by Vermont Auditor of Accounts Doug Hoffer The State Auditor’s Office is the watchdog of State government performance, providing independent, objective analysis from outside the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. Each year we complete audits that make recommendations to State agencies to help them improve public services and save taxpayer money.
Our work doesn’t stop when we release an audit, though. We want to make sure that our recommendations are actually implemented by the relevant State agency so that the public will benefit from improved performance. Running State government is a complex endeavor, and making changes based upon our recommendations can take time. For that reason, our auditors follow up on every audit one year and three years after they are completed to determine what progress has been made.
Below are brief summaries of what we found when we performed our follow-up work on audits completed in 2023 and 2021. The titles show the name of the agency we audited, whether it is the initial or final follow-up report (i.e., performed 1 year or 3 years after the audit), and the number of recommendations implemented by the agency vs. the number of recommendations given in the audit report.
Note regarding ratings: When we review agencies' response to our recommendations, we rate their actions as Implemented, Partially Implemented or Not Implemented. Since the first review is conducted one-year after the audit is completed, some agencies may not have had time to adopt one or more recommendations. If the evidence shows an effort was made and some progress achieved, they are rated Partially Implemented. It is hoped that the agencies will fully implement those recommendations by the second review by the year three review. In some cases, an agency may have implemented the majority of our recommendations but is located in the "Room for Improvement" column. This reflects our judgment about the relative importance of the recommendations that remain unimplemented.
Links to the original audit are in each summary, and a link to the full follow-up report is below the summary.
City of Barre TIF
Year 3 
4 out of 4
This audit examined whether the City of Barre was administering its Tax Increment Financing District in compliance with State laws and the rules set forth by the Vermont Economic Progress Council. We found that Barre City generally complied with all TIF requirements, though we noted some opportunities for improvement. Within one year, Barre City had implemented all four of our recommendations.
Department of Vermont Health Access
Year 3 2 out of 2
This audit examined the administrative costs to operate OneCare, the accountable care organization DVHA contracted with to implement a series of health care payment reforms. The most significant finding was that the program cost more to operate than it delivered in financial savings. In addition, we found that OneCare could not completely account for how it had expended funds in relation to information technology and population health programs. We offered two recommendations to correct those problems. DVHA did not address the fact that the State was losing money on a program meant to save money, but they did implement both recommendations we made to better account for where the money OneCare spent was going.
Public Utility Commission
Year 1 5 out of 5
The audit examined the accuracy of the PUC’s public reporting, and considered whether the PUC’s performance goals were useful in determining how well they were serving applicants and the public. We made five recommendations, and want to commend the PUC for fully implementing four of them and largely implementing the fifth. Thanks to the PUC’s embrace of this work, Vermonters will have a better sense of how efficient the PUC handles its caseload.
Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living
Year 1 11 out of 12
This audit reviewed whether DAIL was inspecting assisted living and residential care facilities as frequently as required by state law, and how effectively they made sure safety violations were corrected. Most troubling, the audit found that facilities were not receiving annual inspections as required, and that some hadn’t been inspected in years. We are pleased that DAIL fully or partially implemented 11 out of 12 recommendations. Thanks to DAIL’s efforts, vulnerable older Vermonters will be safer and their families will have more peace of mind.
City of South Burlington TIF District
Year 1 No recommendations needed
This audit examined whether the City of South Burlington was administering its Tax Increment Financing District in compliance with State laws and the rules set forth by the Vermont Economic Progress Council. The audit found that South Burlington complied with all TIF district requirements and attributed this to processes implemented by the City including close communication and cooperation between program management and finance management teams, consistent project oversight practices, and procedures that ensure completeness of property records and accuracy of the tax increment calculation. We made no recommendations.
Agency of Transportation
Year 1 3 out of 3
This audit reviewed AOT’s performance on large paving projects to see whether they were being completed on time and on budget, and if not why not. We also reviewed whether AOT utilized performance measures to improve their performance in these regards. The audit found that larger projects were almost always over budget and took longer to complete than initially projected. In addition, AOT was not utilizing performance measures to better understand what was driving the cost and schedule increases. AOT has not fully implemented our three recommendations but have taken the initial steps to do so. Hopefully our year three follow up will find more progress. If not, Vermonters will not have a clear understanding of whether paving projects are being managed as effectively as possible.
Agency of Commerce and Community Development
Year 3 7 out of 10
This audit examined whether ACCD had systems in place to ensure that only eligible businesses received funds from the COVID-era Emergency Economic Recovery Grant program. $117 million was awarded to 2,278 businesses through the program which intended to provide direct cash support to businesses who had suffered financial losses due to COVID. In addition, businesses were ineligible if they were, unrelated to COVID, in violation of state labor laws or were in bad standing with the Tax Departments.
The audit found that ACCD had weak systems in place for determining applicant eligibility, awarded grants to 194 businesses that had eligibility problems, and may have provided amounts of funds to 401 businesses that exceeded federal guidelines.
We made nine recommendations to ACCD to improve how they handled grant programs in the future, to investigate the awards to businesses that appeared ineligible, and to address the payments that may have exceeded federal guidelines. On this latter issue, if the federal government determines ACCD “over-awarded” funds, then Vermont taxpayers could be asked to return millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. ACCD fully implemented only half our recommendations. The three recommendations they did not implement at all related to ensuring that only eligible businesses received funds, and that the amounts awardees received did not exceed legal authority. If ACCD does not address these issues for this and future audits, Vermonters will not be able to have confidence that taxpayer funds are being spent appropriately, nor that all applicants for government programs will be treated equally.
Agency of Education
Year 3 5 out of 7
This audit examined three aspects of Vermont’s education system relating to students who attend non-public schools with taxpayer funds - (1) the trends in the numbers of students and public expenditures for tuition for grades K-12 general and special education that were sent to Vermont independent and out-of-state schools for the school years 2008/2009 – 2018/2019, (2) the basis of tuition payments for publicly funded students made to Vermont independent schools that provided grades K-12 general education in fiscal year 2019, and (3) whether the Vermont independent schools that received publicly funded tuition in school year 2018/2019 for grades K-12 general education were reviewed and approved.
Although we found flaws, AOE generally followed its review processes. However, we made recommendations to address some audit findings. For instance: AOE did not always check that independent schools met the minimum curriculum requirements in 16 V.S.A. 906 (e.g., reading, citizenship, fine arts); AOE did not always inform the State Board of Education if they were aware of a weakness related to one or more approval criteria or other problems; and the approval period of one third of the 15 schools we reviewed exceeded the five-year maximum set by statute. Three years after the audit was completed, AOE has only fully implemented two out of seven recommendations.
Agency of Digital Services
Year 1 3 out of 7
This audit reviewed the performance of ADS’s project management division to see whether projects were being completed on time and on budget, and if not why not. We also reviewed the transparency of how ADS reports on the success of these projects to the Legislature and the public. We found that most projects were more expensive and took longer to complete than originally projected, and that the public reporting lacked important information needed to hold ADS accountable. Unfortunately, ADS has only fully implemented two out of seven recommendations we made. We have encouraged the Legislature to require ADS to make the improvements, and they are considering legislation to do so. Until the changes are made, Vermonters will struggle to know how well very complex and expensive IT projects are being managed by the State.
City of Burlington Waterfront TIF District
Year 1 10 out of 13
This audit examined whether the City of Burlington was administering its Tax Increment Financing District in compliance with State laws and the rules set forth by the Vermont Economic Progress Council (the State entity that oversees the TIF program). The audit found that Burlington had made millions of dollars in errors, and owed the State Education Fund nearly $200,000. The City has implemented or partially implemented ten out of thirteen recommendations. Unfortunately, one of the recommendations they have not implemented is paying back the Education Fund the $200,000 they owe. If they do not, all other Vermont property tax payers will have had to pay a cost which was supposed to be paid by the City.
FINAL THOUGHT
Administering State government programs can be very challenging, and it’s to be expected that our audits will find room for improvement even for relatively well-run initiatives. It is wonderful when an audit finds few or no things that need to be addressed, but as auditors it may be even more encouraging when an auditee sees our recommendations as opportunities to do an even better job. When an agency ignores our recommendations, it is Vermonters who are worse off since there is a greater risk that dollars will be wasted or public service will be delivered inefficiently.
Our office will continue to serve as Vermonters’ watchdog of government performance, and to report our work to the Legislature and to the public in order to further government accountability.