Overview
During our audit period, DPPC did not ensure that it consistently received final PSPs from its providers within 30 days of the completion of abuse investigations. Specifically, 41 of the 60 PSPs tested, from a population of 640 substantiated abuse investigations completed during the audit period, were not received within the required timeframes. On average, the 60 PSPs were submitted in 65 days. As a result, victims might have experienced delays in receiving recommended social services, counseling, and/or psychiatric services. Plans for victims of criminal abuse were sometimes delayed as well; PSPs were not submitted on time for 13 (52%) of 25 cases with substantiated abuse that included a criminal prosecution and guilty disposition result.
Authoritative Guidance
Section II(f) of DPPC’s oversight policy “Oversight-308” states, “Protective service plans not received within 30 days of the completion of the 19C investigation will be considered overdue.”
Reasons for Late PSPs
DPPC had not implemented effective monitoring controls within its policies and procedures to ensure that providers submitted PSPs within regulatory timeframes and in compliance with DPPC’s own policies and procedures. DPPC management told us in an interview that protective action can be, and sometimes is, taken at the time of intake or IR. Although we acknowledge this, PSPs are required following the substantiation of abuse in completed abuse investigations.
Recommendation
DPPC should implement effective monitoring controls within its policies and procedures to ensure that providers submit PSPs within required timeframes.
Auditee’s Response
Although PSPs are required in substantiated cases of abuse, the DPPC is dependent upon the [protective service, or PS] agencies to file the final plans with the DPPC and as a result, cannot and does not wait to ensure the safety of alleged victims in the interim. PSPs typically merely serve to document those services already put in place during the investigation and those services that are underway but not yet completed. Therefore, the tardiness or absence of receipt of a PSP document from the PS agency does not correlate to continued risk to an alleged victim. As detailed above, the assessment of risk to the victim is the DPPC’s highest priority. Protective services are put in place as soon as they are determined to be necessary, most often prior to the receipt of a PSP. Frequently this occurs during investigations. . . .
Furthermore, DPPC disagrees with the audit’s pure speculation that . . . victims might have experienced delays in receiving recommended social services, counseling and/or psychiatric services and that plans for victims of criminal abuse were ultimately delayed as well. There exists no data to support this conclusion. Protecting alleged victims is the heart of what the DPPC does which is why the specious suggestion that the DPPC is failing in this area suggests a complete misunderstanding of the operation of the DPPC. However, with recent increase in staffing, DPPC’s Oversight Unit is now able to be more aggressive in its follow up with the PS agencies with regard to verification of protective services.
Particularly confusing and misleading is the audit’s statement that PSPs were not submitted on time for 13 of 25 cases with substantiated abuse that included criminal prosecution and “guilty disposition result.” As explained during the course of the audit, the [adult protective service, or APS] and criminal processes are distinctly different. Although joint investigations between APS and law enforcement are encouraged, each process has its own distinct standards and burdens of proof. Therefore, it is unclear the correlation being made between protective services rendered by an APS agency and a guilty disposition in a criminal court.
Auditor’s Reply
We acknowledge that DPPC takes measures to ensure the safety of alleged victims during 19C investigations. Our concern is that DPPC has not implemented effective monitoring controls to ensure that providers submit PSPs to it within regulatory timeframes and in compliance with its policies and procedures.
In its response, DPPC asserts, “PSPs typically merely serve to document those services already put in place during the investigation and those services that are underway but not yet completed.” However, this description is not consistent with the description in DPPC’s “Oversight-308” policy:
Upon receipt, the oversight officer will review the protective service plan to determine if the intended or completed actions adequately protect the victim. It is important to assess not only the actions, but also the timeframe for completion when determining the adequacy of the plan.
This suggests that services provided, as well as services yet to be provided, need to be approved by DPPC for adequacy. A delay in a provider’s submission of a PSP delays DPPC’s review and approval of services, regardless of actions taken during the active investigation. In the opinion of the Office of the State Auditor, victims could have experienced delays in receiving recommended social services, counseling, and/or psychiatric services.
We are aware that criminal investigations and DPPC’s civil investigations are different. Our office takes a risk-based approach to developing audit topics. We chose to look at PSP timeliness for substantiated abuse cases with criminal activity including assault, battery, and rape. Our intent was to determine whether PSPs for victims of these types of abuse were submitted on time. We did not state or imply that services had not been rendered. In fact, results for our testing of compliance with investigation requirements were positive, as previously noted.
| Date published: | June 16, 2021 |
|---|