Mr. Brian J. Wing, Acting Commissioner
Department of Social Services
40 North Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12243
Dear Mr. Wing,
The following is our report on selected aspects of the New York State Department of Social Services Adoption Subsidy Program.
This audit was performed pursuant to the State Comptroller's authority as set forth in Section 1, Article V of the State Constitution and Section 8, Article 2 of the State Finance Law. We list major contributors to this report in Appendix A.
Office of the State Comptroller Division of Management Audit
February 4, 1997
Audit Scope, Objective and Methodology
Response of Department Officials to Audit
SCOPE OF AUDIT
Our audit addressed the following question relating to the Program for the period April 1, 1994 through June 30, 1996:
Have the Department and the districts done an effective job in ensuring the Program meets its goals?
The Department needs to increase and improve its monitoring of district operations to ensure districts comply with Program requirements. We found that districts do not comply with Department procedures relating to the screening process for prospective adoptive parents. In addition, adequate controls are not in place to ensure the adoptive parents remain eligible for the subsidies they receive. We also found that under current practices, potential adoptive parents throughout the State are not made aware of all children in need of adoption, and districts are not considering all potentially available adoptive families when recruiting to place eligible children.
Districts are required to perform a home study of prospective adoptive parents to ensure the parents can provide a stable environment that supports all aspects of a child's development. However, in in our test of 100 adoptions at three districts, we found many instances of noncompliance with Department requirements. Two home studies did not contain a statement why the applicant was determined appropriate and acceptable even though he/she had committed a crime. (See pp. 5-7)
Department procedures require districts to document annually that the adoptive parents continue to be legally responsible for the child' s support , and that the child is, in fact, still in receipt of financial support from the parents. However, Department procedures do not define what constitutes legal responsibility, the minimal amount of financial support necessary to continue eligibility for the subsidy, or the steps districts should take to verify adoptive parents meet these conditions. Of the 62 adoption cases we reviewed that had been finalized for more than one year, 34 had no available documentation that the parents continued to be eligible for the subsidies. In addition, we identified 19 instances where the Department may have continued to pay subsidies after adoptive children had died. (See pp. 8-9)
If an adoptive home has not been located for a child within the prescribed parameters, Department procedures require that the child be photographed and listed in a publication known as the Blue Book, which is a major tool for alerting prospective adoptive parents of the availability of children who seek adoption. We found numerous problems relating to the maintenance of the Blue Book. For example, children must first be registered with the Department to be photo-listed in the Blue Book. However procedures ar not in place to ensure that the districts register all eligible children. For a six-month period, Department records indicate that on average districts statewide did not register 1,333 children available for adoption. This represents about one quarter of the children statewide with court approval for adoption during this period. (See pp. 11-12)
We found other major weaknesses in the maintenance of the Blue Book. As of February 28, 1996, the Blue Book contained 1,540 children. However 521 of these children were not available for adoption for various reasons. According to Department reports, an additional 1,024 children were not listed in the Blue Book even though they were registered with the Department; there was no apparent reason for them not to be listed. Department reports also show 2,002 children had their Blue Book listing delayed at the districts' requests for 10 months on average, up to a maximum of 61 months. Pursuant to Department procedures, such delays should not last longer than six months. (See pp. 12-13)
Department procedures also require districts to register prospective adoptive parents who express an interest in adopting a handicapped or hard-to-place child. The registry, known as the Prospective Adoptive Parent Registry (PAPR), is menat to serve as a statewide resource that enables all districts to identify prospective adoptive parents for special needs children awaiting adoption. However of the 49 districts that responded to our survey, 21 indicated they did not use PAPR. Thus, the districts are not aware of all potentially eligible adoptive parents statewide who may be suitable for children in their district. (See pp. 13-14)
We have included 12 recommendations in the body of this report that address the concerns we identified during this audit.
Department officials agreed with 11 of the recommendations contained in this report and indicated that they have taken steps to implement them. Department officials disagreed with our recommendation that the Department contact the Federal government to define what constitutes the minimal amount of financial support deemed to constitute an adoptive parent's legal responsibility for a child's support.
The Department of Social Services (Department) supervises New York State's child welfare system, which includes the Adoption Subsidy Program (Program). The State mandates that every child is entitled to a caring, permanent family environment which supports all aspects of a child's development. Since the 1980s, a growing number of infants have been born HIV positive or addicted to drugs and placed in long-term foster care. Also, many older, emotionally disturbed or physically handicapped children remain in foster care until the age of 21. The purpose of the Program is to find and maintain stable and permanent alternative homes for hard-to-place and handicapped foster children who have a goal of adoption. The Program encourages adoption of these children by paying part of the continuing cots for their special needs. Section 453 of the State Social Services Law provides for subsidy payments to adoptive parents of handicapped or hard-to-place children until their 21st birthday. Department procedures in fiscal 1995-96 set the subsidies to range between $295 and $1,332 per month, per child.
The Department's Division of Family and Children Services oversees the activities of the 58 local social services districts (districts), which carry out the Program. In addition, the Department's five regional offices provide technical assistance to the districts in implementing all Department programs. As of December 31, 1995, the adoptive parents of 25,144 children were receiving adoption subsidies in new York. The total budget for the Program for fiscal year 1996-97 is $200 million.
In 1982, Title IV-E of the Social Security Act made Federal funding available to subsidize Òspecial needsÓ adoptions. Under Title IV-E, reimbursement is 50 percent Federal, 37.5 percent State, and 12.5 percent local. About 80 percent of the State's adoption subsidy caseload falls into the special needs category. The remaining 20 percent of the caseload is funded 75 percent by the State and 25 percent by localities because the State's definition of Òspecial needsÓ is broader than that of Title IV-E.
A handicapped child is defined as one who possesses a specific physical, mental, or emotional condition or disability. A hard-to-place child is one who has not been placed for adoption within six months from the time the child's natural parental rights are terminated (i.e., free for adoption); has not been placed for adoption for six months after termination of a previous adoption placement; or who possesses or presents any personal or familial attribute, condition, problem or characteristic which, according to Department regulations, would constitute an impediment to adoption.
According to Department regulation (NYCRR 424.2), every person who applies to adopt a handicapped or hard-to-place child shall have his/her name, address and additional pertinent information contained in a Departmentally approved application form entered into the adoptive parent registry at the time the signed application form is submitted to the registered agency. Once prospective adoptive parents have been identified, districts must evaluate whether they can provide a stable environment that supports all aspects of a child's development. To accomplish this objective, districts conduct an adoption study process (home study) for each adoptive parent. NYCRR 421.15 through 421.16 specify the procedures districts must follow when conducting a home study.
State regulations require each social services district to inform the public by television, radio, and newspapers of the availability of adoption subsidy payments for handicapped and hard-to-place children. This is usually done as part of the district's total efforts to inform the public of the need for adoptive parents.
In addition, each foster child who has been in care more than three months, and becomes legally free for adoption, must be registered with the Department within 10 days of being freed for adoption. If adoptive homes have not been located for these children, they are photographed and listed in a publication entitled New York state's Waiting Children or ÒBlue Book.Ó
The objective or our performance audit was to evaluate selected aspects of the Adoption Subsidy Program for the period April 1, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Our audit focused on the Department's and the districts' ability to ensure that the Program is meeting its goals. Specifically, we evaluated the Department's efforts to facilitate the adoption of hard-to-l=place and handicapped children and once placed, to monitor the appropriateness of the subsidies paid. Top accomplish our objective, we reviewed Department and Federal procedures and regulations, interviewed responsible Department managers, analyzed program statistics and examined case records in the New York City, Onondaga and Westchester districts. We also sent a questionnaire to each district to obtain an understanding of selected program procedures. Forty-nine of the the districts responded to tour questionnaire and nine did not (See Exhibit A). We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Such standards require that we plan and perform our audit to adequately assess those operations of the Department which are included within the audit scope. Further, these standards require that we understand the Department's internal control structure and compliance with those laws, rules and regulations that are relevant to the operations which are included in our audit scope. an audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting transactions recorded in the accounting and operating records and applying such other auditing procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. An audit also includes assessing the estimates, judgments and decisions made by management. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
We use a risk-based approach to select activities for audit. We therefore focus our audit efforts on those activities we have identified through a preliminary survey as having the greatest probability for needing improvement. Consequently, by design, we use finite audit resources to identify where and how improvements can be made. We devote little audit effort reviewing operations that may be relatively efficient or effective. As a result, we prepare our audit reports on an Òexception basis.Ó This report, therefore, highlights those areas needing improvement and does not address activities that may be functioning properly.
Draft copies of this report were provided to Department officials for their review and comment. Their comments have been considered in preparing this report and are included as Appendix B.
Within 90 days after final release of this report, as required by Section 170 of the Executive Law, the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services shall report to the Governor, the State Comptroller, and the leaders of the Legislature and fiscal committees, advising what steps were taken to implement the recommendations contained herein, and where recommendations were not implemented, the reasons therefor.
The Department needs to expand its monitoring of district operations to ensure districts comply with State law and regulations as well as Department policy and procedures governing the Program. Neither central office nor regional office employees formally monitor the local districts. As a result, the Department does not have reasonable assurance that districts are making adequate efforts to find and maintain stable and permanent homes for hard-to-place and handicapped foster children who have a goal of adoption. In addition, the Department does not have adequate assurance that parents continue to provide financial support to their adoptive children and are eligible to continue receiving monthly subsidy payments.
The home study provides the basis for a district's recommendation of adoptive parents to the family court. Once the family court finalizes an adoption, the parents have legal custody of the child without continued Department or district oversight. Consequently, it is vitally important that the districts conduct complete and reliable home studies.
Department procedures require that district case records contain the following documentation for each home study:
There are also seven specific characteristics that applicants must possess for approval as adoptive parents according to Department procedures, as follows:
We tested 100 adoptions at three districts (New York City, Onondaga and Westchester) comprising about 80 percent of the State's total 1995 Adoption Subsidy Program caseload and dollars spent, to determine the extent to which districts properly followed Department procedures. We found the following exceptions:
In addition, Fulton district officials told us in reply to our questionnaire that they do not obtain a sworn criminal history statement from each adult family member when they conduct home studies.
For the sixty-five adoptive parents (forty-three home studies) lacking a sworn criminal statement included in our tests, we asked the New York State division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to conduct a criminal background search using their database. DCJS identified seven adoptive parents who had been convicted of a crime. We provided Department officials with the results of this match and asked them to conduct further reviews of these matches.
We believe the Department should take appropriate steps to ensure that districts comply with all procedures, including periodically performing case reviews to ensure districts properly follow all home study procedures. By doing this, the Department will obtain greater assurance that districts place children in stable, nurturing and caring family environments.
Department procedures which are based on Federal statute require districts to document annually that the adoptive parents continue to be legally responsible for the child's support, and that the child is, in fact, still in receipt of financial support from the parents. For example, if the child moved out of the home prior to age 21 and completely supported him or herself, the parents would no longer be eligible to receive the subsidy. However, Department procedures do not define what constitutes the minimal amount of financial support necessary to continue eligibility for the subsidy. The three districts we visited send an annual letter to the adoptive parents asking them whether or not they are still eligible to receive the subsidy.
Our review of continued subsidy eligibility found:
In addition, responses to our survey questionnaire show districts inconsistently interpret whether adoptive parents remain legally responsible for the child and provide any support. For example, two districts responded that parent(s) met the continuing subsidy eligibility criteria if they Òprovide any type of supportÓ. Another district responded that parent(s) meet the criteria if the child: Òlives with the parents, attends school, is claimed as a tax dependent, and receives food, clothing and essential needsÓ. The Rochester Regional Office Director said that the districts within her region automatically pay the subsidy until the child reaches age 21.
As a separate test, we asked the New York State Department of Health (DOH) to match the names of the 26,000 children on the Department's computerized adoption subsidy payment file to DOH's computerized file of death certificates. We conducted this test to ensure that no subsidy payments were being made to parents of an adoptive child who had died. DOH identified 19 potential matches: 15 from NYC and one each from the Nassau, Oneida, Suffolk and Westchester districts. For example, DOH's records indicated that a child had died on January 28, 1993, yet the Department's files indicated a payment being made over 43 months after the death. We provided the Department with these 19 matches for follow-up.
1. Periodically monitor district compliance with Program requirements, particularly regarding the conduct of home studies. This should include, but not necessarily be limited to, performing periodic case reviews at the districts.
2. Reinforce to Fulton district officials the requirement to obtain sworn criminal statements for all adoptive parents.
3. Contact the Federal government to define what constitutes the minimal amount of financial support and what steps districts should take to verify adoptive parents meet this condition.
(Department officials responded that they believe it is not necessary to contact the Federal government, as the Department currently has two written requirements regarding support and notification. While we acknowledge that the Department has these written requirements, the requirements do not quantify the minimal amount of financial support necessary to continue a parent's eligibility for the subsidy. We believe such a quantification is necessary to minimize any subjectivity in applying the requirements.)
4. Investigate the 19 potential matches to determine whether overpayments were made and take appropriate action.
5. Depending on the results of the potential matches, consider performing additional periodic matches with DOH.
(Department officials agreed with recommendations four and five and stated that they have taken steps necessary to implement them. The Department confirmed that in 15 of the 19 cases, subsidy payments continued to be paid by New York City for an extended period of time after the date of the child's death was recorded by the Health Department. The New York City Administration for Children's Services is reviewing their records to verify overpayments and to recover overpayments.)
Social Services Law requires that adoptive families be recruited for all children in need of adoption. Department procedures, if properly followed, provide reasonable assurance that districts make concerted efforts to identify and place eligible children. According to the Department's procedures, districts must: promptly list available children in the Blue Book; promptly update the Blue Book whenever changes occur; maintain adequate recruiting programs; promptly register parents interested in hard-to-place or handicapped children; and, routinely match the listing of available parents with children freed for adoption.
We determined that the Department has not established adequate procedures to ensure the Blue Book contains all children who are available for adoption and that districts register prospective adoptive parents in the Prospective Adoptive Parent Register (PAPR). Consequently, potential adoptive parents throughout the State may not be made aware of all children in need of adoption, and districts may not be considering all available appropriate adoptive families when recruiting to place eligible children.
The State Social services Law mandates that the Department conduct reviews to ensure districts comply with certain statutory requirements. Among the requirements, districts must refer children with court approval for adoption to the Department for listing in the Blue Book. Because children must first be registered with the Department to be photo-listed in the Blue Book, the Department needs to ensure an adequate system exists to track children whom they should register. Otherwise, the Department does not have adequate assurance the Blue Book is complete.
The Department uses its Child Care Review Service (CCRS) System to track when districts do not register eligible children with it. CCRS generates monthly ÒSanction 153-d ReportsÓ showing whenever districts do not register these children. We found the Department's Sanction 153-d monitoring system provides limited assurance that districts meet the requirements of the law.
For the six months ended December 1995, the Department's monthly Sanction Reports show, on average, districts statewide did not register 1,333 children freed for adoption. Many of these same children may appear month after month, since the child remains on the report until properly registered. The 1,333 children freed for adoption but unregistered represent about one quarter of the children statewide with court approval for adoption. Department officials could not explain to us why so many children who had been freed for adoption were not registered. They also told us special programming would be required to determine exactly how long districts had been delinquent in registering these children.
Employees at the Onondaga and Westchester districts documented that their districts had in fact registered some of the children included in the 1,333 registration exceptions. Employees from Onondaga provided correspondence they had sent to the Department dating back to October 1992 to have the exceptions they resolved removed from the Sanction 153-d report. Yet, these exceptions continued to appear on subsequent reports.
Once a child is registered with the Department, a child's photo-listing status may be ÒdelayedÓ for up to six months until the district resolves whether the child needs to be photo-listed. For example, f the child is going to be adopted by his/her foster parents, photo-listing is not necessary.
As of February 28, 1996, the Blue Book contained 1,540 children. We found that of the 1,540 children in the Blue Book, 521 were not available for adoption. Of these 161 had not actually been freed for adoption and 360 were freed, but their goal was not adoption (e.g., independent living, etc.) Regional office and district officials told us that they often receive complaints from parents that the Blue Book contains children that are not available for adoption.
In addition, as of February 28, 1996, Department reports showed 1,024 children who were not listed in the Blue Book even though they were registered with the Department; there was no apparent reason for them not to be listed. These children had been available for adoption for an average of 17 months, and as long as 10 years. Department officials told us that they believe the districts probably have legitimate reasons for not listing all freed children in the Blue Book. However, the Department's reports did not indicate what the specific reasons were, as required. Therefore, the Department needs to follow up on these exceptions to determine whether the children are in fact available for listing.
Department reports, as of February 28, 1996, also showed 2,002 children who had their Blue Book listing delayed at the districts' requests. Even though districts should not delay a child's listing longer than six months, the reports showed these children had been in this status for 10 months on average, up to a maximum of 5 years. However, the reports do not show how many of the 2,002 children had been in this status for more than six months. Therefore, the Department cannot monitor compliance with its six-month criteria. Department officials told us staff have been conducting case reviews since January 1996 to determine whether districts have valid reasons for delaying a child's Blue Book listing. However, they could not provide documentation to support this statement. Rather, they told us "this project is still ongoing."
To determine whether districts have valid reasons for not listing eligible children in the Blue Book, we reviewed the supporting documentation maintained by the districts we visited for our sample of 21 children freed for adoption who had not been listed in the Blue Book. Department reports from April and May 1996 showed that the Blue Book listing was overdue for no apparent reason for 11 of these children. However, we found that seven of these 11 children were not, in fact, overdue. For example, five of these children had already been photo-listed. For the remaining 10 of the 21 children, their listings were delayed at the districts' request. However, we found that two of these children had been in the photo-list delayed status for over two years. Department officials told us that they need to "follow-up" concerning these children.
Without adequate procedures for the listing of children in the Blue Book, prospective adoptive parents throughout the State are not made aware of the availability of all eligible children on a timely basis. Hence these children may remain in foster care longer than necessary.
Department procedures require districts to register in PAPR prospective adoptive parents who express an interest in adopting a handicapped or hard-to-place child. PAPR is meant to serve as a statewide resource that enables all districts to identify prospective adoptive parents for its special needs children awaiting adoption. However, many districts do not follow the Department's procedures for PAPR.
Of the 49 districts responding to our survey, 21 indicated they did not use PAPR (Exhibit B). Onondaga and Westchester district officials told us that while they use PAPR, prospective adoptive parents are not registered until the district has successfully completed the adoption home study process. Without registering interested parents in PAPR, districts cannot readily identify prospective parents throughout the State who may be available as a placement resource.
6. Establish an adequate monitoring system to ensure districts register with the Department all children freed for adoption.
7. Ascertain why Sanction 153-d exceptions that are resolved the the districts are not being removed from the exception report.
(Department officials agreed with this recommendation. They stated that with the implementation of CONNECTIONS system the Department's production of the Blue Book will be automated, saving considerable time in the publication of the book. Local districts and most voluntary agencies should have on-line access to photos/narratives.)
9. Ensure the Blue Book contains only children who are actually available for adoption.
(Department officials agreed with this recommendation and indicated that they have initiated statutory and regulatory changes to waive the registration requirement for certain children and to reduce the number of children in the Blue Book who are not actually free for adoption.)
10. Ensure reports for tracking the status of children who are freed for adoption are accurate.
(Department officials agreed with this recommendation and stated that their proposed CONNECTION System would better integrate local district and Department actions.)
11. Routinely follow up concerning children who have had their photo-listing in the Blue Book delayed more than six months.
12. Remind the districts on Department requirements for using PAPR.
(Department officials agreed with recommendations eleven and twelve and stated that they have taken steps necessary to implement them.)
Albany
Allegany
Broome
Cattaraugus
Chautauqua
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York City
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Rensselaer
Rockland
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
St. Lawrence
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
Cayuga
Chemung
Chenango
Greene
Orange
Orleans
Seneca
Tompkins
Wayne
Albany
Clinton
Columbia
Delaware
Essex
Herkimer
Lewis
Monroe
Oneida
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schuyler
Sullivan
Broome
Cattaraugus
Clinton
Columbia
Delaware
Essex
Fulton
Genesee
Herkimer
Livingston
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
Otsego
Rensselaer
Schenectady
Schuyler
Tioga
Ulster
Warren
Wyoming
Yates
Albany
Allegany
Broome
Chautauqua
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Erie
Fulton
Herkimer
Lewis
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
Oneida
Otsego
Rensselaer
Schoharie
Suffolk
Warren
Washington
Walter Barber
Frank Houston
Kevin McClune
William Challice
Richard Sturm
Christopher Bielawski
Clyde Bynoe
Kezia Chacko
Michele Privor
Mark Ren
Jennifer Updike
Paul Bachman
December 31, 1996
Mr. Kevin McClune
Director of State Audits
Office of the State Comptroller
A.E. Smith State Office Building
Albany, New York 12236
Re: Draft Report: DSS Adoption Subsidy Program 96-S-2 (#96-029)
Dear Mr. McClune:
We reviewed the referenced report and the following are our comments on its recommendations.
Recommendation: Periodically monitor district compliance with Program requirements, particularly regarding the conduct of home studies.This should include, but not necessarily be limted to, performing periodic case reviews at the districts.
Response: Department staff are evaluating plans to conduct reviews in the area of permanency planning for children in foster care to determine local district ccmpliance with major adoption program requirements. Potential areas of review include timeliness and adequacy of: foster and adoptive home studies, sworn criminal histories, statement of the reasoning regarding the appropriateness of an adoptive placement, reports frcm physicians on the health of adoptive parents, discussion of any substance abuse, records of required caseworker visits, an annual check for continued eligibility. In addition, the implementation of the Department's CONNECTIONS project will permit Reegional Office (RO) staff to routinely acoess data regarding district ccmpliance with requirements for home certifications and approvals. CONNECTIONS is a new system that will utilize Client/Server technology to replace or significantly modify all current Legacy systems tbat process Child Welfare cases (Protective, Preventive, Foster Care and Adoption Subsidy).
Recommendation: Reinforce to Fulton County officials the requirement to obtain sworn criminal statements for all adoptive parents.
Response: The Albany RO will prepare a letter to the Fulton County Staff Director of Services regarding tbe deficiency noted in tbe audit. Ihe RO will provide guidanoe as to the regulatory and strategic necessity of the criminal check and ask for a corrective action plan. We will also remind all districts via an Infomational Letter of the necessity to perform tbe criminal check.
Recommendation: Contact the Federal government to define what constitutes the minimal amount of financial support and what steps districts should take to verify that adoptive parents meet this condition.
Response: We do not believe it is neoessary to contact the Federal government as the Department currently has two written requirements regarding support and notification. Section 453(c) of the Social Services Law requires: no payments may be made pursuant to this subdivision if the social servioes official determines that the adoptive parents are no longer legally responsible for the support of the child or the child is no longer receiving any support from such parents. The social services official on a biennial basis shall remind the adoptive parents of their obligation to support the child and to notify the social services official if the adoptive parents are no longer providing any support for the child or if they are no longer legally supporting the child.
Department Administrative Directive 93-ADM-34 advises local social services districts as to what constitutes legal responsibility and support and instructs tbem to notify the adoptive parents in receipt of a Title IV-E funded subsidy on an annual basis tbat they must continue to be legally responsible for the child's support, or notify the district if the adoptive parents are: 1) No longer legally responsible for the child, or 2) The child is no longer reveiving any support from such parents. No further adoption subsidy payments are to be made if these conditions are not met.
Recommendation: Investigate the 19 potential matches to determine whether overpayments were made and take appropriate action.
Recommendation: Depending on the results of the potential matches, consider performing additional periodic matches with DOH.
Response: An initial review indicated that in 15 of the 19 cases, subsidy payments continued to be paid for by New York City for an extended period after the date of the child's death was recorded by the Health Department. The Department asked the New York City Administration for Children Services (ACS) to review their records to verify overpayment situations and ACS has advised the Department that they are taking steps to contact the adoptive parents and recover tbe overpayments. For those adoptive parents that do not coooperate, their cases will be referred for appropriate legal action. The remaining four cases had payments terminated on a timely basis. A determination will subsequently be made on the cost-benefit of annual matches with the Department of Health.
Recommendation: Establish an adequate monitoring system to ensure districts register with the Department all children freed for adoption.
Response: New York State Adoption Services (NYSAS) and Adoption Specialists will work with districts and agencies to monitor timely compliance with Department registration requirements. Currently, the Department provides ongoing technical assitance to districts and agencies regarding registration of children as requested. It should be noted that with the implementation of CONNECTIONS, cases will not be processed without the appropriate entry of codes or other case activity.
Regarding the section of the report referring to the delay of Blue Book listings, as of October all children are being photo-listed when registrations are submitted for those children who have previously been registered and delayed. The only exception is when a child was placed and a disruption occcurred between registrations. As noted in the report, Department staff have investigated most delay cases individually, beginning with the oldest. As of December 2, 904 of the 2,226 cases (41%) in delay have been investigated.
Finally, regarding the referenced 21 children freed for adoption and not listed in the Blue Books, we believe the report should recognize that not all children freed for adoption are required to be photo-listed, such as those children adoptively placed within ten days of being freed for adoption and those 14 and older who refuse adoption.
Recommendation: Ascertain why Sanction 153-d exceptions that are resolved by the districts are not being removed from the exception report.
Response: Department program, systems and resource management staff have reviewed the 153-d sanctions process and identified the probable causes that result in resolved exceptions not being removed from the sanctions list. Steps are being taken to resolve this problem.
Recommendation: Ensure that all children who have been registered with the Department have been photo-listed on a timely basis, where appropriate.
Response: As soon as children are registered with NYSAS, they are included in the next Blue Book mailing. All children submitted for photo listing are processed for the next available mailing which is completed every two weeks. In addition, with the implementation of CONNECTIONS the Department's production of the Blue Book will be automated and this should save considerable time in the publication of the book. Local districts and most voluntary agencies should have on-line access to photos/narratives.
Recommendation: Ensure the Blue Book contains only children who are actually available for adoption.
Response: State law requires that all children who are legally freed for adoption (freed from their parents, but not necessarily given a goal of adoption) be registered with NYSAS. This means that there are children listed in the Blue Book who meet the letter of the law, i.e., are freed but have a goal other than adoption, such as independent living.
The Department registers all children whose registrations are submitted to NYSAS unless there is a problem with the photograph or the narrative submimtted. Not all children who are registered are photo-listed (placed in the Blue Books). Many of them are delayed from photo-listing, as allowed in Department regulations. The report correctly notes that many children who are in the Blue Books do not actually turn out to be available for adoption. The Department recognized this problem and requested legislative assistance to help correct it. The passage of Article VII of the Laws of 1995 by the Legislature will allow children to be waived from registration with NYSAS when the foster parents indicate in writing an intention to adopt, when the child is adoptively placed within ten days of being freed for adoption, or when the child is 14 and refusing adoption. The Department has promulgated regulations to implement these laws, and they have been filed. This should significantly reduce the number of children in the Blue Books who are not actually available, specifically children in foster care whose foster parents intend to adopt.
The Department also recognized the need to better publicize those children truly available and, in October, 1995, an Internet website was initiated. The website photo-lists these children on the Internet and provides general adoption information.
Recommendation: Ensure reports for tracking the status of children who are freed for adoption are accurate.
Response: NYSAS field and local district staff continue to monitor and update the Child Care Review System (CCRS). When photo-listing children, NYSAS staff routinely perform multiple checks on CCRS data to ensure the System information is consistent with photo-listing. On a daily basis, NYSAS staff check the previous days' CCRS production reports to update the Blue Book files for all adoption activities entered for each child in New York State. Agencies and local districts notify NYSAS of status changes as they occur, which NYSAS requires them to enter in CCRS. In further developing CONNECTIONS, we will look to structure a system that better integrates local district and Department actions.
Recommendation: Routinely follow up on children who have had their photo-listing in the Blue Book delayed more than six months.
Response: The Department will continue to track those cases delayed beyond this legal limit relying upon the Adoption Specialists to check with the local districts.
Recommendation: Remind the districts of Department requirements for using the Prospective Adoptive Parent Registry (PAPR).
Response: Through our RO reviews, the Department will encourage all local districts to use PAPR. Advocates in New York State srongly hold that monitoring is the best means of ensuring that agencies and districts reach outside of themselves if they have not been able to place a child within a reasonable period of time, defined as three months.
The Department supports this position and, in addition to reminding all local districts of the requirement to use PAPR, will explore internet registrations of parents and will include monitoring of this function in its new CONNECTIONS configuration of PAPR.
CONNECTIONS is expected to integrate information on prospective adoptive parents and will serve the purpose for which PAPR was designed. In addition, since every case will be on-line, the kind of problems and resistance to sharing of adoptive family "resources" will no longer be a problem. Furthermore, significant effort is being made to ensure that categories of child characterisitics found in CONNECTIONS on-line case record and assessment will corresond to the child characteristics in which prospective adoptive parents may express an interest.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report.
Sincerely,
David P. Avenius
Deputy Commissioner
Management Support and Quality Improvement