Rule-making#: / 08-7-1-1
Program: Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Susan Ludwig / Phone: 303-866-5956
(as amended)
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
Summary of the basis and purpose for the rule or rule change. (State what the rule says or does, explain why the rule or rule change is necessary and what the program hopes to accomplish through this rule.)
State policy is being revised to present the Safety Intervention Model policy in a more succinct manner. Proposed changes in the rules are:
1) Risk factors will be added as a basis for determining the speed of response to allegations of maltreatment.
2) Development of in-home plans to protect children from danger will begin at initial contact with families (if circumstances require) and be refined over time, as the safety assessment process continues. These will be referred to as “safety plans” throughout the development of the plan. Previously the initial in-home plans were called “protective plan” if developed at point of first contact and “safety plans” if developed over time. One term will now be used.
3) Adoption of the terminology of “moderate to severe” harm rather than “severe harm” as a standard for requiring immediate response to protect a child.
4) Miscellaneous language modifications that provide clarity to the model.
An emergency rule-making (which waives the initial APA noticing requirements) is necessary:
to comply with state/federal law and/orX / to preserve of the public health, safety and welfare
Explain: Emergency adoption is requested to ensure child safety. The emergency adoption of this rule is necessary to coincide with the Trails October 2008 release of the new safety assessment screens. The safety assessment instrument is a critical tool that assists caseworkers in their determinations of child safety. The 2008 Fatality Report indicated that four of the thirteen reports of child death were directly related to confusion of the safety model. County departments have no obligation to utilize the new safety assessment instrument without the policy direction of these rules. This rule identifies the use of the safety assessment model. A delay in adoption of these rules potentially puts children at risk of harm.
Initial Review / 09/05/2008 / Final Adoption / 11/07/2008Proposed Effective Date / 11/07/2008 / EMERGENCY Adoption / 11/07/2008
DOCUMENT 2
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE (continued)
Authority for Rule:
State Board Authority:
26-1-107, C.R.S. (2007) - State Board to promulgate rules; 26-1-109, C.R.S. (2007) - State Board rules to coordinate with federal programs; 26-1-111, C.R.S. (2007)- State Board to promulgate rules for public assistance and welfare activities.
Program Authority: (give federal and/or state cite and a summary of the language authorizing the rule-making)
19-3-308(1)(a), C.R.S. (2007) – identifies that the immediate concern of any assessment or investigation shall be the protection of the child, and, where possible, the preservation of the family unit; state board to promulgate rules to determine risk of harm and response to those risks.
Yes / X / NoYes / X / No
Does the rule incorporate material by reference?
Does this rule repeat language found in statute?
If yes, please explain.
State Board Administration will send this rule-making package to CCI, OSPB and the JBC. The program has sent this rule-packet to which stakeholders?
County Department Human/Social Services Directors, Child Welfare Advisory Group, CPS Intake Administrators/Supervisors, Butler Institute For Families.
Attachments:
Regulatory Analysis
Overview of Proposed Rule
Stakeholder Comment Summary
Rule-making Form SBA-3a (9/05)
Title of Proposed Rule: / Changes to the Safety Intervention ModelRule-making#: / 08-7-1-1
Program: Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Susan Ludwig / Phone: 303-866-5956
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
(complete each question; answers may take more than the space provided)
1. List of groups impacted by this rule:
Which groups of persons will benefit, bear the burdens or be adversely impacted by this rule?
It is believed that families and county departments will be positively impacted by the proposed modifications to the rule.
2. Describe the qualitative and quantitative impact:
How will this rule-making impact those groups listed above? How many people will be impacted? What are the short-term and long-term consequences of this rule?
The model is designed to improve practice by county department staff in the long run by allowing for improved identification of families in need of social service intervention. This proposed reconsideration and improvement of the Safety Model rules should further improve practice.
3. Fiscal Impact:
For each of the categories listed below explain the distribution of dollars; please identify the costs, revenues, matches or any changes in the distribution of funds even if such change has a total zero effect for any entity that falls within the category. If this rule-making requires one of the categories listed below to devote resources without receiving additional funding, please explain why the rule-making is required and what consultation has occurred with those who will need to devote resources.
State Fiscal Impact (Identify all state agencies with a fiscal impact, including any CBMS change request costs required to implement this rule change)
None identified.
County Fiscal Impact
None identified.
Federal Fiscal Impact
None identified.
Other Fiscal Impact (such as providers, local governments, etc.)
None identified.
4. Data Description:
List and explain any data, such as studies, federal announcements, or questionnaires, you relied upon when developing this rule?
The model is based on an approach to safety management developed by the National Resource Center on Child Protective Services. The proposed revisions are informed by National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators’ (NAPCWA’s) safety committee’s proposed framework for safety assessment. NAPCWA made available draft guidelines that they believe are “best practice” in this area, based on current research and promising practices. Their conclusions are represented in the proposed changes to the safety model.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS (continued)
5. Alternatives to this Rule-making:
Describe any alternatives that were seriously considered. Are there any less costly or less intrusive ways to accomplish the purpose(s) of this rule? Explain why the program chose this rule-making rather than taking no action or using one of the listed alternatives.
Other models that provide a structure to safety assessment, decision-making and documentation were not considered because Colorado’s safety model was very recently adopted and implementation is underway. Surveys of Colorado agencies and other states did not recommend rejection of the model, but rather supported streamlining the policy and the concepts, with the goal of assuring that caseworkers are able to use the model more consistently.
Rule-making Form SBA-3a (9/05)
Title of Proposed Rule: / Changes to the Safety Intervention ModelRule-making#: / 08-7-1-1
Program: Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Susan Ludwig / Phone: 303-866-5956
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED RULE
Compare and/or contrast the content of the current regulation and the proposed change.
Section Numbers / Current Regulation / Proposed Change /Stakeholder Comment
7.202.3 / Definitions / Definitions relevant to the safety intervention model have been incorporated into this section from 7.202.531, modified and expanded / _X__ / Yes / __ / No7.202.4, G / Transfer of referrals from county to county / Clarified the response time requirements for a transfer / _X__ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.4, I, J / Defines response times for child protection referrals. / Changed requirements for response time by defining danger differently and including specific risk factors as a basis for speedier response / _X__ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.5 / Investigation/assessment procedures / It shifts the section from identifying a purpose to directing an action / __ / Yes / X / No
7.202.51 / Written Procedures / Removed “C” since “protective plans” will now be subsumed into “safety plan” throughout rule / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.53 / States when a child's safety should be considered / Defined the safety intervention model; removes “B” / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
Former 7.202.531 / definitions relevant to the safety intervention model / Moved to Section 7.202.3; subsequent sections renumbered / __X_ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.531
(former 7.202.532) / Explains how to respond to safety issues at point of first contact. / Clarified county role at initial contact and identified how to assess and respond to safety issues / __X_ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.532, A
(former 7.202.533) / Parameters for Use of the Colorado Safety Assessment / Changed time frames for use of the instrument / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.532, B / Lists exceptions for completion of the Safety Assessment / Expanded exceptions / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
Section Numbers / Current Regulation / Proposed Change /
Stakeholder Comment
7.202.532, C / Required documentation of Safety Assessment / Language Clean Up / __ / Yes / X / No7.202.533, A
(former 7.202.534) / Impending Danger Criteria / Previously “C”; renamed “impending danger criteria” to “safety threshold criteria”; added criteria / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.533, C / Safety Concerns / Previously “A”; modified safety concerns and replaced “severe” with “moderate to severe” / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.533, D / Safety Assessment Conclusion / Made the decision-making steps in the model more succinct and moved protective capacity under the Safety Threshold Criteria / ___ / Yes / X / No
7.202.533 (former 7.202.534, E) / Protective Capacity / Renumbered to “D, 4” and revised to include determination of caregivers’ capacity and willingness to assure child’s protection / ___ / Yes / X / No
7.202.533, E / Safety Intervention Analysis / Revised to made more succinct / ___ / Yes / X / No
7.202.534
(former 7.202.535) / Safety Planning and Documentation / Cleaned up language / ___ / Yes / X / No
7.202.62, E / Risk Reassessment / Risk reassessment factors that were changed in 2007 are being changed back to the original language with some clean up. / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
7.202.62 F / Monthly Contact re Ongoing Child Protective Services / Added documentation requirement / _X_ / Yes / __ / No
STAKEHOLDER COMMENT SUMMARY
The following individuals and/or entities were contacted and informed that this rule-making was proposed:
County Department Human/Social Services Directors, Child Welfare Advisory Group, CPS Intake Administrators/Supervisors, and Butler Institute for Families, and CDHS Child Abuse and Neglect Review Section
Comments were received from stakeholders on the proposed rule-making:
X / Yes / NoCounty Departments of Human/Social Services provided general comments at an ad hoc focus group meeting and also provided the following comments:
1. A representative from Weld County: “The terms “present” and “impending” [danger] should be kept as they are, and used consistently throughout the definitions. I like the new definitions, as they seem to be more observable”.
CDHS response: This recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed rule.
2. A representative from Larimer County:
a. “We recommend the "Safety" definition and "Serious Harm" definition used in the NAPCWA Safety Committee document. [We] propose that the language be changed to return the safety threshold from "severe" to "serious" “.
CDHS response: This recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed rule, with the modification that “moderate to severe harm” is the proposed language.
b. In 7.202.4, Section I, 3, Larimer County would recommend: "Within five (5) working days from the date the report is received when the report indicates maltreatment or risk of maltreatment with no present or impending threat of serious harm to a vulnerable child." This is the definition of safe" from 7.202.531, B, and keeps the language consistent.
CDHS response: This recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed rule, with the modification that “moderate to severe harm” is the proposed language.
c. What appear to be changes to the risk reassessment in 7.202.62, E, 1-12, seem to reflect the risk reassessment that is in TRAILS and has been for some time.
CDHS response: Risk reassessment was changed in rules 9/1/07 and the automated case management system was inadvertently not changed. Practice considerations now suggest a return to the pre-9/1/07 language.
3. A representative from La Plata County provided input to improve the language in 7.202.533, B, 5.
CDHS response: The recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed rule.
STAKEHOLDER COMMENT SUMMARY (continued)
4. Input was provided by CDHS, Child Abuse and Neglect Dispute Review Section. Of the comments received, the following were incorporated into the proposed rule:
a. In Section 7.202.4, the reference to “moderate to severe harm” comes before the proposed definition for “moderate to severe harm”.
CDHS response: Definitions have been moved to an earlier section of the rules to ensure that the definition of “moderate to severe harem” is applied to the response time section of rule.
b. In Section 7.202.531, “Child safety at initial contact” needs clarification.
CDHS response: Additional language has been added that directs the counties how to determine child safety at initial contact.
c. In Section 7.202.533, B, 13, “cognitive impairments” should be included.
CDHS response: This recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed rule.
12 CCR 2509-3
PROGRAM AREA 4 7.202 - 7.202.3
7.202 PROGRAM AREA 5 - CHILDREN IN NEED OF PROTECTION
7.202.1 DEFINITION OF PROGRAM AREA 5
Rev. eff. To protect children whose physical, mental or emotional well-being is threatened by the
11/1/98 actions or omissions of parents, legal guardians or custodians, or persons responsible for providing out-of-home care, including a foster parent, an employee of a residential child care facility, and a provider of family child care or center-based child care. The county shall provide services targeted to achieve the following:
A. Children are secure and protected from harm;
B. Children have stable permanent and nurturing living environments; and,
C. When appropriate, children experience family continuity and community connectedness.
7.202.2 TARGET GROUPS
Rev. eff. A. Children whose physical, mental, or emotional well-being has been
1/1/04 threatened or harmed due to abuse or neglect.