Audit Report on the Follow-up of Window Guard Violations by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development

In late 2009, we initiated this audit of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s (DOHMH) and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) window guard inspection program. The audit objectives were to determine whether DOHMH adequately investigates window guard complaints and referrals and appropriately forwards unresolved cases to HPD, and whether HPD adequately investigates window guard violations and takes the necessary steps to ensure the installation and repair of both DOHMH- and HPD-identified violations.

As of April 1, 2011, the responsibility for investigating window guard complaints and referrals was transferred from DOHMH to HPD. While our second objective is still pertinent, our first objective is no longer relevant. DOHMH and HPD made the decision to consolidate the window guard program in 2010, but did not inform the audit team of this change until the exit conference on March 30, 2011 (when audit fieldwork was largely completed).

Had officials informed us of the planned changes during the audit fieldwork, we would have modified our audit plan so as to 1) assess whether HPD has developed, or was in the process of developing, controls to address identified deficiencies for those functions to be transferred from DOHMH to HPD, and 2) discontinue testing in those areas that would be rendered obsolete by the transfer. Instead, during a time of limited resources, officials at both agencies stood by as auditors spent months developing recommendations to improve functions that officials knew would cease to exist at the conclusion of the audit. Auditors could have spent this time assessing HPD’s proposed controls over those functions that were to be transferred. Not informing the auditors of the change was a disservice to the public and to a program that, according to the DOHMH, has ‘saved hundreds of children’s lives by preventing accidental falls from windows.’

Auditing is critical to government accountability to the public. Both government managers and auditors have a responsibility within this process. As stated in generally accepted government auditing standards, ‘Government managers are responsible for providing reliable, useful, and timely information for accountability of government programs and their operations.’ By not disclosing the pending consolidation, we feel that both HPD and DOHMH failed to meet these responsibilities.

Audit Findings and Conclusions

Our review of DOHMH’s investigation of window guard complaints and referrals disclosed significant deficiencies. We were unable to determine whether DOHMH’s window guard database was complete and, therefore, we have no assurance that all window guard complaints and referrals forwarded to DOHMH were properly documented and investigated. For those complaints that were investigated, inspection attempts were not always made within the required timeframes. Moreover, neither DOHMH nor HPD has assurance that all window guard violations were appropriately addressed. A total of 288 (46 percent) of the 632 violations sampled were closed (1) without verification from the tenant that the repair was made, (2) because HPD was unable to gain access to make the repair, or (3) improperly due to data entry errors. In addition, 9 percent of the sampled HPD window guard violations did not receive a final disposition within the timeframe goal established by HPD.

As a result of the change in the window guard process, we make no recommendations to DOHMH. Nevertheless, we believe that the issues discussed in this report regarding DOHMH’s processing of window guard cases merit the attention of HPD. Accordingly, HPD should establish controls to ensure that the deficiencies identified in this report are not repeated as the agency assumes full responsibility for the program.

Audit Recommendations

Based on our findings, we make 13 recommendations to HPD, including that HPD officials should:

• Ensure that all window guard complaints and referrals are properly accounted for and processed.
• Ensure that attempts at conducting initial and compliance inspections are made within the required timeframes.
• Ensure that follow-up action is taken in instances where cases remain open due to the lack of access to the apartment or building.
• Take additional steps to contact tenants to confirm that their window guard violations were corrected by the landlord.
• Institute procedures to ensure that window guard cases are finalized within required timeframes.

Agency Responses

HPD officials generally agreed with the audit’s findings and recommendations. DOHMH officials, however, disagreed with some of the audit’s findings and disagreed with our conclusion that their failure to share timely information represents an audit impairment, arguing that the consolidation ‘has no bearing or relationship to DOHMH’s performance of this function during the time period that is the focus of the current city Comptroller audit.’ Furthermore, neither agency signed requested Representation Letters confirming (as of April 15, 2011) their management responsibilities, and that they had, in fact, provided us with and disclosed all relevant operational and financial information related to our audit objectives of the window guard program, including any events that may have occurred subsequent to our audit period. As a result, we lack assurance that all relevant information was provided to us during the audit.

Regarding DOHMH’s arguments, we considered them and found them to be without merit. A key benefit of a performance audit is the process improvements to be realized through implementation of the recommendations. While the consolidation may not have affected DOHMH’s performance of this function during the time period that was the focus of the audit, it had an impact on the relevancy of the recommendations. If DOHMH had informed us of the consolidation, we would have discontinued testing of those areas rendered obsolete by the consolidation. Furthermore, we are concerned by DOHMH’s statements regarding the audit impairment issue as they show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the purpose of performance auditing, as well as their management responsibilities.