Chair Stevens Inquires About Metrics for Preventive Program Closures

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

So I share your sentiment.

It was a very difficult decision for us, but we really had to maintain our fiscal responsibility and ensure that we are maintaining a strong prevention program as possible.

We have looked at different indicators to make the recommendations.

One of the first things that we considered when thinking about this savings was our families going to continue to have services.

So you're right, we don't want a family from Brooklyn to be thinking about a service in the Bronx.

And a couple of the programs actually were in Brooklyn that's being cut correct.

So can you do that?

Did you talk about the four programs?

Can you tell what's the total number of contracts that are under this program that are being eliminated and like what where they're located?

Yeah, so before I answer that, I wanted to um mentioned that when we look at things like families in the Bronx versus Brooklyn, we were very intentional in thinking about where our capacity was.

So we try to have a birth eye view of our entire system before we think about where to make a recommendation.

Once we did that, then we landed in the catchments that we did, which are three programs in Brooklyn and one in Queens.

Once we determined, we looked at things like are there other programs.

There was one in Brooklyn.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Three in Brooklyn and one in Queens.

Once we looked at the catchment and determined that these were the areas where we have the more capacity, where we had less SER costs compared to other areas, where we have other prevention providers available in those areas.

Once we did that, then we narrow down and narrow down to those areas.

Then we said, okay, so now let's look at the providers that are in the areas and let's think about their own performance against the key performance indicators that we had identified.

And those are utilization, the number of families that they served, and we didn't look at a point in time, so we didn't look just at today how we were doing, but we were intentional in looking at fiscal year 24, fiscal year 25, and we also looked at the remaining uh uh what's passed in fiscal year 26.

So we wanted to have a very comprehensive understanding of whether the how those programs were faring against those KPIs.

The other thing that we had to consider was whether there was uh those programs were uh serving uh special population.

Once we did that, then we brought it down to those four providers that were put forward as recommendations.

How many clients are served by those programs?

How many?

Um so in family support programs we have we serve uh citywide a total of five four thousand five hundred and twelve.

Um as of April, we had a total of three thousand three hundred seats that were receiving uh participated in services of family support.

For these four programs, we have a total of 360 slots currently active in those uh active families that are actually receiving services is 199.