Audit Report on the Compliance of the Child Development Support Corporation with Its Administration for Children’s Services Preventive Service Agreements

AUDIT REPORT IN BRIEF

This audit determined whether the Child Development Support Corporation (CDSC) complied with the provisions of its preventive service agreements with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and its own procedures; and has adequate internal controls over the recording and expending of funds received from the preventive service agreements.

Since 1987, CDSC—a not-for-profit, community-based, multi-service organization—has provided preventive services under purchase-of-service agreements with ACS to children under 18 years of age and their families in the Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Bedford Stuyvesant, and Brownsville communities of Brooklyn. These services are initiated by either ACS referrals or by walk-ins (self-referrals) to (1) avert an impairment or disruption of a family that will or could result in the placement of a child in foster care or (2) enable a child who has been placed in foster care to return to his or her family at an earlier time than would otherwise be possible.

Audit Findings and Conclusions

CDSC did not adequately comply with significant provisions of its preventive service agreements with ACS and its own procedures.  As a result, there is no reasonable assurance that CDSC properly helped families to obtain the preventive services needed to become stabilized so that the children are not placed in foster care.   Our major findings are as follows:

• CDSC could not provide evidence that the credentials of some of the employees who worked for CDSC were proper. Further, for some of the employees, CDSC could not provide evidence that they were screened by having criminal-history record reviews conducted through the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and by making inquiries to and obtaining clearances from the Statewide Central Register (SCR) of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.

• CDSC did not adequately monitor the preventive service cases reviewed in our sample. For example, the required number of minimum casework contacts with the families was not always made.  For many of the cases in which parents were engaged in substance abuse, there was no indication in the case records that the Case Planners ensured that the parents were periodically tested for substance abuse.

• While the above-mentioned issues directly impact the health and safety of the children and their families, we also noted other issues that indirectly impact the effectiveness of CDSC in servicing the cases. For example, Family Assessment and Service Plans (FASPs) were not always submitted on time and did not always contain the required three signatures.  Also, Casework Supervisors did not always document their review of case records at least once every two weeks in Biweekly Case Record Review forms, as required.

• CDSC did not always ensure the reliability of case data recorded in the two computer systems—CONNECTIONS and the Preventive Organization Management Information System (PROMIS).  We were therefore unable to determine whether CDSC maintained at least a 90 percent utilization rate, as required.

We did find, however, that CDSC had adequate internal controls over the recording and expending of funds received under the preventive service agreements. Nevertheless, although CDSC properly documented its expenses, we believe that the City and more importantly, the families, did not receive the full contractual benefit from these preventive service agreements because of problems noted during the audit.

Audit Recommendations

Based on our findings, we make 12 recommendations, including that:

• CDSC should comply with the personnel provisions of its preventive service agreements with ACS. Specifically, it should ensure that: all current and prospective employees have the proper credentials for their positions; criminal-history record reviews are conducted through the State Division of Criminal Justice Services; and inquires are made to and clearances are obtained from SCR.

• CDSC and ACS should review the cases in our sample that we identified as not having received the preventive services needed, and if warranted, immediately take actions to ensure that the necessary services are provided to the children and their families.

• CDSC should improve its oversight of cases and comply with the case-practice provisions of its agreements to ensure that: the minimum number of casework contacts is made; Biweekly Case Record Reviews are conducted and documented at least once every two weeks, as required, for the duration of cases; and administrative-level reviews are conducted and documented for cases that remain open 24 months or longer.

• ACS should modify the ACS Preventive Services Quality Assurance Standards & Indicators and FRP Addendum to define a benchmark for minimum frequency of testing of parents engaged in substance abuse.

• CDSC and ACS should investigate the discrepancies we cite and, if warranted, make the necessary changes in CONNECTIONS and PROMIS.

ACS Response

In their response, ACS officials agreed with 10 and partially agreed with 2 of the audit’s 12 recommendations.