View Audit

New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. issued an audit today finding that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) is not effectively monitoring, tracking or documenting the provision of special education services.

Thompson’s audit found a pattern of flaws so severe that many students sampled often didn’t get required services when providers were absent. Examples of the flaws included records that were inadequate and incomplete, and records showing students getting services on days when schools were actually closed.

“The Department of Education’s special education system is in a state of dysfunction,” Thompson said. “The Department has provided woefully inadequate oversight of its delivery of service to the point that it’s often unclear whether special education students are getting the services they need.”

The audit – which can be viewed at www.comptroller.nyc.gov – reviewed the records of 89 mainstreamed elementary school students receiving special education services during the 2004-2005 academic year.

Auditors randomly selected 30 students from each of three Special Education Regions encompassing the five boroughs. Of the 90 students, one no longer needed services that school year; the remaining 89 were mandated to receive 199 services during that period.

The audit examined whether there was “complete and current documentation” to justify the performance of a special education assessment, the recommendation for special education services and the provision of special education services. Auditors reviewed Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), which detail recommended programs and services as well as attendance records which detail the provision of services.

Overall, Thompson’s audit found that DOE maintained complete and current documentation for all 89 students only with respect to the justification for the performance of an evaluation and the recommendation of special education services. However, the audit found that the DOE wasn’t effectively monitoring, tracking or documenting the provision of services, and often documentation was “incomplete, inaccurate, or lacking altogether.”

“Without formal policies and procedures to ensure the monitoring and tracking of services, DOE cannot be assured that it is providing proper instructions to those individuals responsible for providing special education services,” Thompson said. “The absence of such policies and procedures results in an inability to properly monitor and track the provision of services to students to ensure that they are delivered and documented as specified in the IEPs and documented.”

Specifically the audit found that:

• DOE does not have any written formal policies and procedures for monitoring, tracking and documenting the provision of special education services.  Thompson noted that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that monitoring efforts are adequate and consistently followed from school to school.

“Formal policies and procedures would allow DOE to create a structure that ensures the maintenance of updated and adequate supporting documentation and the ability to track and monitor service delivery. Such a structure would help DOE identify students who are not receiving the required services and undertake appropriate measures to better serve them.”

• DOE does not ensure that adequate attendance records (summaries and attendance records) are maintained to document the delivery of special education services. DOE was unable to provide auditors with any attendance records for a quarter of the 199 services mandated for the 89 students, and could only provide a little less than half of the monthly attendance forms for those students.

“The lack of attendance summaries at schools constitutes a material control weakness,” he said. “Furthermore, in the absence of attendance records, DOE cannot demonstrate that special education services were provided in accordance with the terms mandated in the IEPs.”

• A review of the attendance records that DOE was able to provide revealed incomplete information and contradicted general education attendance records. Many attendance records did not indicate the parameters of the services provided, were not signed by providers, or reported that services were provided on dates when students were either absent or when schools were closed.
  
  
• There is no control in place to ensure that attendance records accurately record the days that services are delivered. There were 32 students for whom providers recorded 72 instances of services being given, even though these students were marked as absent from general education classes.

“Students should not have been marked as receiving services on a non-school day,” Thompson said. “DOE was unable to demonstrate to the auditors whether the providers intentionally recorded that they delivered services on days that they did not, or if these discrepancies were due to writing errors.”

• DOE has no provision in place to ensure that make-up sessions are given when a provider is absent. As a result, there were 694 sessions for which 44 providers were absent; however, there were only 22 sessions for which there is evidence that make-up sessions were provided. Providers were absent for periods ranging from one to 55 school days. For example, one speech provider was absent for approximately three months, but the auditors saw no evidence that service was provided to three of her students during this time.

“Without alternate accommodations during the providers’ absences, students are being deprived of necessary services to meet their education needs,” Thompson said. “There is a very real possibility that students may not progress academically if they do not receive all of their required sessions.”

• A review of the special education services recorded in the Child Assistance Program (CAP) – DOE’s official database to maintain all IEP information - for the students noted inconsistencies between CAP data and services authorized in the IEPs. DOE has not taken adequate measures to ensure that data recorded in CAP is accurate. For 108 of 793 mandated services (including all services mandated from the time the student was first authorized to receive services), there were inconsistencies between the two sets of records.

DOE officials acknowledge that CAP is outdated and rather cumbersome to use and indicated they are now phasing it out. Because this process will take at least another two years, DOE is left without a tracking and monitoring tool for special education services.

Thompson made nine recommendations, including requesting DOE to: develop and enforce written formal policies and procedures to ensure that services are provided according to the provisions of each student’s IEP; develop policies to ensure that all attendance forms and summaries are maintained as evidence of services provided; ensure that providers fill in all required information on the special education attendance forms and sign the forms as certification of the delivery of services; ensure that supervisory review of attendance records is performed and documented; and, institute a control – such as, periodically reconciling special education forms with general education attendance forms – to help ensure that the days that services are provided are accurately recorded.

Surprisingly, while DOE officials generally agreed with six recommendations, they strongly objected to our methodology. Thompson countered that the DOE repeatedly contradicted itself during the course of the audit and in its response.

“We strongly disagree with DOE officials’ arguments about our methodology, which appear to be self-serving and correspondingly misleading,” Thompson responded. “Comments concerning our methodology are erroneous and appear to be DOE’s attempt to divert attention from the fact that there is a fundamental lack of coordination and communication within DOE.”