|
|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit and sunset review of the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
(Commission) pursuant to May 24, 2005, and May 22, 2006, resolutions of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the
sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2951
et seq.
Established in 1988 to replace the Structural Pest Control
Board, the Commission’s purpose is to protect the public from chemical harm and
harm resulting from inadequate or improper structural pest control. Structural
pest control includes controlling public health pests, aquatic pests, household
pests, wood-destroying insects, fungi, and weeds. The Commission’s various
responsibilities include issuing and renewing licenses to pest control
businesses and the pesticide applicators and qualifying parties (persons
responsible for supervising, training, and equipping pesticide applicators)
those companies employ, conducting inspections and complaint and inquiry
investigations, and disciplining licensees who commit violations.
Commission should improve inquiry and
complaint processing (see pages 13 through 21)
While the Commission appropriately investigated most
inquiries and complaints reviewed by auditors, it should ensure all inquiries
and complaints are processed appropriately and in a timely manner. The
Commission has the authority to investigate allegations of wrongdoing through
both inquiry and complaint investigations. Statute defines inquiries as
information regarding possible violations of statute or rules submitted by the
public or commission staff. Commission staff conduct inquiry investigations to
initially determine whether the Commission has jurisdiction over an alleged act,
whether an alleged act occurred within the 5 years preceding the date of the
inquiry, and whether a violation occurred. The Commission has delegated to its
staff the authority to determine whether to close and purge an inquiry with no
violations; or take action to remedy minor violations. If commission staff
substantiate a violation of statute or rule and do not remediate the violation
themselves, the violation is forwarded to the Commission for adjudication. Most
public allegations of wrongdoing regarding pest control work begin as inquiries.
Commission staff adequately investigated most of the inquiry
and complaint cases reviewed by auditors; however, the Commission needs to
improve the timeliness of these investigations. Specifically:
-
Inquiry investigations—Auditors’ review of a
sample of 44 inquiries received between January 2004 and September 2006
found that only 15 inquiry investigations were completed within the
Commission’s prescribed 60-day time frame. The remaining 29 inquiries
required between 72 and 399 days to investigate.
-
Complaint investigations—While the Commission
allows 180 days to investigate and adjudicate complaints, auditors’ review
of a random sample of 19 complaints the Commission received between January
2004 and May 2006 found that only 11 of these complaints were processed
within 180 days. The remaining 8 complaints required between 198 and 364
days to process.
-
Combined complaint and inquiry investigations—The
Commission allows 240 days to investigate and adjudicate cases that begin as
inquiries and result in complaints. However, auditors’ review of 19
inquiries the Commission received between January 2004 and May 2006 that
became complaints found that only 8 met the 240-day processing time frame.
The remaining 11 cases took between 242 and 609 days to process.
The Commission should take several steps to enhance its
investigations’ timeliness. First, the Commission should establish internal time
frames to complete the various investigation steps and monitor the progress of
inquiry and complaint investigations against these time frames. To assist in
monitoring investigations, the Commission should improve the quality of
information in its inquiry and complaint databases by directing staff to enter
investigation information in a timely and accurate manner. Additionally, the
Commission should reduce its time frame for investigating and adjudicating
inquiries that become complaints from 240 days to 180 days. The Commission
should also ensure that it has sufficient staff resources to investigate
inquiries and complaints by reviewing the responsibilities assigned to its
investigators and other staff and prioritizing these responsibilities among its
staff accordingly.
Finally, the Commission should improve its handling of
inquiries that yield violations of statute or rule, but do not become formal
complaints. Commission investigators address some violations found during
inquiry investigations through education or by requiring a licensee to come into
compliance. However, the Commission should establish and implement policies
regarding which substantiated violations can be addressed by staff and which
should be forwarded to the Commission for adjudication. Further, the Commission
should retain inquiry case files in which the staff addressed violations, and
include in these case files documentation of how staff addressed the violations
and the licensees’ actions to return to compliance.
Commission needs to better monitor
inspections (see pages 23 through 31)
To ensure inspections of licensees are appropriately
prioritized and conducted, the Commission needs to better monitor its
inspections. While the Commission has established inspection goals, it did not
meet its goal of conducting at least one use, vehicle, and office inspection for
each licensed pest control company during the 2-year time period of fiscal years
2005 and 2006. For example, of the 812 pest control companies licensed during
this time, 378 did not receive a use inspection, 324 did not receive a vehicle
inspection, and 138 did not receive any inspections. However, 5 licensed
companies received more than 50 use inspections each, including tag monitors.
One of these licensed companies received 156 use inspections during this 2-year
time period. The Commission has revised its inspection plan to better ensure
licensees receive necessary inspections, but it should also improve its
monitoring of inspections. Specifically, the Commission should continually
monitor its inspectors’ activities to ensure that it meets its goal of
conducting at least one use, vehicle, and office inspection every 2 years, as
well as ensuring that inspections are appropriately distributed among licensees.
To ensure inspections are adequately and consistently
performed, the Commission should improve inspection guidance. The Commission’s
inspection procedures consist of inspection forms, statutes, and rules, but they
do not provide sufficient guidance to inspectors in the field. The Commission
has an inspection manual that details policies and procedures for inspections,
but has not provided this manual to inspectors because of ongoing revisions.
Therefore, the Commission should complete its inspection manual revisions,
ensure that its inspectors are fully trained on inspection policies and
procedures, and monitor inspector compliance with these policies and procedures.
Finally, the Commission should ensure that licensees take
corrective action in all cases where violations are found during inspections. In
February 2007, commission staff established procedures to indicate when on-site,
follow-up inspections are necessary to ensure compliance. According to a
commission official, before this time, the Commission lacked written procedures,
but inspectors would visually confirm corrective action if warranted by the
violation. Additionally, the Commission should establish and implement
procedures requiring staff to randomly select submitted notices of corrective
action for verification.
Commission should further improve its information
management systems (see pages 33 through 39)
The Commission should continue improving its information
management systems to more effectively manage the agency and better protect the
public. The Commission maintains several different databases that contain
information on licensees, inquiries and complaints, and inspections, but there
are several impediments to using the databases. For example, some database
information is unreliable because of untimely data entry or inadequate controls,
or may be inaccurate. Additionally, commission management and staff cannot
easily access the information they need to perform their work and provide
necessary oversight. Specifically, while the databases can potentially provide
the functionality to create and provide several reports with useful information
to management and staff, for the most part, these reports have not been created.
Finally, database documentation, which explains how the databases function and
can be used, is insufficient.
The Commission initiated efforts to improve its information
management systems by working to obtain funding for additional IT staff and for
a consultant to assist with database documentation. According to the fiscal year
2008 State of Arizona Appropriations Report, the Commission received
authorization to hire an additional IT staff person and spend $10,000 for a
consultant to provide customer service, maintain IT systems, and create
documentation for the existing databases. Additionally, IT staff have begun
assessing management’s need for various management reports. However, there are
only two IT staff members, and other IT projects have been designated as higher
priorities. The Commission should monitor the progress of these other priorities
and determine when resources would become available to begin developing
management reporting capabilities. Additionally, the Commission should develop
and implement policies and procedures for data handling, including data entry,
and for testing the data that resides in the databases. Finally, the Commission
should upgrade its Web site to allow public users to obtain complaint history
information regarding licensed companies and individuals through the Internet.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format
|
|
