department estimates
it will use 2 FTEs. Further, according to the Department, the
slaughterhouse industry intends to further increase its slaughter
of test-eligible cattle, resulting in the need for more staff to help
with testing. By removing the slaughter brucellosis testing func-tion
from the Lab, the Department could avoid an increase in
brucellosis testing staff, and apply approximately one and one-half
FTE elsewhere. For example, the federal government is con-sidering
expanding food safety tests, including the potential of
requiring states to expand their testing activities in these areas.
Therefore, the Lab could use the FTE savings to perform food
safety and/or other testing activities.
Agreement with USDA and use of regional laboratory appears
feasible—The Department should pursue an agreement in
which the USDA would assume the Department’s brucellosis
testing responsibilities. A representative from the USDA noted a
trend for states to shift brucellosis testing to regional cooperative
Regional laboratories could
test more efficiently, and the
move could free up Lab
staff.
Finding I
14
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
state/federal laboratories and indicated that the USDA would be
willing to facilitate Arizona’s pursuit of an agreement with a
regional lab. Additionally, regional labs have indicated their
willingness to discuss the possibility of conducting brucellosis
tests for Arizona. For example, a representative from the Kansas
Cooperative State/Federal Agricultural Laboratory indicated
that his lab would have the capacity to perform brucellosis tests
for the State of Arizona. Further, a representative from the Coop-erative
State/Federal Agricultural Laboratory located in Colo-rado
also stated that his lab is interested in conducting brucello-sis
tests for other states.
Recommendations
1. The Department should seek an agreement with the USDA
and a cooperative state/federal agricultural laboratory to
conduct brucellosis tests on slaughtered cattle while continu-ing
to conduct brucellosis testing for live animals. Further,
the agreement should indicate that the USDA will pay ship-ping
costs for samples, and continue to provide the State Ag-ricultural
Laboratory with brucellosis testing supplies for live
animals.
2. Once an agreement is in place, the Department should use
the FTE savings to assist with food safety and/or other test-ing
activities.
15
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING II THE DEPARTMENT DOES
NOT RECOVER PESTICIDE
TESTING AND TRAINING COSTS
While the Structural Pest Control Commission (Commission)
reimburses the Department for testing and training services,
contractual reimbursement rates do not cover the Department’s
costs. Currently the Department does not recover over 50 percent
of its costs for the analyses it performs for the Commission. The
Department should accurately determine the costs of the testing
and training services provided for in the service agreement, es-tablish
appropriate fees, and pursue a service agreement for
testing and training that accurately charges the Commission for
the cost of the services provided.
Background
While the Department regulates the use of pesticide in agricul-tural
areas, the Structural Pest Control Commission is a state
agency that regulates the commercial use of pesticides in nonag-ricultural
areas, primarily pesticide application to prevent ter-mites
in new homes. The Commission obtains pesticide samples
from applicators, and after applications, which the Lab tests to
ensure that the pesticide was correctly mixed. Additionally, the
Lab analyzes swab, water, foliage, animal tissue, and soil sam-ples
to ensure that applicators comply with state and federal
pesticide application and storage laws. For example, the Lab
could conduct health-related pesticide analysis if the Commis-sion
suspected pesticide misuse that posed a public health threat.
The State Agricultural Laboratory is the only lab in Arizona that
is federally approved to conduct pesticide analyses for the
Commission. The fiscal year 2000 service agreement reimburses
the Lab a flat fee of $47,500 a year for an estimated 290 pesticide
analyses, and an additional $7,500 for training Commission in-spectors.
The Commission is funded by revenues that are gener-ated
from pesticide applicator filing fees, and it uses these reve-nues
to pay for the Lab’s testing services.
Finding II
16
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Department’s Service Agreement with
the Commission Is Inadequate
The service agreements between the Department and the Struc-tural
Pest Control Commission for fiscal years 1998 through 2000
have not reflected the Department’s true costs for providing all of
the testing and training services specified in these agreements.
These agreements failed to adequately account for both the costs
and number of pesticide samples submitted by the Commission.
As a result, the Lab has absorbed over $45,000 annually in testing
costs associated with analyzing the Commission’s pesticide sam-ples.
Additionally, these agreements may not have accurately
accounted for the training provided by the Department, or re-ceived
by its Lab staff.
Inaccurate testing projections—The agreements have not re-flected
the true number of samples submitted by the Commission
for testing. Specifically, these agreements underestimated the
number of tests the Lab actually performed for the Commission.
As illustrated in Table 2, the agreement establishes a price for
each type of analysis and the number of tests to be provided.
However, with the exception of pesticide application confirma-tions,
the number of tests provided far exceeded the number
agreed upon. Further, the most expensive test was the most un-derestimated
test in the service agreements. Specifically, the De-partment
conducted 118 more of the health-related pesticide
tests than called for in the agreements.
Table 2
Arizona Department of Agriculture
State Agricultural Laboratory
Comparison of Contracted to Actual Tests
Year Ended June 30, 1999
Type of Service Agreement Number of Tests
Analysis Amount Estimated Actual
Health Related Pesticide $350 50 168
Pesticide Formulation 100 50 81
Unknown Pesticide 250 40 80
Pesticide Application Confirmation 100 150 0
Total 290 329
Source: Fiscal year 1999 Interagency Service Agreement between the Commission and the Department, and the
Department’s pesticide testing records.
Finding II
17
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Costs for testing services are low—In addition to underestimat-ing
the number of tests, the fees in the service agreements do not
reflect the true costs of testing. The Department derived the
$47,500 charge for its services based on an estimate of the num-ber
of employees required to conduct the tests. The fees specified
in the agreements did not reflect the actual number of staff
hours, cost of supplies and equipment, and administrative ex-penses
incurred as a result of the agreement with the Commis-sion.
Despite this, the Department has tracked and developed
overall cost estimates for testing services for the Commission.
These estimates indicated that while the agreements’ fees appear
to recover the Department’s staffing and supply costs, they do
not recover equipment costs. When these are accounted for, test-ing
services provided to the Commission cost the Department
from $92,000 to over $110,000 per year from fiscal years 1997
through 1999. By not fully reflecting all costs in the agreement,
and inaccurately accounting for the number and types of tests
conducted, the Department has absorbed approximately 50 per-cent
annually of Commission testing costs.
Training costs may not be accurate—In addition to underesti-mating
testing volume and costs, the service agreements may not
accurately account for the training included in the agreement. At
the Commission’s request, its inspectors receive training in
proper pesticide sampling procedures from Lab staff. The
amount of this training varies from year to year. Further, the
$7,500 supports continuing professional training and develop-ment
for the Department Laboratory staff. However, the Lab has
not maintained accurate records of the training it provides to the
Commission, and as a result, cannot estimate its costs for provid-ing
this training.
The Department Should Take
Steps to Recover Its Costs
The Department should take steps to recover all of the costs as-sociated
with the testing and training services provided for in the
agreement. Specifically, the Department should:
The Structural Pest Control
Commission agreement does
not accurately estimate the
number and costs of lab
testing.
Finding II
18
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Determine the per analysis costs for the testing services
provided to the Commission—The Department should
monitor the testing conducted for the Commission to deter-mine
the Lab’s per analysis costs for conducting pesticide
tests. To arrive at this cost, the Department should examine
each pesticide test included in the service agreement, calcu-late
the average cost per analysis for these tests, and incorpo-rate
the actual costs into a revised service agreement with the
Commission. For example, the Department should calculate
the average cost of health-related pesticide analyses and use
this average cost when negotiating the service agreement for
the following year. However, in cases where the Department
must conduct a method development test, the Department
should consider recovering its costs separately. These costs
arise when staff are required to develop new testing methods
for unique samples.
n Establish a fee-for-service agreement with the Commis-sion—
In addition to determining the average cost per analy-sis
type, the Department should seek a fee-for-service agree-ment
with the Commission. A fee-for-service agreement
would allow the Department to accurately recover all of its
costs for Commission pesticide testing by requiring the
Commission to reimburse the Department for tests actually
conducted. Additionally, the Department should provide
monthly billings to the Commission reflecting the charges in-curred
by the Department for the testing services provided.
This would allow both the Department and the Commission
to monitor cost and provision of these services. In response to
this audit, the Department has modified its agreement with
the Commission for fiscal year 2001 to more fully reflect the
costs associated with the testing services it provides.
n Ensuring training costs are accurately reflected in ser-vice
agreement—Within this fee-for-service agreement
with the Commission, the Department should also ensure
this agreement accurately reflects the costs of the training
services provided to the Commission or received by its Lab
staff. Therefore, the Department should determine the costs
of training provided for in the agreement to ensure these
costs are reflected in the agreement.
Finding II
19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
1. The Department should annually identify its costs for per-forming
the various analyses requested by the Commission,
determine an accurate cost per analysis, and incorporate this
cost per analysis into the service agreement with the Com-mission.
2. The Department should establish a fee-for-service agreement
with the Commission for pesticide tests and bill the Commis-sion
each month based on the actual numbers of tests per-formed.
3. The Department should identify its actual costs for the train-ing
services it provides to the Commission and the continu-ing
professional training its laboratory staff receive and en-sure
the service agreement accurately reflects and reimburses
the Department for these costs.
20
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Agency Response
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
September 7, 2000
The Honorable Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
2910 North 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Dear Ms. Davenport:
Enclosed is the Arizona Department of Agriculture’s response to the State Agricultural
Laboratory Audit.
The Department is pleased to note that it has already begun to identify ways to improve upon the
issues documented in your report and has also begun implementing the recommendations where
possible. In most instances, these efforts were underway before the recommendations were
received, and we accept them as endorsements of responsible management directives already
underway.
We extend our appreciation to the audit team for their professionalism and attention to detail. I
certainly appreciate their willingness to seek out the Department’s input and clarification of
issues identified in this report.
Sincerely,
Sheldon R. Jones
Director
AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS
AGENCY RESPONSE
Overview:
The Arizona Department of would like to thank the Auditor General’s staff for the professional
manner in which the audit was performed.
We believe the ADA, while it continues to identify methods of improving its delivery of service
to Arizona’s growing agricultural industry and the public as a whole, is a good example of how
government should strive to work. We take very seriously our mission and our charge to
regulate and support Arizona agriculture in manner that promotes farming, ranching and
agribusiness while protecting consumers and natural resources.
While this cabinet level agency was created only ten years ago, to serve and regulate Arizona’s
agriculture industry, a number of things have and continue to change about the industry we
serve. Foremost is the changing face of our customers, which reflects the industry as a whole.
Arizona is internationally renowned for its diverse agricultural production. From artichokes to
cattle, cotton and citrus to shrimp and watermelons, Arizona is continuously increasing its
agricultural diversity. It is entirely fascinating to observe the customers that call on us every day.
The ADA is constantly asked to service more than the program crops of wheat, cattle, cotton and
dairy. Ten years ago, the aquaculture, ratite, custom slaughter, wine and massive nursery
industry did not exist as they do today. Because of the changing face of our customers and the
public’s demands for faster, more efficient service, the ADA recognizes more must be done to
meet the challenges we face today and those we will face in the future.
The Department appreciates the attention the Auditor General’s staff has paid to the unique
responsibilities and critical functions of the State Agricultural Laboratory. As the report
highlights, the laboratory’s customers indicate that they are “satisfied with the quality and
timeliness of the testing services the Lab offered.” While this is good news, the Department
hopes to improve upon the already high level of service offered at the Lab by implementing the
report’s findings and recommendations where effective.
The findings and recommendations of this report will be incorporated into our discussions with
other state agencies and other agency stakeholders to further refine the system for meeting the
dynamic and ever changing needs of Arizona’s agriculture industry and the public at large.
Finding I. The Department Should Pursue an Agreement to Shift Most Brucellosis
Testing to the USDA
Recommendation: The Department should seek an agreement with the USDA and a
cooperative state/federal agricultural laboratory to conduct
brucellosis tests on slaughtered cattle while continuing to conduct
brucellosis testing for live animals. Further, the agreement should
indicate that the USDA will pay shipping costs for samples, and
continue to provide the State Agricultural Laboratory with brucellosis
testing supplies for live animals.
Agency Response: The finding of the Auditor General is not agreed to but the
recommendation will be implemented in a different manner.
Agency Explanation:
The Department appreciates the Auditor General’s insight and suggestions relative to generating
cost-savings for Arizona’s taxpayers wherever responsible. The Department, however, cannot
agree to shift “most brucellosis testing to the USDA.”
The report accurately summarizes the effect of brucellosis on livestock. What the report did not
expand upon is the public health threat that brucellosis presents to infected areas. For people who
come in contact with infected livestock or those who consume unpasteurized products from
infected animals, this disease may prove burdensome. Brucellosis causes undulant or remittent
fever, headaches, weakness, profuse sweating, chills, weight loss, and generalized aching.
According to the New York City Department of Health, brucellosis was detected in a citizen as
recently as 1998.
The Department will look into ways to reduce further the cost of conducting brucellosis testing at
its laboratory, and if further research warrants, will consider seeking an agreement with the
USDA for their regional analysis of the blood samples. But before the Department implements
this recommendation, it must be absolutely certain that the implementation will not jeopardize
this state’s brucellosis-free status.
Many factors, beyond postage and supplies, need to be considered when outsourcing a perishable
sample analysis. Foremost is the timeliness of the result communication, the integrity of the
sample once shipped, the potential for sample loss or contamination, and contingency laboratory
procedures. Until each factor is examined, the Department cannot agree to “seek an agreement
with the USDA and a cooperative state/federal agricultural laboratory.”
Responsibly, the Department sees tremendous value in maintaining a strong level of local control
over Arizona’s brucellosis-free status by continuing the in-house analysis of samples collected
until enough evidence has been presented to assure the state’s status will not be jeopardized by
the migration to regional analyses.
The Department has begun a detailed cost study of the brucellosis analyses with the intention of
reducing costs strategically and efficiently. The Department will seek out further opportunities
to reduce the cost of this service cautiously, without jeopardizing the integrity of the state’s free-from
status. Incorporated in this search for prudent cost-savings, the Department requires time to
contact its counterparts in other states to learn first-hand of their experiences with federal,
regional analyses. Additionally, the Department requires time to identify the audit team’s
contacts at the USDA that have expressed a willingness to develop a realistic agreement.
It should be noted that the Department has actively contacted numerous officials at the United
States Department of Agriculture to learn more about the possibility to conduct regional analyses
of the samples. Unfortunately, however, the Department has received no indication from the
USDA’s regional or Washington, D.C. offices that an agreement incorporating the cost of sample
shipping or supplies will be negotiated. To date, the USDA has neither indicated what kind of
turn-around time the Department can expect for samples submitted to their laboratories for
analysis.
Recommendation II: Once an agreement is in place, the Department should use the FTE
savings to assist with food safety and/or other testing activities.
Agency Response: The finding of the Auditor General is not agreed to and the audit
recommendation will not be implemented.
Agency Explanation:
As was stated in its response to Recommendation I above, the Department will consider
negotiating an agreement that strategically reduces the costs associated with brucellosis testing
while providing adequate safeguards and mechanisms to protect Arizona’s brucellosis-free
status. Should cost savings be actualized, the Department will certainly make good use of its
resources to function in other laboratory testing activities.
Finding II: The Department Does Not Recover Pesticide Testing and Training Costs
Recommendation I: The Department should annually identify its costs for performing the
various analyses requested by the Commission, determine an accurate
cost per analysis, and incorporate this cost per analysis into the
service agreement with the Commission.
Agency Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
Agency Explanation:
The Department has already implemented this recommendation. As the audit team was made
aware, the Department developed an amended service agreement with the Structural Pest Control
Commission for this fiscal year that accurately collects the cost of the various analyses
performed for the Commission. This agreement was signed on August 1, 2000.
Recommendation II: The Department should establish a fee-for-service agreement with
the Commission for pesticide tests and bill the Commission each
month based on the actual numbers of tests performed.
Agency Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented in a different manner.
Agency Explanation:
The Arizona Department of Agriculture has expressed to the audit team its concern with
requiring reimbursement of sample costs from the Commission on a monthly basis. While the
Department has executed a new agreement between the Commission and itself, the matter of
payment for the sample analyses has been approached differently.
Specifically, the Commission has agreed to pay a lump-sum amount at the beginning of each
fiscal year that is based upon the historic, actual cost of past samples and the number of samples
projected to be analyzed. Once the cost of the analysis exceeds what has been paid, the two
parties have agreed to bill and make payment for additional samples on an actual-cost, monthly
basis.
Recommendation III: The Department should identify its actual costs for the training
services it provides to the Commission and the continuing
professional training its laboratory staff receive and ensure the
service agreement accurately reflects and reimburses the
Department for the costs.
Agency Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
Agency Explanation:
The Department recognizes the value of recovering the costs associated with training services
and continuing professional training the laboratory staff receives and incorporated a mechanism
to recover these costs in the agreement signed August 1, 2000.
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
99-15 Arizona Board of Dental Examiners
99-16 Department of Building and
Fire Safety
99-17 Department of Health Services’
Tobacco Education and Prevention
Program
99-18 Department of Health Services—
Bureau of Epidemiology and
Disease Control Services
99-19 Department of Health Services—
Sunset Factors
99-20 Arizona State Board of Accountancy
99-21 Department of Environmental
Quality—Aquifer Protection Permit
Program, Water Quality Assurance
Revolving Fund Program, and
Underground Storage Tank Program
99-22 Arizona Department of Transportation
A+B Bidding
00-1 Healthy Families Program
00-2 Behavioral Health Services—
Interagency Coordination of Services
00-3 Arizona’s Family Literacy Program
00-4 Family Builders Pilot Program
00-5 Department of Agriculture—
Licensing Functions
00-6 Board of Medical Student Loans
00-7 Department of Public Safety—
Aviation Section
00-8 Department of Agriculture—
Animal Disease, Ownership and
Welfare Protection Program
00-9 Arizona Naturopathic Physicians
Board of Medical Examiners
00-10 Department of Agriculture—
Food Safety and Quality Assurance
Program and Non-Food Product
Quality Assurance Program
00-11 Arizona Office of Tourism
00-12 Department of Public Safety—
Scientific Analysis Bureau
00-13 Arizona Department of Agriculture
Pest Exclusion and Management
Program
Future Performance Audit Reports
Arizona Department of Agriculture—Commodity Development and
Promotion Program
Arizona Department of Agriculture—Sunset Factors
Arizona Department of Agriculture—Pesticide Compliance Program
Arizona State Boxing Commission