It’s no secret that the Administration for Children’s Services has been falling down on the job.

Adonis Jarvis — the nonverbal, autistic 16-year-old who starved to death this year while in the care of his mother and grandmother — is only the latest tragedy in a long list of kids who were known to the city’s child-welfare agency but were nevertheless left in a dangerous situation.

Why is ACS so often missing signs of risk?

One reason is its workforce.

Earlier this month, ACS posted that the agency is “actively recruiting for the Child Protective Specialist (CPS) role.”

With a starting salary of almost $60,000, a city pension plan, health insurance, a deferred compensation plan, 37 paid days off during the first year of employment and openings in every borough, you’d think they’d have no lack of strong candidates.

Not so, in part because of the agency’s head-scratching recruitment strategy and hiring criteria.

For instance, ACS requires a bachelor’s degree with at least 24 credits in fields including social work, psychology, sociology, criminal justice, education, nursing or cultural anthropology.

Sure, some courses in criminal justice or nursing might help a front-line child protective specialist.

But sociology and cultural anthropology? Who are they kidding?

To be clear, the job of an ACS investigator is to enter a potentially dangerous home, gather evidence, ask difficult questions and make life-or-death decisions about potential risks to a child.

Who would you send?

Here’s a hint: The NYPD doesn’t require recruits to have a bachelor’s degree at all, let alone one in a useless field focused on woke notions of race, class and gender.

The Police Department does, however, require an exam that measures the skills law enforcement wants in candidates.

ACS has an exam, too — technically.

But it also hires employees provisionally without asking them to take the test, let alone pass it.

Those employees can go through ACS training and be placed in the field indefinitely; it only becomes a problem if someone who has passed the test comes along and “bumps” them out of the position.

With a vacancy rate of 10% or even higher, that’s unlikely to happen often.

Yet the exam measures important skills like problem sensitivity, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning (all required by the NYPD, too) — core abilities for a child-protective specialist.

Problem sensitivity means spotting when something is wrong or likely to go wrong.

Inductive reasoning includes being able to take a general idea or policy — such as an agency rule about when a situation should be escalated — and apply it to a particular family situation.

And deductive reasoning involves taking specific observations about different families and using them to spot broader patterns about the dangers children are experiencing in our city.

The idea that ACS employees are bypassing such aptitude tests is absurd.

Over the past several years, ACS has continued to ignore clear risks to kids from parents who are suffering from substance abuse or severe mental illness, leaving children in homes with adults who are unwilling or unable to care for them.

Some of this is no doubt the result of leadership that believes drug use is just another lifestyle choice, or that a black child should remain in a dangerous home as a means of fighting systemic racism.

But some of it is because decisions are being made by folks who are just not very good at assessing risk.

And it’s not just how ACS is screening candidates; it’s who is being recruited in the first place.

A recent ad for the New York City Bridge Exam, the test you take for a variety of civil-service positions, was aimed at anyone who wants to be a “child protective specialist,” “maintenance worker,” “clerical associate” or “secretary.”

As if these positions, and the skills required for them, are interchangeable. 

Compare that to the approach of former ACS Director John Mattingly, who sought to increase recruitment under Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Mattingly launched a subway ad campaign that asked, “Are you strong enough . . . Are you smart enough . . . Are you kind enough to be a Child Protection Specialist?”

Applications immediately spiked: About 1,100 resumés came into the agency in the month after the ads ran, compared to 5,800 in all of the previous year.

Mattingly told me the current strategy of advertising the job along with secretarial and janitorial positions is “useless” and seems “crazy.”

Let’s be clear: ACS has a reputation problem.

Who wants to work for an organization that is tarred as needlessly intrusive, racist or downright incompetent?

Child-welfare agencies, here and elsewhere, are caught in a downward spiral — the worse their reputation, the worse their applicant pool becomes.

If City Hall wants to turn ACS around, it needs to raise standards, not lower them.

Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.