2010 Economic Development Accountability Report

December 31, 2010
Honorable Members of the General Assembly,
In December 2008, shortly before I assumed the responsibilities of this office, you
enacted a measure directing the Ohio Attorney General to review the State of Ohio’s economic
development awards and requiring this office to submit a report regarding that undertaking.
What follows, after months of collaboration among state award recipients, the Ohio Department
of Development and the Ohio Attorney General’s office, is a first-of-its-kind report concerning
the monitoring and enforcement of economic development assistance in Ohio. We believe it
demonstrates the possibility of greater transparency and accountability in this important area
where public officials are engaged in the discretionary expenditure of public funds.
I trust that you will find this report informative and useful as you consider the best ways
to grow Ohio’s economy and to provide job opportunities for citizens in the current economic
and budgetary climate. We intend, as the General Assembly directed, that the contents of this
report will stimulate further consideration of the ways in which we expend tax dollars to create
productive public investments in Ohio’s economy and that they will shed light on potential
improvements in the processes by which Ohio’s taxpayers and citizens can hold accountable the
public officials who are entrusted with spending public funds.
Sincerely,
Richard Cordray
Ohio Attorney General
Ohio Attorney General’s Office

30 East Broad St 17th Fl ● Columbus, Ohio 43215 ● PHONE 614-466-4320● FAX 614-466-5087 ● www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray
2010 Report of the Ohio Attorney General Regarding

Economic Development Accountability
December 31, 2010
Submitted to the Ohio General Assembly Pursuant to

Ohio Revised Code § 125.112(G)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
KEY FINDINGS............................................................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 3
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 10
I. Clarity and Transparency of Information About Awards ..................................................10
A. Knowledge of Award Requirements Is Inconsistent Among Award Recipients.........10
B. Taxpayers and ODOD Officials Have Limited Access to Information Regarding

Award Outcomes .........................................................................................................13
C. Recommendations........................................................................................................15
II. Effectiveness of State Enforcement Mechanisms..............................................................17
A. Contracts Governing Awards Inconsistently Protect Taxpayer Interests ....................17
B. Despite Its Contractual Authority, ODOD Often Does Not Strictly Enforce Award
Requirements ...............................................................................................................20
C. Recommendations........................................................................................................22
APPENDIX A: SURVEY............................................................................................................. 25
APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................... 28
APPENDIX C: SURVEY LETTER 1 .......................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX D: SURVEY LETTER 2.......................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX E: AWARDS OF INTEREST.................................................................................. 36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As required by law, the Ohio Attorney General’s office recently completed a

comprehensive review of state economic development awards administered by the Ohio
Department of Development (“ODOD”). To fulfill its obligations under Revised Code
§ 125.112(G), the Attorney General’s office analyzed specific award compliance as well as the
effectiveness of the state’s efforts to monitor and enforce award requirements.
Conducted by attorneys and program analysts, the review included the collection of more
than 2,000 surveys on award compliance submitted by award recipients and the analysis of more
than 800 award files maintained by ODOD. The review focused on key divisions at ODOD and
the use of state, rather than federal, funds. Based on information obtained through that effort, the
Attorney General’s office identified improvements needed with respect to four characteristics of
the state’s monitoring and enforcement efforts: (1) award recipient knowledge of award
requirements; (2) availability of award outcome information to taxpayers and ODOD officials;
(3) effectiveness of award agreements in protecting taxpayer interests; and (4) state enforcement
of non-compliance.
Among the various requirements connected to ODOD assistance, job requirements are the
ultimate performance metric. In analyzing individual awards, therefore, the review focused on
the extent to which ODOD has sought recovery from businesses and organizations receiving
state assistance that clearly failed to create or to retain jobs as required by their award
agreements. Through analysis of survey responses, ODOD files and other information sources,
the Attorney General’s office has so far found a failure to fulfill job-creation or job-retention
requirements in at least 9.25% of the awards for which the Attorney General’s office could
obtain sufficient information to make an assessment. In addition, the review identified
substantial non-compliance with respect to 76 awards that remains unaddressed by ODOD.
Collectively, the unaddressed non-compliant awards involve more than $6.1 million in state
grant assistance and $5.7 million in state loan assistance, and their recipients missed job-creation
and job-retention requirements by more than 7,000 jobs. The awards analyzed span multiple
administrations and reflect longstanding practices of ODOD and related agencies of the state
government in pursuing economic development on behalf of the citizens and taxpayers of Ohio.
Indeed, ODOD has made a number of changes recently that have laid the groundwork for
continued improvement of monitoring and enforcement. In recent years, clearly the failure in
certain cases to fulfill job-creation or job-retention requirements is attributable to adverse
macroeconomic conditions beyond the control of award recipients and state officials alike, and
some systematic account should be taken of those types of circumstances in assessing the
performance of award recipients.
The nature and degree of non-compliance identified in these awards demonstrates the
importance of strengthening the mechanisms employed by the state to protect taxpayer interests
in these awards and to assess award effectiveness. This report includes recommendations for
addressing each of the deficiencies it identifies. The Attorney General’s office looks forward, in
2011, to partnering with ODOD and the Ohio General Assembly to improve transparency in the
state’s monitoring and enforcement of state economic development awards.
1
KEY FINDINGS
Clarity and Transparency of Information About State Awards
Knowledge of award requirements is inconsistent among state award recipients. A survey of

economic development award recipients revealed that some state award recipients lack basic
knowledge of their awards. Some award recipients fail to understand the transparency and
accountability required when accepting state assistance. Others do not comprehend specific
award requirements.
Taxpayers and ODOD officials have limited access to information regarding award
outcomes. ODOD offers detailed public information about the identity of award recipients
and the extent of their state assistance. The public, however, has little access to information
about award outcomes. ODOD generally does not share reports of these outcomes, whether
they are successes or failures. In addition, ODOD’s recordkeeping practices limit the state’s
ability to monitor award outcomes.
Effectiveness of State Enforcement Mechanisms
Contracts governing awards inconsistently protect taxpayer interests. As currently written,

some award agreements fail to ensure that award recipients fulfill award expectations and
commitments. An extensive review of ODOD award files turned up ambiguity as to
requirements connected to certain forms of state assistance. In such situations, neither the
state nor the recipient may be clear as to the enforceable requirements of the award
agreement. The review also revealed that some award agreements potentially allow
companies to achieve technical compliance with the agreement while failing to live up to the
spirit of the agreement’s job-creation or job-retention requirements.
Despite its contractual authority, ODOD often does not strictly enforce award requirements.
Of the awards granted between 2004 and 2009 for which the Attorney General’s office could
gather the information necessary to make a determination, at least 9.25% appear to have
involved businesses that received state assistance but failed to create or retain jobs as
required by their award contracts. Of these, there are 76 awards of interest to the Attorney
General’s office in which award recipients appear to have substantially failed to meet their
contractual employment obligations. ODOD has not yet taken enforcement action with
respect to any of those 76 awards of interest, an apparent lack of enforcement that may be
connected to deficiencies in reporting requirements and the sharing of the business-
promotion and enforcement functions within ODOD. Specifically, ODOD’s current system
of monitoring award recipients—in which businesses self-report with little or no verification
by ODOD personnel—likely fails to ensure the necessary level of state access to information
about award recipient compliance. In addition, ODOD does not separate the ODOD
personnel charged with creating a business-friendly climate in Ohio from the personnel
responsible for guarding state investments in private enterprise and safeguarding the tax
dollars that underlie these investments. That lack of separation between award-granting and
award-enforcing functions may pose an obstacle to effective enforcement.
2
BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Each year, the State of Ohio through its Department of Development offers hundreds of
millions of dollars in economic development awards to businesses and organizations. Designed
to spur economic growth in Ohio, these awards come primarily in the form of grants, low-
interest loans and tax credits.
To ensure that recipients of state assistance grow Ohio’s economy as intended, the state
requires award recipients to agree to achieve certain measures of economic growth. Chief
among these performance metrics, which the state sets by statute or by contractual agreement
with award recipients, are the following:
Capital improvement: Requiring an award recipient to undertake physical

improvements, such as the construction of a manufacturing facility.
Capital investment: Requiring an award recipient to contribute financially or secure

outside financial contributions for a state-assisted project.
Job creation and retention: Requiring an award recipient to create new jobs or to
retain existing jobs.
Worker training: Requiring an award recipient to provide employees with training.
Traditionally, ODOD has borne the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing
performance according to the statutes and agreements that govern development awards. In
December 2008, however, the Ohio General Assembly imposed additional oversight upon
economic development awards by passing a law requiring the Ohio Attorney General to
independently ensure award recipient compliance.
Enacted as part of a bill requiring greater transparency in state government, Revised Code
§ 125.112(G) requires the Attorney General to monitor award recipients’ compliance with the
terms and conditions of state awards for economic development; to take action where necessary
to remedy non-compliance; and to report annually to the Ohio General Assembly regarding the
compliance of state economic development award recipients. Revised Code § 125.112(G)
provides in full as follows:
The attorney general shall monitor the compliance of an entity with the
terms and conditions, including performance metrics, if any, of a state
award for economic development received by that entity. As necessary, the
agency that makes and administers the state award for economic
development shall assist the attorney general with that monitoring. The
attorney general shall submit to the general assembly pursuant to section
101.68 of the Revised Code an annual report regarding the level of
compliance of such entities with the terms and conditions, including any
performance metrics, of their state awards for economic development.
When the attorney general determines appropriate and to the extent that an
entity that receives or has received a state award for economic development
does not comply with a performance metric that is specified in the terms
3
and conditions of the award, the attorney general shall pursue against and
from that entity such remedies and recoveries as are available under law.
For purposes of this division, “state award for economic development”
means state financial assistance and expenditure in any of the following
forms: grants, subgrants, loans, awards, cooperative agreements, or other
similar and related forms of financial assistance and contracts, subcontracts,
purchase orders, task orders, delivery orders, or other similar and related
transactions. “State award for economic development” does not include
compensation received as an employee of the state or any state financial
assistance and expenditure received from the general assembly or any
legislative agency, any court or judicial agency, the secretary of state,
auditor of state, treasurer of state, or attorney general and their respective
offices.
Program development and process
Fulfilling these new monitoring responsibilities was a top priority within the Attorney
General’s office. Starting in January 2009, the office diligently worked to develop a mechanism
to fulfill its new responsibility. To satisfy the requirements of Revised Code § 125.112(G), the
effort needed to serve two primary goals:
Actual compliance review: Independently assuring the compliance of businesses and

organizations currently subject to requirements relating to state awards for economic
assistance.
Compliance mechanism analysis: Reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the

state’s monitoring and enforcement framework so that any needed improvements
could be made and the Ohio General Assembly and taxpayers would be offered a
clear understanding of economic development monitoring and enforcement in Ohio.
In addition, and especially in light of the economic circumstances during 2009 and 2010, the
mechanism needed to impose a minimal burden on businesses and minimal new costs on the
state.
To meet those goals, a working group of lawyers and policy analysts in the Attorney
General’s office created the Economic Development Accountability Program (“EDAP”) during
the first part of 2009. The EDAP working group researched and evaluated various options for
fulfilling the office’s new responsibility under Revised Code § 125.112(G), focusing initially on
two projects:
Ohio review: The working group analyzed ODOD programs and other efforts to
monitor ODOD awards. Attorneys reviewed sample agreements from each of
ODOD’s award programs, analyzing the different award requirements. Working
group members also met with program and division leaders at ODOD, seeking their
expertise on how best to monitor and enforce state award agreements. In addition, the
4
working group collected and analyzed information about ODOD’s tracking of award
programs, reviewing analyses conducted both by ODOD and by outside observers.1
Model review: The working group studied monitoring efforts in other states to learn
from the efforts of other state governments attempting to review and enforce
development award requirements.2
After considering various options, the EDAP working group decided to fulfill the
Attorney General’s responsibility under Revised Code § 125.112(G) through two main efforts:
Survey of award recipients: As an initial step, the EDAP working group surveyed
award recipients and attempted to gather compliance information regarding more than
3,600 separate awards through a survey available online at
www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/edap.
Review of state award files: Next, the EDAP working group and the Attorney
General’s Special Litigation Group reviewed more than 800 ODOD files relating to
two groups of awards: (1) awards for which an award recipient had provided
insufficient information in its survey responses and (2) awards that appeared non-
compliant based on the survey responses. Together with information collected
through the surveys, the file review enabled the EDAP working group to assess the
compliance of award recipients.
Survey of award recipients
The first step of the EDAP compliance review was a survey of businesses and
organizations currently bound by a state award agreement. This survey approach offered several
benefits, including:
Efficiency: A survey could be completed with only minimal cost to taxpayers and
minimal effort on the part of award recipients.
Independence: By gathering data on its own, apart from ODOD, the Attorney
General’s office was able to conduct an independent review of award compliance as
contemplated by Revised Code § 125.112(G).
Awareness: By asking award recipients to complete a survey, the Attorney General’s

office hoped to increase award recipients’ awareness of their contractual requirements
and to emphasize the importance of fulfilling those requirements.
During the summer of 2009, the EDAP working group coordinated with ODOD to
establish a list of awards covered by the EDAP survey. Based on a review of the terms of
1
The sources consulted for this review included Donald T. Iannone, An Assessment of the Costs, Benefits, and
Overall Impacts of the State of Ohio’s Economic Development Programs (Cleveland State University Maxine
Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, May 30, 1999); Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Economic
Development Incentive Study, (May 4, 2009); and Zach Schiller, Exempt from Scrutiny: Tax Breaks in Ohio, Policy
Matters Ohio (Feb. 2007).
2
Among the state programs consulted by the Attorney General’s office review were those employed in Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota and Vermont.
5
sample ODOD contracts, the EDAP working group concluded that a five-year window for
awards would include most active ODOD awards but omit ODOD awards that had already
expired. Thus, the EDAP review included all ODOD award agreements signed by a recipient
between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2009. The EDAP review excluded, based on the statute, any
ODOD awards offered to individuals or families for personal or household use.
Developing a list of award recipients for the time period under review proved more
challenging than expected. The EDAP working group encountered several problems in
obtaining accurate and complete award recipient information from ODOD. For example, many
of ODOD’s records were out-of-date; often businesses with active ODOD contracts had moved
or changed names, and ODOD’s records did not reflect the businesses’ new contact information.
In addition, ODOD could provide only incomplete information about numerous award recipients,
and ODOD was reluctant to provide the Attorney General’s office information about several of
its divisions and programs. To compensate for gaps in the information provided by ODOD, the
EDAP working group supplemented ODOD’s records with information obtained from the Ohio
Secretary of State’s office and other public information sources. The final list of award
recipients covered by the EDAP survey included 3,310 entities receiving 3,642 awards.3
The EDAP working group then designed a sixty-question survey to capture key
characteristics of award agreements. (A copy of this survey appears as Appendix A of this
report.) The questions in the survey, derived from representative sample agreements, pertained
to basic award characteristics or performance requirements. Based on the mandate in Revised
Code § 125.112(G) that the Attorney General assess “performance metrics,”4 the EDAP survey
focused especially on four types of requirements: (1) capital improvement, (2) capital
investment, (3) job creation and retention and (4) worker training.
On October 8, 2009, the Attorney General’s office mailed 3,310 letters to recipients of
state awards, asking each recipient to visit www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/edap within 30 days to
complete and submit a survey response regarding each award during the covered five-year
period. (A copy of this letter appears as Appendix C of this report.) The letter explained that
award recipients were being asked to answer only those questions that related to a term or
condition of their award agreement. On November 18, 2009, the Attorney General’s office
mailed a follow-up letter to any award recipient that did not respond to the initial survey request
letter. (A copy of this follow-up letter appears as Appendix D of this report.) The office also
granted a 30-day extension to any award recipient seeking one. Additionally, in May and June
2010, the office attempted to contact an additional 194 award recipients that had not been
included in the 2009 mailings due to ODOD’s initial inability to provide award recipient contact
information.
3
The actual number of award recipients covered by the EDAP review is somewhat lower because in some cases the
same entity appeared more than once in ODOD’s list of 3,310 award recipients (e.g., a single organization appeared
in ODOD’s records under multiple names). Ultimately, because of inaccuracies in the information obtained from
ODOD and other sources, the list of award recipients covered by the EDAP review included some companies that
did not receive awards. Also, it likely excluded some companies that in fact received awards during the time period
under review. Those gaps—along with poor contact information—reduced the survey response rate, as detailed
below.
4
See Ohio Rev. Code § 125.112(G) (“The attorney general shall monitor the compliance of an entity with the terms
and conditions, including performance metrics, if any, of a state award for economic development received by that
entity.” (emphasis added)).
6
To ensure that completing the survey was minimally burdensome for award recipients,
the EDAP working group trained an Assistant Attorney General, a policy analyst and
representatives from the Attorney General’s Help Center to answer questions raised by award
recipients. During the weeks and months after the office mailed survey request letters, the
Attorney General’s office answered more than 2,000 calls and emails from award recipients. In
addition, a detailed set of instructions was made available on the website. (This list of
instructions appears as Appendix B of this report.) Any award recipient that could not submit a
survey through the Attorney General’s website was asked to submit a hard copy version of the
form. Although the EDAP survey requested information that was slightly different from many
reports required by ODOD, the Attorney General’s office allowed award recipients to submit
reports previously prepared for ODOD in lieu of creating and submitting any substantially
similar aspects of the survey.
Survey response
The Attorney General’s office received survey responses relating to more than 2,000 state
economic development awards. Many of these survey responses provide useful information
about the efforts of businesses and organizations to grow Ohio’s economy, as detailed in this
report.
The Attorney General’s office received 2,028 survey responses (55.7% of covered
awards) providing at least some data about a development award covered by the
EDAP review.
The Attorney General’s office received an additional 310 survey responses (8.5% of
covered awards) reporting that a business had received no development award within
the five-year time period covered by the EDAP review.
The Attorney General’s office received no survey response related to 1304 awards.
Of that total:
o 343 awards (9.4% of covered awards) involved award recipients for whom
ODOD could not provide valid contact information before the Attorney
General’s office mailed the October and November letters5;
o 240 awards (6.6% of covered awards) involved award recipients who received
multiple awards and submitted survey responses for some but not all of their
awards; and
o 721 awards (19.8% of covered awards) involved award recipients who did not
respond in any fashion to multiple letters from the Attorney General’s office.
5
Initially ODOD could not provide valid contact information for 426 award recipients. The letters originally sent to
these recipients were returned as undeliverable. After further requests, ODOD provided updated contact
information that enabled 83 award recipients who had not previously completed surveys to send surveys to the
Attorney General.
7
Most businesses and organizations treated the EDAP survey request letter with care and
respect. Out of more than 600 comments submitted in connection with more than 2000 surveys,
only 18 complained about the survey requirement. Few complaints related to the Attorney
General’s obligations; rather, most of the businesses that were troubled by the new requirement
complained about the business’s difficulty in producing award or compliance information, not
about the compliance review itself.
Based on the responses to the survey, it is apparent that the survey request significantly
increased award recipients’ awareness of award requirements. For example, although familiarity
with award requirements would seem necessary for a business or organization attempting to
comply with the award, more than 100 award recipients responded to the survey request by
asking for a copy of their contract. In addition, more than 100 award recipients needed to take
advantage of the thirty-day extension policy, typically because their compliance information was
not readily available. As described below, that added awareness stands as one of the main
accomplishments of the first EDAP survey.
Survey analysis and impact
During January and February 2010, the EDAP working group analyzed the EDAP survey
responses. This analysis served several purposes: identifying non-compliant award recipients,
determining how state tracking efforts could be improved and learning how the survey itself
could be changed in the future.
Of the 2,028 survey responses relating to covered awards, 855 (42.2%) were sufficient
for the Attorney General’s office to determine whether material compliance had been achieved.
The remaining 1,173 survey responses displayed varying degrees of incompleteness: some
responses provided minimal information in nearly all required fields, while others provided near-
complete information but omitted at least one key term, such as the last date on which the award
agreement required performance.
One of the EDAP working group’s driving concerns was ensuring that the monitoring
effort imposed minimal burden on award recipients so that the Attorney General’s office did not
interfere with the good work that so many businesses are doing to help grow Ohio’s economy.
Among the benefits of the online survey were the following:
9 Ease of process: At marginal cost to taxpayers, and based on a simple online survey that asks
businesses basic questions about their performance according to award requirements, the
EDAP working group built a process to collect critical information about the compliance of
businesses and organizations that receive state economic development assistance. The
process also uncovered important information about certain award recipients that EDAP later
used as a basis for further investigations of potential non-compliance.
9 Increase in award obligation awareness: By requiring award recipients to review and report
on award requirements and performance, the EDAP working group intended the survey to
encourage compliance by ensuring that award recipients were aware of their contractual
requirements. Based on the large number of award recipients who initially struggled to
identify award requirements, as well as the ultimate generation of more than 2,000 survey
responses by award recipients, the survey succeeded in this respect.
8
9 Identification of files requiring additional review: As described below, a result of the EDAP
survey, the Attorney General’s office requested files from ODOD in order to more
thoroughly analyze certain awards, either because a survey response indicated possible non-
compliance or because an award recipient’s non-responsiveness invited additional attention
to the file.
Review of award files
After the EDAP working group conducted its survey of award recipients and reviewed
the survey responses, the Attorney General’s office requested follow-up information from
ODOD regarding more than 2,000 awards. This information was necessary to complete the
EDAP working group’s initial review of awards, as it served to supplement missing or
incomplete survey responses. The Attorney General’s office requested (1) contracts, contract
amendments and final reports for 1,280 awards for which no survey response had been received
to date; (2) contracts, amendments and final reports for 1,118 awards for which incomplete
survey responses had been received; and (3) a list of any covered award agreements subject to
ODOD litigation, clawback or audit. The Attorney General’s office also renewed its request to
ODOD for contact information for 345 award recipients for which ODOD had not provided
accurate addresses.
In response to that request for information, ODOD was able to provide the Attorney
General’s office with files relating to approximately 800 awards. Those 800 files were then
reviewed on-site at ODOD by a team of Assistant Attorneys General. The review focused on
collecting basic award information and determining whether, based on information contained in
the files, award recipients had complied with their award requirements. The review concluded
that among those files made available by ODOD, award recipients appeared to have failed to
meet job requirements in at least 9.25% of the reviewed awards.
Next, the EDAP working group closely analyzed the 9.25% of awards that appeared to
involve non-compliance based on the working group’s initial review. This close analysis
involved not only a second review of survey responses and ODOD’s files, but also a review of
news reports and other publically available information about award recipients, employment data
reported to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”), and notices required of
employers conducting layoffs by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(“WARN”). In addition, the analysis assessed the state’s potential avenues for enforcing or
otherwise seeking a legal remedy in connection with the non-compliant awards.
In the end, the EDAP working group identified 76 awards of interest to the Attorney
General’s office in which award recipients appear to have substantially failed to meet their
contractual employment obligations. (A list of the awards of interest to the Attorney General’s
office appears as Appendix E of this report.) The EDAP working group shared detailed analysis
on these awards of interest with ODOD and has offered the legal resources and expertise of the
Attorney General’s office to assist with addressing the apparent non-compliance appropriately.
9
DISCUSSION
I. Clarity and Transparency of Information About Awards
A survey of businesses and organizations that received state assistance between July 1,
2004 and June 30, 2009 revealed that some award recipients lack basic information about the
nature and requirements of their awards. In addition, a review of public information and ODOD
files maintained with respect to these awards found that ODOD publicizes little information
regarding award outcomes and that ODOD’s longstanding recordkeeping practices limit the
state’s ability to monitor its awards.
A. Knowledge of Award Requirements Is Inconsistent Among Award Recipients
Responses to the EDAP survey demonstrated that many ODOD award recipients fail to
understand the transparency and accountability required when accepting state assistance. These
responses also highlighted award recipients’ poor comprehension of specific award requirements
set forth in their contracts.
Expectations of transparency and accountability associated with state assistance
The Attorney General’s survey sought compliance information from recipients of 3,642
ODOD awards pursuant to contracts signed between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2009. Despite the
good-faith efforts of many individual businesses, a significant number of businesses that
received assistance during the covered period failed to provide necessary survey information
before the March 15, 2010 final survey deadline.
Table 1: Overall Survey Response
Awards covered by EDAP review, as identified by ODOD 3,642

Survey responses received providing at least some
2,028
information about covered awards
Survey responses received indicating that the business or
310
organization received no covered state award
Awards for which ODOD contact information deficiencies
343
prevented a survey response
Awards received by businesses and organizations that failed
to submit any survey response despite multiple requests by 721
the Attorney General’s office
Awards received by businesses and organizations that failed
to submit any survey response, despite having submitted a 240
survey response related to another award6
6
If a single business or organization received multiple covered awards, the Attorney General’s office sought
information about each covered award.
10
By not submitting a survey response, numerous award recipients demonstrated a failure
to grasp the transparency and accountability required in exchange for state assistance. Other
businesses and organizations demonstrated that same lack of understanding by submitting
incomplete survey responses:
Table 2: Timeliness and Sufficiency of Survey Response
Survey deadline extensions requested by award

recipients needing additional time to compile 142
award information
Surveys submitted late 118
Surveys submitted that failed to provide sufficient
information to allow meaningful compliance 1,173
review
Award requirements are often unknown or poorly understood by award recipients
Some businesses and organizations receiving state assistance fail to recognize award
requirements: some fail to track their award requirements and some simply do not understand
their requirements.
Many ODOD contracts require that award recipients maintain records for their awards—
often for several years after receiving state aid7—and despite this requirement, many award
recipients apparently have no documentation of the requirements associated with their state
assistance. The Attorney General’s office received 122 requests from businesses that needed
copies of their contracts to complete the survey of basic award information.8 Obviously, if a
business or organization does not even have a copy of its contract, it is unlikely that this business
or organization is mindful of its contractual requirements during the duration of the agreement.
To account for errors in ODOD data, furthermore, the survey enabled businesses and
organizations to report that they received no award during the covered period, despite ODOD
records to the contrary. Based on a review of ODOD financial records and award files relating to
businesses and organizations that selected this option, 118 award recipients incorrectly believed
that they had received no award.9
7
A representative provision reads as follows: “13. Audit Inspection and Record Retention. The Company shall
upon reasonable notice from the Grantor and during usual business hours, and as often as the Grantor may
reasonably request, permit any authorized representative designated by the Grantor to inspect any of such records,
documents, or books, and to make extracts from such records, documents, or books as may be necessary to ensure or
review compliance with the conditions of this Agreement. The Company shall maintain its financial records in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Project records shall be maintained for three (3) years
after the expiration or termination of this Agreement.”
8
To assist these award recipients, the Attorney General’s office and ODOD established a process of distributing the
requested contracts to award recipients.
9
Despite the clear instruction in survey materials that the person completing the survey response on behalf of a
business or organization should be familiar with any state award benefitting that business or organization, the
Attorney General’s office is sensitive to the fact that in some cases, the person completing the survey may not have
been involved in the administration of the state award (e.g., because of a change in personnel or poor contact
11
Additionally, many survey responses supplied inaccurate, insufficient or troubling
information about critical award requirements:
Table 3: Survey Responses by Question
Surveys indicating the existence of a job-creation requirement, but not

370
reporting job performance as required
Responses relating to training awards reporting no training requirement 112
Surveys reporting that award recipient does not know the value of state
7
assistance it has received
Responses relating to a Job Creation Tax Credit that did not report a job-
34
creation requirement
Responses indicating that the award agreement does not require the award
recipient to submit reports to the state regarding award progress or 300
compliance
Responses indicating that the movement of jobs within Ohio may be
478
counted as job-creation under the award agreement
One commonly-misunderstood contract provision in the survey response was the “market
conditions” clause included in the agreements governing several types of ODOD awards.10 A
number of award recipients incorrectly reported to the Attorney General’s office that they simply
did not need to fulfill their award requirements because of difficult market conditions.11 Award
agreements typically do not excuse performance requirements automatically when certain market
information provided by ODOD). That lack of familiarity, however, does not excuse the person’s act of
representing to the Attorney General’s office without proper information that his or her employer did not receive
state assistance.
10
Such a provision commonly appears in agreements administering awards through the 412/Rapid Outreach Grant,
629 Roadwork Development and 166 Loan award programs. Typically an agreement gives the state a remedy in the
event of non-compliance, unless the state determines that market conditions caused the non-compliance: “If Grantee
fails to create and/or retain at least ninety (90) percent of the total estimated full time jobs as stated in this
Agreement or fails to maintain the above-referenced employment levels during the Term of the Agreement, for
reasons other than Market Conditions, as defined in this Agreement, Grantor may require Grantee to reimburse
Grantor in an amount equal to the ration of the Funds to the total jobs to be created and/or retained hereunder,
multiplied by the number of full time jobs which Grantee has failed to create and/or retain.” ODOD’s agreements
often give the Director of ODOD guidelines for determining whether poor market conditions exist, as follows: “For
the purposes of this Agreement, ‘Market Conditions’ shall be determined by the Director of Development, with the
advice from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. The Director of Development shall consider the following: a).
Two consecutive quarters of decline in manufacturing employment in the State of Ohio as a whole or when possible
by relevant manufacturing sector. Employment figures will be those reported by the Ohio Department of Job and
Family Services. b). A decline, as a whole or by relevant sector, in twelve (12) of the last thirty-six (36) months as
detailed in the Federal Reserve’s national industrial production index. c). The performance of the relevant sector as
reported in Standard & Poor’s ‘Industry Surveys’ or the ‘U.S. Industry & Trade Outlook.’”
11
For example, one award recipient incorrectly reported that “[T]he agreement allows for dropping below the
minimum requirement due to Market Conditions . . . which occurred and was documented with previous
submissions.”
12
conditions occur.12 Instead, they enable the Director of ODOD to conclude that non-compliance
occurred because of the market conditions, in which case the Director can opt not to enforce
award requirements.13
B. Taxpayers and ODOD Officials Have Limited Access to Information

Regarding Award Outcomes
In addition to the deficiencies identified above with respect to award recipient

information about award requirements, the state’s award-monitoring system provides limited
information to members of the public and ODOD officials. Members of the public can access
information about awards at their outset, but information about substantial changes to awards as
well as award outcomes is rarely available. Indeed, even ODOD officials have difficulty
accessing this information.
ODOD rarely discloses meaningful information about specific award outcomes
When announcing an award at its outset, ODOD offers extensive public information
through a press release that describes the requirements and benefits of the award.14 In response
to changes in Ohio law, ODOD also recently launched two public online databases enabling
taxpayers to learn which businesses and organizations have received awards.15 Some award
information also traditionally has appeared in ODOD’s Annual Report about businesses and
organizations receiving assistance.16 Through these resources, taxpayers generally can identify
which businesses and organizations have received state assistance and how much assistance has
been made available through those awards.17
12
Some of these clauses are not clear. 412/Rapid Outreach Grant agreements, for example, allow the Director to
enforce non-compliance only if she determines that non-compliance occurs “for reasons other than Market
Conditions.” This language could fairly be interpreted to mean either that poor market conditions excuse non-
compliance (1) whenever they occur, regardless of any other factors contributing to non-compliance; or (2) only if
they are the sole or primary cause of non-compliance.
13
In meetings with the Attorney General’s office, some ODOD staff also displayed a similar misunderstanding or
differences of opinion about the market conditions clauses found in their award agreements. Because current
economic conditions likely render the clauses applicable to many industries and awards, ODOD should ensure that
its staff members have a complete and uniform understanding of these contractual provisions.
14
These press releases can be found online at www.development.ohio.gov/PressRoom.htm. As currently written,
many ODOD press releases give members of the public the impression that ODOD has reached an agreement with
an award recipient and that the award recipient definitely will move forward with its project; in fact, a substantial
portion of awards announced via ODOD press release never materialize into actual contracts or projects benefiting
the state. This discrepancy appears to be one reason for flaws in the data ODOD provided to the Attorney General’s
office regarding outstanding awards. In future award announcements, ODOD should clarify the extent to which
awards are not yet finalized.
15
As directed by Revised Code § 125.112(F) and § 125.20(A)(2), ODOD has recently provided information about
economic development awards through two websites. The first, available at http://development.ohio.gov/hb420/,
provides information about ODOD grants and loans. The second, available at
http://www.development.ohio.gov/hb1/, provides information about awards administered through the Job Creation
Tax Credit (“JCTC”) program.
16
This report formerly contained information about specific awards, but the most recent iteration, dated January 4,
2010, included only general information about awards programs. The 2009 Annual Report is available online at
www.development.ohio.gov/DepartmentReports/Reports/OhioDOD_AnnualReport.pdf.
17
A recent non-profit report entitled Show Us the Subsidies gave Ohio the fourth-highest rating among states in
“subsidy” disclosure. Yet the state earned only a “C+” rating in the report because of the limited public availability
of information about award outcomes. See Philip Mattera et al., Show Us the Subsidies: An Evaluation of State
13
Very limited information, however, is available to the public regarding award outcomes.
For example, ODOD typically does not update the public when it materially amends, delays,
cancels or takes remedial action with respect to an award. ODOD also fails to offer meaningful
information about the success or failure of many awards, including information provided by
award recipients through required reports to ODOD.18
ODOD does not manage an effective award monitoring system
When called to assist the Attorney General’s office in fulfilling its obligations under
Revised Code § 125.112(G), ODOD repeatedly demonstrated that its records and files are not
kept in an order conducive to effective monitoring.19 The inadequacy relates to both the
management of individual files and the tracking of files on an agency-wide basis. ODOD
officials have long acknowledged these shortcomings publicly, which have been present for
many years.20
Recordkeeping deficiencies at ODOD include gaps in the agency’s ability to contact

businesses and organizations receiving state assistance. When the Attorney General’s office
began its survey process, it was not able to obtain valid mailing addresses from ODOD for the
purpose of requesting survey responses from 426 award recipients.21 For some recipients,
ODOD provided the Attorney General’s office with no contact information; for others, the
information provided was inaccurate.
The lack of public disclosure of award outcomes described above also may stem from
recordkeeping deficiencies. ODOD has reported publicly that it maintains accurate compliance
information with respect to each current award but that it has no system for organizing this
information throughout the agency.22 Despite assurances that such a system will be implemented
soon, little progress has apparently occurred during the two years following the enactment of
Revised Code § 125.112(G).23
Government Online Disclosure of Economic Development Subsidies (Good Jobs First, Dec. 2010), available at
www.goodjobsfirst.org/showusthesusidies.
18
One notable exception is the Job Creation Tax Credit Program, for which ODOD reports annually regarding the
status of outstanding awards. Even with this report, however, ODOD does not give the public any details about the
performance of the award recipient according to its obligations. Instead, the report simply notes whether a particular
award remains active or is the subject of state cancellation or a clawback action. See, e.g., Ohio Department of
Development, 2008 Job Creation Tax Credit Annual Report (May 21, 2009), available at
www.development.ohio.gov/cms/uploadedfiles/Development.ohio.gov/Annual_Reports/JCTC_Report(1).pdf.
19
Revised Code § 125.112(G) requires that “[a]s necessary, the agency that makes and administers the state award
for economic development [ODOD] shall assist the attorney general with that monitoring.”
20
See, e.g., Mark Niquette, Some Fall Short of Tax-Credit Promises: Gaps in Data Make Tracking Companies’
Accountability Hard, Columbus Dispatch, July 11, 2010; Real-Time Job Tracking System Rescheduled for Next
Biennium, The Hannah Report, June 17, 2010.
21
Although in past years ODOD listed all award recipients in its Annual Report, through the survey the Attorney
General’s office learned that this list often included many businesses and organizations that negotiated awards with
ODOD but ultimately did not accept state assistance.
22
The current information management system used by many ODOD divisions, which is known as Pivotal, does not
include critical information about legal requirements and detailed information about award recipient compliance.
Based on public statements by ODOD, it apparently also is limited in its ability to generate reports about the status
of ODOD awards.
23
Real-Time Job Tracking System Rescheduled for Next Biennium, The Hannah Report, June 17, 2010.
14
Finally, recordkeeping remains deficient at the individual file level. ODOD struggled to
fulfill requests from the Attorney General’s office for needed information regarding awards
under review. For example, to supplement missing or incomplete survey responses, the Attorney
General’s office requested that ODOD facilitate an on-site review of ODOD award files for
certain awards.24 The Attorney General’s office made this request on March 5, 2010, but as of
the December 10, 2010 cutoff for presentation of this report, ODOD was not able to produce all
requested files, and a substantial portion of files produced remained incomplete:
Table 4: ODOD Production of Files Relating to Missing Surveys25
Lost files 9
Files included in ODOD award lists26 for
60
which ODOD now has “no record”
Files that ODOD failed to produce
109
without explanation
Files that were incomplete when first
251
produced by ODOD
Files that remained incomplete even after
the Attorney General’s office requested 38
supplemental information
C. Recommendations
Award recipients, taxpayers and ODOD officials have limited information about and
comprehension of awards. Through programmatic enhancements, the state can improve its
monitoring efforts and enhance award transparency. This information will assist award
recipients, taxpayers and ODOD in both ensuring award compliance and assessing program
efficacy. To address deficiencies in these areas, the Attorney General’s office recommends the
following:
9 Establish a comprehensive website with detailed information about ODOD awards
For the public to understand and appreciate the use of its taxpayer dollars in these private
enterprises, the state should offer a detailed public accounting of the promises made by
businesses, progress toward meeting those promises and any substantial changes to previously-
24
These files related to three categories of survey responses: (1) those indicating that the business or organization
received no award; (2) those for awards not covered by a survey response; and (3) those for awards identified as
potentially non-compliant based on information reviewed by the Attorney General’s office.
25
Table figures reflect ODOD’s production of files relating to the request of the Attorney General’s office for
information regarding missing surveys only. Prior to the December 10, 2010 cutoff for presentation of this report,
ODOD had not begun production of files relating to the request for information regarding 1,173 insufficient surveys.
26
To help the Attorney General’s office identify active development awards, ODOD provided the Attorney
General’s office lists of award recipients generated by its divisions as well as copies of its agency-wide annual
reports.
15
announced projects.27 This accounting should identify all key requirements of award
agreements, and it should provide sufficient information about award recipients so that it is
meaningful to members of the public (including, for example, information such as the city and
county in which each award recipient is located and the nature of each recipient’s business).
Information about these requirements could be easily extracted from ODOD contracts and their
amendments as they are executed. Additionally, to ensure that the public always has accurate
information, ODOD should update the database in real-time regarding any progress reported by
award recipients.
In discussions with the Attorney General’s office and reports to the news media, ODOD
has referred to plans to provide much greater detail about its awards to the public.28 Two years
after the enactment of Revised Code § 125.112(G), however, it remains difficult or impossible to
obtain information about award successes and failures. ODOD should make this information
public as quickly as possible, ideally through a new website database.
9 Make all reports submitted by award recipients available for download from website
ODOD requires regular progress reports from award recipients. While ODOD
implements the website database described above, it should make public all reports submitted by
award recipients to ODOD.29 Ideally, these reports should become available through ODOD’s
website as they are submitted. The information contained in award reports could usefully
apprise taxpayers of the status and success of state investments in private industry. As the most
current and accurate description of award progress, these reports would contain valuable
information for both the public and policymakers.30
9 Make award agreements public
Finally, ODOD should publicly share the contractual agreements that govern its awards.31
By making this information readily available to the public, ODOD can encourage members of
the public to track award requirements and ensure that award recipients and ODOD officials
have ready access to documentation of their award requirements.
27
One model for this website may be the reports currently made available online by ODOD on behalf of local
entities offering Enterprise Zone awards. These reports are available at
http://www.development.ohio.gov/OTEISearch/ez/default.aspx.
28
Mark Niquette, Some Fall Short of Tax-Credit Promises: Gaps in Data Make Tracking Companies’
Accountability Hard, Columbus Dispatch, July 11, 2010.
29
Based on the Attorney General’s office review of ODOD award files, very few progress reports contain
confidential or trade secret information. To the extent that any ODOD program requires such information in award
recipient progress reports, however, that specific information could be redacted from public copies of the report.
30
The State of Illinois offers “Accountability Reports,” available at:
http://www.ilcorpacct.com/corpacct/ProgressReport.aspx, that may serve as a model for Ohio’s website disclosures.
31
Again, to the extent that these agreements include confidential or trade secret information, that specific
information could be redacted before it is offered to the public.
16
II. Effectiveness of State Enforcement Mechanisms
A close review of more than 800 ODOD award files found that some ODOD award
agreements do not advance state interests as intended in the awards. In addition, the review
determined that ODOD’s system of monitoring award compliance through self-reporting limits
what information is available to the state as its considers the need for enforcement action.
Combined with information from the Attorney General’s office survey of award recipients and
other state information, the file review also identified substantial and unaddressed non-
compliance with respect to roughly 7.5% of reviewed award agreements. To ensure effective
and independent award monitoring and enforcement, the state should require more active
reporting and focus on clearly separating the business-attraction function from the contract-
enforcement function in administering economic development programs.
A. Contracts Governing Awards Inconsistently Protect Taxpayer Interests
The file review turned up a number of deficiencies in the drafting of award agreements.
These deficiencies reduce the force of award agreements and ultimately jeopardize the
effectiveness of state investment in award recipients.
Poor drafting and ambiguity in some agreements hinder the state’s ability to enforce
performance requirements
A number of ODOD agreements suffer from ambiguity. For example, the job-creation or
job-retention requirements in some award agreements include modifiers such as “approximate,”
“estimated,” “planned” or “projected.”32 With language of this nature, an award agreement can
be read fairly either (1) to require the award recipient actually to fulfill the exact job
requirements or (2) to require the award recipient to undertake reasonable efforts to reach the job
requirements. No matter the state’s intent, the ambiguity of the current agreement creates
unclear expectations for the state, award recipients and taxpayers. Should the state choose to
enforce an uncertain job requirement, the meaning of the modifier may be at issue in any
negotiation or litigation.
Another ambiguity relates to the timing with which an award recipient must fulfill its
obligations according to certain ODOD training award agreements. Some agreements require
award recipients to “attain” a certain employment level by a specified date. Although some of
these agreements specify further that award recipients must maintain a certain employment level
after they attain it, many of the agreements do not. Unfortunately, some award recipients may
interpret such ambiguous requirements to demand nothing of them after they “attain” the
required employment level once during the term of an agreement. In other words, the job-
creation requirement as currently crafted in these agreements might be satisfied through a
temporary fulfillment of the award’s intended long-term effect.
32
For example, one reviewed contract provides that “[t]hroughout the Term . . . the Company shall create
approximately 40 jobs and employment opportunities” (emphasis added). Another contract indicates that “it is
projected that thirty-three (33) new full-time employment positions will be created” (emphasis added).
17
Timing also is unclear in one particular grant program, the 412/Rapid Outreach Grant.
These awards require the fulfillment of job requirements during a three-year period occurring
after project completion. The agreements also typically set a deadline for project completion. In
practice, however, project completion may occur before the deadline, yet neither the state nor the
award recipient actively identifies or records its occurrence. Consequently, the state does not
know—and might in some circumstances be forced to negotiate or litigate—the date when an
award recipient officially completes a project according to the award agreement, thereby
triggering job requirements.
Other ambiguities relate to the number of jobs required for agreement compliance. For
instance, Revised Code § 112.17(D)(3) requires Job Creation Tax Credit agreements to include a
provision whereby the state can recoup award funds if a tax credit recipient fails to “maintain
operations” for a period of time after the tax credit expires. ODOD has not, however, offered a
public definition of that phrase. The phrase remains open to various reasonable interpretations:
It could require the award recipient to maintain only a minimal operation during the set time
period, regardless of the size or scope of those operations. Alternatively, the phrase may require
the award recipient to maintain operations that are substantial relative to its operations as
required by the award. The unclear meaning of this phrase may leave award recipients as well as
the state unable to clearly understand award requirements.
Similarly, ODOD’s training grant agreements give the state authority to require
repayment of certain award assistance if the award recipient experiences a “substantial
reduction” in employment.33 Yet the award agreements fail to define what degree of reduction is
considered “substantial.” Without clarity here, award recipients and the state may struggle to
identify the award requirement, both for proactive compliance purposes and in the event of any
remedial efforts.
Agreements enable businesses to remain compliant even when they do not actually advance the
interests of Ohio to the extent promised in the award
A mismatch exists between the performance expectations associated with certain awards
and the actions an award recipient must actually take to comply with the award agreements. The
Attorney General’s office review turned up a number of awards in which businesses and
organizations technically complied with award requirements, yet acted in a manner contrary to
the overall purpose of the award. The related gaps in state enforcement authority undermine the
requirements of award agreements and reduce the value of state investment in these economic
development awards.
For example, awards administered through the Job Creation Tax Credit program allow no
remedial penalty if an award recipient drastically reduces its workforce during the term of the
agreement. The agreements clearly allow the state to recoup award assistance when an award
33
For example, an Ohio Investment and Training Grant executed in May 2007 provides as follows: “Effect of
Failure to Meet Employment, Training or Investment Projections. If prior to the Ending Date, the Company (a)
significantly reduces employment at the location of the Project; (b) fails to undertake regular operations; (c) moves
the operations from the location of the Project; or (d) ceases operation of the Project, then the Company may be
required to reimburse the Grantor, at the Grantor’s sole discretion.”
18
recipient fails to maintain its operations at the project site for a set period of time after receiving
the award, and they also allow the state to reduce future assistance to award recipients that fail to
meet their requirements. They do not, however, empower the state to seek repayment of
assistance if an award recipient continues to maintain operations but stops meeting job
requirements. Thus, even if an award recipient were to lay off most of its employees, the state
could not seek repayment so long as the recipient maintained a minimal workforce at the project
site.
Agreements governing the state’s 629 Roadwork Development awards also fail to ensure
that award recipients perform as intended by the awards. Through these awards, the state assists
businesses with relocation or expansion in Ohio by improving infrastructure. Typically, the state
transfers financial support to the political subdivision hosting the benefitting business so that the
political subdivision can, for example, expand roadway access to the site of the business. In
exchange for this assistance, and consistent with other award programs, the state requires the
benefitting business to create or retain jobs. Yet even though the award agreements reference
these job requirements, in most cases only the state and political subdivisions sign the
agreements for these awards; the benefiting business itself does not sign the agreement.34 In
addition, the agreement typically limits the state from collecting any repayment owed to the
political subdivision, rather than the benefitting business.35 As a result, businesses can benefit
from state assistance, fail to meet award requirements and operate free from concern about state
enforcement.36
Under some award agreements, businesses and organizations receiving state assistance
may comply with job-creation requirements by moving jobs from other sites in Ohio to the site
of the project at issue in the award.37 There were 478 survey responses that reported no
prohibition on the movement of jobs within Ohio to satisfy job-creation requirements. In these
awards, therefore, the state creates incentives that may benefit one region of Ohio by harming
another region of the state. As a result, businesses may comply with specific award requirements
while ultimately failing to grow Ohio’s economy.
Frequently ODOD offers several types of economic assistance to an award recipient, yet
fails adequately to coordinate the requirements associated with the entire set of awards. Some
award recipients sign multiple award agreements that require the same performance according to
different timeframes, muddying the actual requirement deadline. In an effort to reduce
34
The arrangement also creates confusion among benefitting businesses. Survey responses for 629 Roadwork
Development Grant awards were submitted (1) jointly by a benefitting business and a political subdivision;
(2) solely by a political subdivision; and (3) solely by a benefitting business.
35
Some award agreements go further, putting the entire burden on the political subdivision, as in the following 629
Roadwork Development Grant agreement: “It is the sole option and responsibility of the Grantee [subdivision] to
seek restitution or contribution from the participating company or companies.”
36
Some 629 Roadwork Development Grant agreements specify that in the event of non-compliance by the
benefitting business, the state can seek repayment from the political subdivision, which can seek repayment from the
benefitting business. This arrangement creates unnecessary transaction costs and needlessly divides the state and the
political subdivision, when the benefiting business is responsible for non-compliance.
37
Revised Code § 122.17(D)(8), however, requires Job Creation Tax Credit award agreements to include “[a]
provision providing that the taxpayer may not relocate a substantial number of employment positions from
elsewhere in this state to the project location unless the director of development determines that the legislative
authority of the county, township, or municipal corporation from which the employment positions would be
relocated has been notified by the taxpayer of the relocation.”
19
paperwork for award recipients, ODOD commonly allows award recipients to submit one report
that satisfies reporting requirements associated with multiple awards, even if the awards impose
different requirements on award recipients that may not be captured by the single report.
Because of the lack of an accurate agency-wide database, ODOD also cannot easily determine
when a particular company in negotiations for an award has previously received an award from
ODOD.38
A recent programmatic improvement by ODOD highlights how simply the state can fix
some of the contractual deficiencies outlined above. During the period covered by the review,
many Ohio Investment in Training Program (“OITP”) grant agreements inadvertently limited the
state’s ability to enforce job requirements; award agreements executed between 2004 and 2008
gave the state enforcement ability if an award recipient failed to comply with job, training or
capital improvement requirements during the term of its agreement. In those circumstances, the
state typically had contractual authority to reduce the amount of future benefit available to the
award recipient.39 The agreements also typically required performance to occur before their last
effective date. Because performance was not required until the last day of the agreement,
however, the agreement effectively gave the state no time in which to exercise its enforcement
mechanism. Recently ODOD has added a provision in training grant agreements that allows the
state to seek repayment of assistance in the event of non-compliance.40
B. Despite Its Contractual Authority, ODOD Often Does Not Strictly Enforce
Award Requirements
Of the awards for which the Attorney General’s office was able to gather the information
necessary to make a determination, the state has yet to address a substantial portion of non-
compliance by businesses that receive its assistance but have not performed according to
agreement requirements.41 Information obtained through a survey conducted by the Attorney
38
ODOD was not able to provide the Attorney General’s office with lists of awards received by particular award
recipients. Instead, to access a file relating to an award recipient, the Attorney General’s office needed to specify
which division of ODOD generated the award.
39
These agreements also give the state authority to recoup award funds if an award recipient takes a number of non-
compliant actions, such as moving out of state or significantly reducing project-site operations. The state, therefore,
has a remedy for the award recipients who most egregiously violate their award agreements. For example, many
Ohio Investment in Training Program grants executed between 2004 and 2008 included as term 7 the following:
“Employment Training, and Investment. By the Ending Date of the Term of the Agreement, the Company shall
attain an employment level of [set number of] jobs, shall train [set number of] people and shall invest [set value] in
the Facility” and as term 8, “Effect of Failure to Meet Employment, Training or Investment Projections. If, prior to
the Ending Date, the Company has not met the projections set forth in Section 7 above in regards to employment,
number of people trained or Investment in the Facility for two consecutive quarters, the Grantor: a. May terminate
the Agreement; b. May renegotiate the provisions of the Agreement and/or the Term of the Agreement including a
reduction of Funds.”
40
Recent contracts include the following provision: “Remedy. If the Grantee fails to satisfy its obligations under
paragraphs (a) and (b) [referring to (a) Job and Training Commitment and (b) Operations at the Project Site] of this
Section, Grantor may require Grantee to pay Grantor, as liquidated damages for such breach, an amount not to
exceed the amount of Grant Funds disbursed to Grantee. Grantor shall determine the amount claimed as damages
based on Grantor’s assessment of market conditions and such other aggravating and mitigating factors regarding
Grantee and its operations at the Project site as Grantor deems relevant. Grantee shall pay any damages claimed
within thirty (30) days after written demand by Grantor.”
41
ODOD has indicated to the Attorney General’s office and the news media that its current administration has
increased its efforts to pursue non-compliance. For example, ODOD took enforcement actions with respect to 182
Job Creation Tax Credits in 2009, 107 Job Creation Tax Credits in 2008, and 19 Job Creation Tax Credits in 2007.
20
General’s office, analysis of ODOD award files and other state information identified such non-
compliance and the absence of enforcement with respect to roughly 7.5% of all awards reviewed.
One possible obstacle to enforcement is the state’s method of collecting award performance
information from award recipients, which does not obtain needed information in a timely
fashion. An additional and unnecessary obstacle to effective enforcement may be an economic
development regime that does not separate the function of awarding state assistance from the
function of seeking its return when projects falter and promises are not kept.
Substantial non-compliance remains unaddressed
ODOD does not enforce the job-creation and job-retention requirements of a significant
number of its award agreements. During 2010, the Attorney General’s office meticulously
reviewed ODOD files relating to any business that, based on public reports or the Attorney
General’s survey, appeared to have failed to fulfill its job requirements. The Attorney General’s
office used data reported by employers to ODJFS for the purposes of unemployment
compensation to confirm data in ODOD and survey records. This effort identified at least 76
businesses that did not fulfill the job requirements of their award agreements and faced no
apparent consequences from ODOD.42 Collectively, these businesses received more than $6.1
million dollars in state grant assistance and more than $5.7 million in state loan assistance, yet
missed their job requirements by 7,000 jobs.43
The Attorney General’s office communicated these findings to ODOD and sought its
assistance in remedying non-compliance. ODOD, however, informed the Attorney General’s
office that it does not pursue non-compliance with respect to job requirements in some
circumstances, so long as the award recipient complies with other agreement terms, such as
training performed or capital improvement undertaken.44
Reports are not always effective at measuring performance according to material requirements
The review also identified deficiencies in ODOD’s practice of requiring and collecting
progress reports from award recipients. ODOD’s monitoring system relies heavily on self-
reporting by award recipients of their success in meeting award requirements. And ODOD often
allows award recipients to submit reports that do not meaningfully provide such progress
information: the Attorney General’s office identified a significant number of late reports, missing
reports, reports missing critical information and reports submitted with obviously incorrect
information.45 In addition, ODOD typically does not independently confirm self-reporting of
Mark Niquette, “Some Fall Short of Tax-Credit Promises: Gaps in Data Make Tracking Companies’ Accountability
Hard,” The Columbus Dispatch, July 11, 2010.
42
The Attorney General’s office generally reviewed ODOD files for more than 10% non-compliance or a
divergence of more than 100 employees from the job requirement. This review also excluded any non-compliance
previously remedied by ODOD.
43
The list of awards appears as Appendix E of this report.
44
Other reasons cited by ODOD for its failure to pursue repayment of state assistance in certain instances include
the cost of litigation, effect of bankruptcy on an award, difficult market conditions and the limited benefit of seeking
repayment of relatively small awards.
45
Even if award recipients comply with reporting requirements, they may not provide information needed by the
state to assess non-compliance. For example, during the review period, OITP agreements required the award
recipient to file its final report when the recipient completed the training for which it sought state reimbursement,
even though job requirements connected to the agreement often continued past the final training date. Similarly,
21
award recipients.46 By all accounts, the purpose of these reports is to provide the state the
information it needs to assess both compliance and the effectiveness of these economic
development awards. Practices that result in the state not receiving this information in a timely
manner, or at all, would seem almost necessarily to inhibit the state’s ability to perform either
function.
The lack of separation between those charged with promoting growth and those charged with
enforcing agreements may create avoidable conflicts
As is commonly understood, ODOD’s mandate is promoting business growth in Ohio.

This mission is pursued, in part, by entering into economic development award agreements
meant to entice businesses to create or keep jobs in this state. A conflict can arise when the
agency with such a mandate must also enforce these same award agreements and hold award
recipients accountable when they fail to fulfill their award requirements. In other words, when
the business-attraction and award-enforcement functions are not clearly delineated, it may be
difficult for the same agency to be both a salesman for Ohio and the safekeeper of Ohio’s public
resources. Historically, though, ODOD has been asked to perform both functions
simultaneously.
Many of the issues identified in this report, including poor tracking of awards, deficient
understanding of award requirements, lax enforcement provisions and non-compliance that the
state fails to address, may stem from this tension. In its own words, ODOD views award
recipients as “customers” of the state, rather than contract partners with the state in a relationship
of both opportunity and responsibility. It appears that this has been the prevailing view for many
years, spanning multiple administrations pursuing economic development objectives.
Under the current structure, monitoring of ODOD awards typically falls to the one person
administering the award. Any non-compliance highlighted by that person may be advanced to
supervisors within ODOD and ultimately to the ODOD leadership structure. Within ODOD,
however, there is no single person or division with the sole responsibility and incentive to
address non-compliance. In fact, a contrary incentive prevails; ODOD’s philosophy of helping
businesses at all costs47 interferes with any motivation within the agency to take action when
businesses fail to perform according to their agreements. For these reasons, the state sometimes
fails to address non-compliance to the extent that it should.
C. Recommendations
By improving award agreements, the state can better protect taxpayer interests and ensure
the effectiveness of its investments in private enterprise. On the other side of the agreement,
removing ambiguity can also provide clarity and certainty to award recipients as to exactly what
ODOD staff commonly sought to close out reports from 412/Rapid Outreach Grant award recipients when the
recipients had completed a project, rather than when the contractual job requirements expired three years later. As a
result, the state did not receive performance information during a portion of the award term, effectively preventing
the state from learning of non-compliance.
46
One notable exception to ODOD’s failure to double-check business progress reports is site visits conducted by
regional employees who manage training awards for the agency.
47
We see this philosophical difference, for example, in ODOD’s terminology for award recipients (“customers”)
and agreements pre-disbursement (“sales attempts”).
22
will be expected of them in the bargain. The state also can ensure greater compliance by more
carefully monitoring its awards, particularly through better reporting mechanisms. In addition,
more regular enforcement of non-compliance will ensure that taxpayer interests are protected
consistently in these awards. Finally, the Attorney General’s office and ODOD should work
closely to delineate clearly the enforcement function from the business-attraction function with
respect to economic development awards.
9 Clarify award agreements
The state should convene a task force to review template award agreements for all ODOD
programs and determine how to eliminate ambiguity and otherwise clarify the agreements.
Among the considerations before this task force should be master agreements controlling all
awards benefiting a single award recipient, greater standardization of ODOD award agreements
and stronger enforcement mechanisms.
9 Continue centralization of reporting
ODOD should accelerate its effort to centralize award-recipient reporting. The state
should require all businesses receiving its assistance to complete a standard report that captures
performance regarding all material requirements of awards. Centralized award-recipient
reporting will ensure better agency-wide information and enhance the ability of ODOD and other
state officials to identify and remedy non-compliance. The Attorney General’s survey may serve
as an exemplar for this report, which award recipients should be required to complete throughout
the term of any award to which they are a party. In addition to standardizing the information
required by reports, ODOD should standardize the deadlines for all reports and require reports to
be filed frequently enough to identify non-compliance when it occurs.
9 Take action with respect to egregious non-compliance
The state should consider taking more consistent action to address non-compliance.
When the state enforces the terms of an award agreement, it should make that information
public. A more aggressive approach to non-compliance not only will affect businesses and
organizations that fail to fulfill their award requirements, but may also deter future non-
compliance. Some account should be taken, however, of adverse macroeconomic conditions that
may be beyond the control of award recipients and state officials alike.
9 Include Revised Code § 125.112(G) and the Attorney General’s monitoring and
enforcement authority in ODOD award agreements
Future ODOD award agreements should include an acknowledgement of Revised Code

§ 125.112(G), the state’s economic development accountability statute. Such acknowledgement
will ensure that award recipients have notice at the outset of their awards about their obligations
to the state and of the state’s commitment to transparency and accountability in award
compliance. It will also signal to award recipients the importance of compliance, thereby
deterring future non-compliance.48
48
A sample reference might read as follows: “Grantee acknowledges that in addition to satisfying its obligations
pursuant to this agreement, Grantee must comply with all applicable state economic development accountability
23
9 Institutionalize EDAP within the Attorney General’s office
Finally, during the upcoming year, the Attorney General’s office should seek to build
upon the effort detailed in this report, aiming to establish a permanent independent monitoring
effort and enforcement capacity that will help maximize transparency and accountability in the
state’s pursuit of economic development on behalf of its citizens and taxpayers.
laws and regulations, including especially R.C. 125.112(G). Grantee will, as required by law, comply with state
requests for information regarding its performance according to this award agreement. To the extent deemed
necessary by the Ohio Attorney General, Grantee’s performance according to this award agreement may be reported
to the Ohio General Assembly annually.”
24
APPENDIX A
SURVEY
25
26
27
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS
28
29
30
31
APPENDIX C
SURVEY LETTER 1
32
33
APPENDIX D
SURVEY LETTER 2
34
35
APPENDIX E: AWARDS OF INTEREST
As a condition of state aid, ODOD contracts generally require an award recipient to

employ a specified number of Ohioans during the term of the contract. The following charts
display awards of interest to the Attorney General’s Office in which ODOD award recipients
appear to have fallen short of their contractual employment obligations.
• Required Employment – This figure reflects a company’s

contractual employment obligation. It is the total number
of individuals the company was required to employ at the
end of the contract term.
• High Employment – This figure reflects the largest number

of individuals the company employed at any one time
during the contract term. It is based on data contained in
ODOD’s file.
• Final Employment – This figure reflects the number of

individuals the company employed at or near the end of the
contract term. Unless otherwise noted, the figure is based
on the latest available employment data in ODOD’s file
(i.e., the employment data closest to the end of the contract
term).
• Missed Requirement By – This figure is calculated by

taking the “required employment” figure and subtracting
the “final employment” figure.
• Reduced Employees By – This figure is calculated by taking

the “high employment” figure and subtracting the “final
employment” figure.
36
- GRANTS -
Ohio Investment in Training Program (OITP) Grants∗
Company Employment Missed Requirement By Reduced Employees By

Received
(Contract Number)
Required High Final Number Percent Number Percent
Cincinnati Print
Finishing & Packaging $9,664 86 11 0 86 100% 11 100%
(ECDD 01-176)
Ridge Tool Company
$262,300 849 915 626 223 26% 289 32%
(ECDD 01-308)
WCI Steel, Inc.
$51,000 1900 2050 1650 250 13% 400 20%
(ECDD 02-056)
Landmark Plastic
Corporation $4,900 220 200 177 43 20% 23 12%
(ECDD 03-284)
Convergys
Corporation and its
Subsidiaries $2,053,362** 1895 1895 1233 662 35% 662 35%
(ECDD 04-167)
Sumco Phoenix
Corporation $400,000 680 670 607 73 11% 63 9%
(ECDD 04-222)
Sekuworks, LLC
$11,055 78 13 13 65 83% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-100)
CTI – Clinical Trial
Services, Inc. $100,000 100 82 82 18 18% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-107)
Core Innovatech, LLC
$4,960 312 312 212 100 32% 100 32%
(ECDD 05-209)
Sun Chemical
$29,586 323 326 234 89 28% 92 28%
(ECDD 05-218)
Telling Industries
$27,173*** 88 51 51 37 42% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-221)
CBS Personnel
Services LLC /
Staffmark $31,828 192 195 132 60 31% 63 32%
(ECDD 05-225)
∗
Includes grants provided under the Ohio Industrial Training Program and the Ohio Workforce Guarantee Program.
**
After reviewing a preliminary draft of this report, ODOD informed the Attorney General’s office that this
company had received $2,075,045 in grant assistance. The figure reported above reflects the amount found in the
EDAP working group’s independent review of ODOD’s files.
***
company had received $18,680 in grant assistance. The figure reported above reflects the amount found in the
37
Received
(Contract Number)
Nordson Corporation
$121,288 620 655 476 144 23% 179 27%
(ECDD 05-259)
JBC Technologies,
Inc. $50,000 96 80 80 16 17% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-266)
Egelhof Controls
Corporation $17,000* 40 20 20 20 50% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-274)
Wiley Organics
$35,987** 88 62 57 31 35% 5 8%
(ECDD 05-305)
Maca Plastics
$46,000 110 95 72 38 35% 23 24%
(ECDD 05-310)
3SG Corporation
$7,393 350 180 206 144 41% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-348)
Atwood Mobile
Products (formerly
Spec-Temp) $50,000 330 332 191 139 42% 141 42%
(ECDD 05-352)
Android Industries
$25,879 60 60 0 60 100% 60 100%
(ECDD 05-358)
Heidtman Steel
Products, Inc. $13,820 80 69 69 11 14% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-367)
Pole / Zero
Corporation $80,000 290 250 250 40 14% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 05-391)
Spectral Systems Inc.
$63,767 196 112 97 99 51% 15 13%
(ECDD 05-405)
GED Integrated
Solutions $21,059 170 147 147 23 14% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-085)
Ontario Systems, LLC
$24,000 73 43 43 30 41% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-154)
Meyer Products LLC
$30,000 225 225 169 56 25% 56 25%
(ECDD 06-177)
Xentel Incorporated
$13,860 100 77 77 23 23% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-185)
*
After reviewing a preliminary draft of this report, ODOD informed the Attorney General’s office that this company
had received $14,839 in grant assistance. The figure reported above reflects the amount found in the EDAP working
group’s independent review of ODOD’s files.
**
38
Received
(Contract Number)
World Almanac
Education Group $14,000* 82 58 57 25 30% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-192)
Collins Associates Inc.
$29,623 67 51 51 16 24% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-215)
FRCH Design
Worldwide $23,173 208 158 121 87 42% 37 23%
(ECDD 06-216)
Sliman’s Printery Inc.
$12,000 20 14 10 10 50% 4 29%
(ECDD 06-218)
Emerson Climate
Technologies, Inc.
(formerly Copeland $60,000 1634 1693 1505 129 8% 188 11%
Corporation)
(ECDD 06-273)
Garden City Group
$65,973 175 36 114 61 35% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-302)
Orbis Corporation
$8,954 332 316 175 157 47% 141 45%
(ECDD 06-310)
Alkermes
$89,082 550 440 350 200 36% 90 20%
(ECDD 06-323)
Gem City Engineering
Company $18,633** 180 140 140 40 22% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-325)
Lap Tech Industries,
Inc. $3,240 27 15 15 12 44% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-327)
Tosoh SMD
$100,000 295 245 245 50 17% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-338)
Edge Seal
Technologies Inc.
/Integral Inc. $32,000 85 0 41 44 52% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-339)
ProtectPac USA
$30,257 100 49 49 51 51% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-340)
QBase
$43,995*** 100 85 64† 36 36% 21 25%
(ECDD 06-341)
*
**
company had received no amount of grant assistance. The figure reported above reflects the amount found in the
***
†
As reported in the Attorney General’s office survey of grant recipients.
39
Received
(Contract Number)
Norwalk Furniture
Corporation $30,540 638 668 124 514 81% 544 81%
(ECDD 06-344)
Gradall Industries, Inc.
$94,506 473 426 426 47 10% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 06-347)
SAS Rubber Company
$17,800 120 120 102 18 15% 18 15%
(ECDD 07-070)
Kmart Corporation
$49,343 484 487 414 70 14% 73 15%
(ECDD 07-087)
Polyone
$100,000 1062 1017 1017 45 4% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 07-097)
Feintool Cincinnati,
Inc. $29,730* 283 263 254 29 10% 9 3%
(ECDD 07-200)
Avery Dennison
Corporation $5,446 290 290 226 64 22% 64 22%
(ECDD 07-311)
TPI Composites, LLC
$58,485 299 60 0 299 100% 60 100%
(ECDD 07-332)
Jeld-Wen
$74,585 130 145 109 21 16% 36 25%
(ECDD 07-334)
QBase
$32,030** 100 85 59† 41 41% 26 31%
(ECDD 07-372)
Bare Escentuals
Beauty $50,000*** 339 230 230 109 32% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 07-373)
Select-Arc, Inc.
$17,160 128 114 90 38 30% 24 21%
(ECDD 07-383)
Allied Machine &
Engineering Corp. $34,900 475 446 362 113 24% 84 19%
(ECDD 08-046)
Cellucom Outlet
$7,048 425 128 124 301 71% 4 3%
(ECDD 08-058)
Clow Water Systems
$154,384 450 450 347 103 23% 103 23%
(ECDD 08-262)
*
**
†
***
40
Received
(Contract Number)
Sharon Companies
Ltd. / Sharon Stairs /
Worthington Stairs $3,186 200 200 130 70 35% 70 35%
(ECDD 08-281)
Simon Roofing and
Sheet Metal $42,000 450 400 381 69 15% 19 5%
(ECDD 09-076)
The Garvey
Corporation $6,300 25 21 21 4 16% (No Reduction)
(ECDD 10-105)
PCC Airfoils, LLC
$4,600 80 64 60 20 25% 4 6%
(ECDD 10-215)
Caito Food Service,
Inc. $15,000 90 78 78 12 13% (No Reduction)
(GOAR 04-023)
412 Rapid Outreach Grants

Received
(Contract Number)
AK Steel Corporation
$150,000 1050 1050 661† 389 37% 389 37%
(ECDD 05-087)
Coshocton Ethanol
$350,000 41 43 4† 37 90% 39 91%
(ECDD 05-137)
Sypris Technologies
Kenton $50,000 265 265 0† 265 100% 265 100%
(ECDD 05-141)
Ontario Systems, LLC
$25,000 73 43 28 45 62% 15 35%
(ECDD 06-148)
Emerson Climate
Technologies $150,000 1676 1663 1505 171 10% 158 10%
(ECDD 06-206)
Leedsworld
$250,000 241 57 0 241 100% 57 100%
(ECDD 06-408)
†
41
629 Roadwork Development Grants

Received
(Contract Number)
New Millennium
Building Systems
(formerly Socar of
$198,753 123 90 0 123 100% 90 100%
Ohio) through Putnam
County
(ECDD 06-249)
WC Cardinal
Company through
Unknown 101 76 64 37 37% 12 16%
Harrison County
(ECDD 06-254)
Totals for Grants
Number of Grant Employment Missed Requirement By Reduced Employees By

Received
Awards of Interest
69 $6,117,606 23,517 21,447 16,724 6,793 29% 4,827 23%
42
- LOANS -
166 Direct Loans
Maximum Employment Missed Requirement By

Company Loan
Amount Required Final Number Percent
Codino’s Limited Inc. $420,000 66 38 28 42%

Consolidated Graphics
$1,000,000 160 140 20 13%
Group, Inc.
J/H Real Estate of
$1,000,000 125 61 64 51%
Galion, Ltd.
MP Biomedicals, LLC $2,000,000 150 129 21 14%
Richard L. Wynn LLC $750,000 68 50 18 26%
Regional 166 Loans

Company Loan
Manijak Investments
$240,000 57 30 27 47%
Group LLC
MG2 Enterprises $350,000 80 41 39 49%
Totals for Loans

Number of Loan
Loan
Awards of Interest
7 $5,760,000 706 489 217 31%
43

2010 Economic Development Accountability Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2010 Economic Development Accountability Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

December 31, 2010

Honorable Members of the General Assembly,

Ohio Attorney General’s Office

2010 Report of the Ohio Attorney General Regarding

December 31, 2010

Submitted to the Ohio General Assembly Pursuant to

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 3

I. Clarity and Transparency of Information About Awards ..................................................10

A. Knowledge of Award Requirements Is Inconsistent Among Award Recipients.........10

B. Taxpayers and ODOD Officials Have Limited Access to Information Regarding

II. Effectiveness of State Enforcement Mechanisms..............................................................17

A. Contracts Governing Awards Inconsistently Protect Taxpayer Interests ....................17

APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................... 28

APPENDIX C: SURVEY LETTER 1 .......................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX D: SURVEY LETTER 2.......................................................................................... 34

APPENDIX E: AWARDS OF INTEREST.................................................................................. 36

As required by law, the Ohio Attorney General’s office recently completed a

Clarity and Transparency of Information About State Awards

 Knowledge of award requirements is inconsistent among state award recipients. A survey of

Effectiveness of State Enforcement Mechanisms

 Contracts governing awards inconsistently protect taxpayer interests. As currently written,

 Capital improvement: Requiring an award recipient to undertake physical

 Capital investment: Requiring an award recipient to contribute financially or secure

 Worker training: Requiring an award recipient to provide employees with training.

Program development and process

 Actual compliance review: Independently assuring the compliance of businesses and

 Compliance mechanism analysis: Reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the

Survey of award recipients

 Awareness: By asking award recipients to complete a survey, the Attorney General’s

Survey analysis and impact

Review of award files

I. Clarity and Transparency of Information About Awards

A. Knowledge of Award Requirements Is Inconsistent Among Award Recipients

Expectations of transparency and accountability associated with state assistance

Table 1: Overall Survey Response

Awards covered by EDAP review, as identified by ODOD 3,642

Table 2: Timeliness and Sufficiency of Survey Response

Survey deadline extensions requested by award

Award requirements are often unknown or poorly understood by award recipients

Table 3: Survey Responses by Question

Surveys indicating the existence of a job-creation requirement, but not

B. Taxpayers and ODOD Officials Have Limited Access to Information

In addition to the deficiencies identified above with respect to award recipient

ODOD rarely discloses meaningful information about specific award outcomes

ODOD does not manage an effective award monitoring system

Recordkeeping deficiencies at ODOD include gaps in the agency’s ability to contact

Table 4: ODOD Production of Files Relating to Missing Surveys25

9 Establish a comprehensive website with detailed information about ODOD awards

9 Make award agreements public

A. Contracts Governing Awards Inconsistently Protect Taxpayer Interests

Substantial non-compliance remains unaddressed

As is commonly understood, ODOD’s mandate is promoting business growth in Ohio.

9 Clarify award agreements

9 Continue centralization of reporting

9 Take action with respect to egregious non-compliance

Future ODOD award agreements should include an acknowledgement of Revised Code

As a condition of state aid, ODOD contracts generally require an award recipient to

• Required Employment – This figure reflects a company’s

• High Employment – This figure reflects the largest number

• Final Employment – This figure reflects the number of

• Missed Requirement By – This figure is calculated by

• Reduced Employees By – This figure is calculated by taking

Knowledge of award requirements is inconsistent among state award recipients. A survey of

Contracts governing awards inconsistently protect taxpayer interests. As currently written,

Capital improvement: Requiring an award recipient to undertake physical

Capital investment: Requiring an award recipient to contribute financially or secure

Worker training: Requiring an award recipient to provide employees with training.

Actual compliance review: Independently assuring the compliance of businesses and

Compliance mechanism analysis: Reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the

Awareness: By asking award recipients to complete a survey, the Attorney General’s