Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Glendale Community Services - Community Action Program (CAP) Audit - 8/11/2021 Glendale Community Services Community Action Program (CAP) Audit August 11, 2021 Independent Internal Audit Program 1 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 A. Introduction 3 B. Background 3 C. Objective 3 D. Key Outcomes 3 E. Audit Results and Recommendations 4 F. Process Improvement Opportunities 6 G. Audit Scope and Methodology 6 H. Data Reliability 7 2 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit Executive Summary As part of our FY 2020 Audit Plan approved by the City Council, City of Glendale's Independent Internal Audit Program (IIAP) conducted a limited scope performance audit of the City's Community Action Program (CAP). The audit was performed to evaluate the CAP and determine if Community Services can leverage efficiencies in the management of assistance to City residents. Audit Objectives: The objective of this audit was to examine CAP processes and procedures from the time an application is submitted to the time it is authorized for payment to determine if there are any additional efficiencies that could be implemented to shrink processing time. Audit Conclusions: Overall, IIAP noted that though CAP management has instituted procedures to ensure case management is done effectively and efficiently, the time taken by staff to process services can be reduced to further streamline the case management process. Finding: The time taken to process services in the CAP can be reduced. Description: During the period July 1, 2020 through October 31, 2020, the CAP team processed 1,043 cases and 1,923 services in the amount of $2 million. The average time taken to process each service was 45 minutes. (Note: the remaining funds for the programs reviewed were expended prior to the 12/31/2020 deadline.) 1. Five cases workers processed 793 (41%) of the 1,923 services in under 35 minutes for each service. This represented approximately 49% of the cases. 2. The fastest performing case worker's average processing time for each service was five minutes. 3. The case worker with the highest number of services (369 or 19%) assigned spent an average of 60 minutes to process each service. Severity: Medium 3 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit A. Introduction The City of Glendale’s Independent Internal Audit Program (IIAP) conducted an audit of the Community Action Program (CAP) administered by the Community Services (CS) department. The audit was originally included in the IIAP’s 18-month Audit Plan that spanned January 2020 through June 2021. However, with the large amount of federal relief funding received in response to the COVID pandemic, Community Services asked for a focused review of grant application processing times. B. Background The City of Glendale Community Action Program (CAP) operates its service delivery throughout the Glendale city limits, approximately 60 sq. miles (US Census 2010) and a population of 250,702 (US Census 2018). Community Services maintains an ongoing program for providing immediate financial assistance to eligible clients by utilizing a broad base of funding sources. CS delivers housing and utility financial assistance to income- eligible Glendale residents experiencing a temporary crisis. In FY2019-20, the program was staffed with seven full-time equivalent positions (regular and temporary staff). In August/September 2020, the CAP added 10 temporary positions to address increased demand as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the audit, CAP staff and programs were 100% grant funded. The City of Glendale received approximately $4.5 million in federal funding through Maricopa Country's Human Services Department (HSD) from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the purpose of which is to provide: 1. Short-term case management and rent/mortgage financial assistance services to income-eligible households who are unable to meet their basic housing needs with their own income or resources and are experiencing economic hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; and 2. Services to residents of the City of Glendale and geographic service area to assist with stabilization of the households' immediate basic needs. The term of this agreement is from July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. As of October 31, 2020, the City had expended approximately $2 million of these funds. The average assistance provided to each processed case was $4,340 as of this date. (Note: all CARES Act funds were expended by the 12/31/2020 deadline.) C. Objective The objective of this audit was to examine CAP processes and procedures from the time an application is submitted to the time it is authorized for payment to determine if there are any additional efficiencies we could implement to shrink processing time. D. Key Outcomes This audit indicated that the CAP has generally instituted adequate and effective process improvement initiatives to achieve efficiencies in processing of assistance cases from 4 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit application to approval. However, IIAP's analysis revealed additional areas of opportunity that CS can incorporate in the case management process to reduce the time it takes to complete cases and achieve additional efficiencies. Details of these are included in the audit results section. E. Audit Results and Recommendations Finding: The time taken to process services in the CAP can be reduced. Condition During the period July 1, 2020 through October 31, 2020, the CAP team processed 1,043 cases and 1,923 services in the amount of $2 million. The average time taken to process each service was 45 minutes. 1. Five cases workers processed 793 (41%) of the 1,923 services in under 35 minutes for each service. This represented approximately 49% of the cases. 2. The fastest performing case worker's average processing time for each service was five minutes. 3. The case worker with the highest number of services (369 or 19%) assigned spent an average of 60 minutes to process each service. Criteria From the data above, it is evident that the processing time for each case and service differs by case complexity and employee experience. More experienced employees are generally assigned the more complex cases, which require more time to process. Therefore, inconsistency of case complexity and employee experience make it difficult to determine the “optimal” time to complete a case. However, during interviews conducted with a number of CAP staff, IIAP noted that the performance measures were not clear to all employees. At least two staff members mentioned a requirement to process 20 applications per week. Others indicated that there is no standard metric and processing is determined by the number of cases that are document ready. Additionally, IIAP further noted that with the hiring of new staff and the need to manage the backlog of applications that had not been processed previously, CAP Administration had to ensure that the inflow and outflow of cases in the pipeline continued, resulting in staff performing tasks outside their normal areas of operation. For instance, occasionally, scheduling staff were being asked to process applications, processing staff would work at the kiosk, and so on. As a result of this occurring during a time of unprecedented volume, it may have impacted the focus to ensure case processing is performance driven and that monitoring of staff performance and processing times is improved. 5 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit Cause Best practices relevant to performance management require developing, discussing, and documenting standards for evaluating performance as a means to increase productivity, achieve efficiencies, and meet expectations. Having metrics in place helps to achieve this and aids in ensuring goals are met, excellent performance is rewarded, and ensures management proactively and promptly takes action to address poor performance. Effect Improvement in the time taken to process assistance from application to approval for payment will likely result in efficiency by ensuring that cases are assigned based on staff productivity. It will also help to proactively identify staff with productivity and performance issues and develop strategies and plans to address these in a timely manner. Such efficiency measures will also ensure funds provided by government agencies are fully expended to benefit Glendale communities. Recommendations IIAP recommends that CAP management: 1. Evaluate staff productivity with a view to developing performance metrics that will enhance case management processing while at the same time increasing staff productivity. 2. Develop a plan to provide training for new staff who have not been trained and have CAP staff tasked to areas where they can add the most value and improve their efficiency. Management’s Response We concur with both recommendations and corrective action is already in place. Recommendation #1 At the time of this review, we had just hired 10 new staff members that had been processing on their own for about six weeks and we had borrowed three staff members from other departments as well. The differences between individual performance identified are not unusual for newly hired staff and the need to move staff between functions (intake, eligibility, quality assurance) is critical to ensuring continuous flow of applications. CAP staff performance is currently reviewed weekly. Expenditures and number of processed cases are tracked for each individual Community Service Representative to ensure consistency in processing of cases and to identify barriers for each employee individually. As a group, weekly meetings highlight expenditure totals vs. performance goals to allow for discussion regarding potential barriers, suggestions for improvement and to identify successes (best practices). 6 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit Employees struggling with meeting performance objectives are quickly identified and offered support and mentoring to address any issues. Division-wide, Community Services utilizes a system of continuous improvement that includes identifying any areas of concern, implementing corrective actions, evaluation of changes, and adjusting based on the evaluation. Recommendation #2 Onboarding activities include two days of training with a strong emphasis on workflow and continuous improvement. Program changes are quickly communicated verbally and in writing, and training is offered as needed to address these changes. New employees are evaluated for competencies and assigned to tasks within the workflow that best benefits the program, the community, and performance. Community Services is committed to getting better with our onboarding process and encourages feedback from past new hires to improve going forward. Training occurs not just during on-boarding, but ongoing as part of our continuous improvement process. When processing eligibility, no two cases are the same and many times, caseworkers bounce scenarios off one another, senior leads, or management in order to problem-solve. The learning that occurs from those situations is shared during the weekly meetings as training topics. F. Process Improvement Opportunities In July 2020, CS partnered with the Department of Organizational Performance to revise the CAP case management processes to increase efficiency and effectiveness. During the Audit, IIAP noted that the CAP team is not fully utilizing the process map that was developed with the Department of Organizational Performance. On inquiry, the CAP Administrator indicated that he and his team were in the process of evaluating the map. IIAP recommends that the CAP team implement this new map as it will likely generate efficiencies in the case management process. (Note: The CAP team has now evaluated all steps in the process map and implemented all portions that have proven effective.) G. Audit Scope and Methodology IIAP conducted a limited-scope performance audit of certain activities of the CAP for the period July 1, 2020 through October 31, 2020. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with the Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s generally accepted government auditing standards as well as the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)'s international professional practices framework. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objective. The objective of this audit was to examine CAP processes and procedures from the time an application is submitted to the time it is authorized for payment to determine if there are any additional efficiencies that could be implemented to shrink processing time. 7 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit IIAP determined that internal controls over the following areas were relevant to our objectives: • Effectiveness in the processing of applications for assistance received by the City in accordance with the relevant procedures, rules, and regulations; • Compliance with guidance issued by relevant federal/state/local government agencies in the administration of case management during the period under audit. To accomplish our objective, IIAP performed the following activities: • Interviewed CAP management/staff and the Organizational Performance team; • Identified and reviewed applicable laws, rules, regulations, and contracts including the funding agreement with Maricopa County; • Obtained and reviewed all CAP process charts, policies, and procedures; • Reviewed CAP dashboard reports; • Performed analytics on data extracted from CAP 60 (the current case management system which Community Services is in the early stages of replacing); • Made inquiries regarding performance management within the CAP team and monitoring of staff productivity and performance; and • Inspected a random sample of physical files maintained by CAP personnel on each approved case. H. Data Reliability The primary data utilized for the work performed in this audit was obtained directly from the CAP 60 case management system. IIAP also used financial data obtained directly from the Tyler MUNIS Simplicity System, the City’s financial system of record, to perform several components of the audit. MUNIS data reliability is reviewed annually during the audit of the City’s financial reports and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) performed by the City’s external auditor. The Department of Organizational Performance's Business Analytics and Intelligence Officer (BAIO), provided the data from CAP 60. IIAP relied on the work done by the BAIO and determined that the data was appropriate given its intended use. 8 Independent Internal Audit Program Community Action Program (CAP) Audit Appendices Appendix 1 Definitions of Audit Findings Rankings We assigned the risk rankings based on our professional judgment. A qualitative assessment of high, medium or low helps to prioritize implementation of corrective action as shown in the table below. High Critical control weaknesses that exposes the City to a high degree of combined risks. Recommendations from High risk findings should be implemented immediately (preferably within 3 months), to address areas with most significant impact or highest likelihood of loss, misappropriation or damage related to the City assets. Medium Represents less than critical weaknesses that exposes the City to a moderate degree of combined risks. Recommendations arising from moderate risk findings should be implemented in a timely manner (preferably within 6 months), to address moderate risks and strengthen or enhance efficiency in internal controls on areas with moderate impact and likelihood of exposure. Low Represents low risk or control weaknesses and the exposure is not likely to expose the City and its assets to significant losses. However, they should be addressed in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Recommendations arising from low risk findings should be implemented within 12 months.