Rule-making#: 11-12-20-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Children, Youth and Families/Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Ann “Mimi” Scheuermann / Phone: 303.866.5794
E-Mail:
ann.scheuermann
@state.co.us
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.)
Executive Order D 2011-005 required a review of all rules in the Colorado Department of Human Services. For the Division of Child Welfare Services, Child Protection Services: 1) rule in section 7.202.4 was identified for partial repeal, and 2) part of that section will be revised in order to update and clarify the language.
The proposed repeal and revision are intended to eliminate the requirement for a county department of human/social services to assign a referral for an assessment on allegations that do not meet criteria for assignment simply because it is the third report. The rule to be revised is often misinterpreted to mean that the 3rd referral, even if it does not meet the criteria for assignment, must be assigned if the prior two referrals in a two-year period were screened out. The change to the rule would clarify that the 3rd report and the history of referrals and interventions be reviewed and considered when making an assignment decision.
An emergency rule-making (which waives the initial Administrative Procedure Act noticing requirements) is necessary:
to comply with state/federal law and/orto preserve public health, safety and welfare
Explain:
Authority for Rule:
State Board Authority: 26-1-107, C.R.S. (2011) - State Board to promulgate rules; 26-1-109, C.R.S. (2011) - State Board rules to coordinate with federal programs; 26-1-111, C.R.S. (2011) - State Board to promulgate rules for public assistance and welfare activities.
(continued)
Initial Review / 03/02/2012 / Final Adoption / 05/04/2012Proposed Effective Date / 07/01/2012 / EMERGENCY Adoption / n/a
DOCUMENT 5
______
[Note: “Strikethrough” indicates deletion from existing rules, “all caps” indicates addition of new rules,
and brackets denote changes since initial review.]
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE (continued)
Authority for Rule:
State Board Authority: 26-1-107, C.R.S. (2011) - State Board to promulgate rules; 26-1-109, C.R.S. (2011) - State Board rules to coordinate with federal programs; 26-1-111, C.R.S. (2011) - State Board to promulgate rules for public assistance and welfare activities.
Program Authority: (give federal and/or state citations and a summary of the language authorizing the rule-making)
19-1-103(22), C.R.S. (2011) - definition of child protection team
19-3-102, C.R.S. - neglected or dependent child
26-3.1-101, C.R.S., et seq. (2011) - protective services for at-risk adults
Yes / x / NoYes / x / No
Does the rule incorporate material by reference?
Does this rule repeat language found in statute?
If yes, please explain.
The program has sent this proposed rule-making package to which stakeholders?
The following entities were shown the rule changes and provided comment:
Administrative Review Division, Child Protection Task Group, Colorado Human Services Directors Association (CHSDA), CHSDA children and families subcommittee, Child Welfare Sub-PAC, the Office of the Child’s Representative, and Carla Bennett with the League of Women Voters
Attachments:
Regulatory Analysis
Overview of Proposed Rule
Stakeholder Comment Summary
Rule-making Form SBA-3a (08/09)
Title of Proposed Rule: / Child Protective Services Rule Revisions Pursuant to Rule Reduction ReviewRule-making#: / 11-12-20-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Children, Youth and Families/Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Ann Scheuermann / Phone: 303-866-5794
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?
County Departments of Human/Social Services
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?
This repeal will benefit the county departments of human/social services in that it will clarify that they are not required to assign a Referral for Assessment on the sole basis that it is the third report of alleged abuse or neglect, but does not meet criteria for assignment. County departments of human/social services will be allowed to make the assignment decision based on the allegation in the third referral, as well as on the critical review of past referrals.
If county departments are required to assign the 3rd referral in two years without allegations of abuse or neglect, assessments would increase by approximately 7,039, based off of 2011 data. This number will steadily increase as the number of referrals that met this requirement has increased from 4,913 in 2009, to 7,039 in 2011.
Based on the annual Screen Out Review conducted by the Administrative Review Division, 7% of the review sample met the criteria of the 3rd report (104/1494), but were screened out, and of those, only .2% (3) were felt to have met criteria for assignment. This indicates that county departments are making appropriate screen-out/ screen-in decisions without the mandate to respond on the 3rd referral.
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 Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS) change request costs required to implement this rule change)
None
County Fiscal Impact
None
Federal Fiscal Impact
None
Other Fiscal Impact (such as providers, local governments, etc.)
None
REGULATORY ANALYSIS (continued)
4. Data Description:
List and explain any data, such as studies, federal announcements, or questionnaires, which were relied upon when developing this rule?
None
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 another alternative.
No alternatives to implementation of the rules were considered because Executive Order D 2011-005 initiated a review of all rules and this is removing a requirement per the suggestion of County Department staff.
Rule-making Form SBA-3a (08/09)
Title of Proposed Rule: / Child Protective Services Rule Revisions Pursuant to Rule Reduction ReviewRule-making#: 11-12-20-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Children, Youth and Families/Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Ann “Mimi” Scheuermann / Phone: 303.866.5794
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
7.202.4, E / Referral process: initial assessment shall decide appropriateness of further investigation by checking automated system, reviewing files and obtaining collateral information / Revises to add review of prior involvement / _X_ / Yes / _ / No7.202.4, G, 4 / Referral process: must assign for investigation reports that are the 3rd in two years, if the first two were not assigned for assessment / Repeals item 4, as the assignment will be decided by the county department after reviewing history and determining that the current referral meets criteria for assignment / _X_ / Yes / _ / No
Rule-making Form SBA-3c (10/08)
Title of Proposed Rule: / Child Protective Services Rule Revisions Pursuant to Rule Reduction ReviewRule-making#: 11-12-20-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Children, Youth and Families/ Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Ann “Mimi” Scheuermann / Phone:303.866.5794
STAKEHOLDER COMMENT SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT
The following individuals and/or entities were included in the development of these proposed rules (such as other Program Areas, Legislative Liaison, and Sub-PAC):
This rule has been a part of many discussions with the Child Protection Task Group. There is not a particular date of these discussions, but not specifically to developing the rule, as this is more of a repeal.
THIS RULE-MAKING PACKAGE
The following individuals and/or entities were contacted and informed that this rule-making was proposed for consideration by the State Board of Human Services:
Administrative Review Division, Child Protection Task Group, Colorado Human Services Directors Association (CHSDA), CHSDA children and families subcommittee, Child Welfare Sub-PAC, the Office of the Child’s Representative, and Carla Bennett with the League of Women Voters
Are other State Agencies (such as Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing) impacted by these rules? If so, have they been contacted and provided input on the proposed rules?
Yes / X / NoHave these rules been reviewed by the appropriate Sub-PAC Committee?
X / Yes / NoDate presented _March 8, 2012___. Were there any issues raised? ____ Yes __X__ No
If not, why.
Comments were received from stakeholders on the proposed rules:
x / Yes / NoSTAKEHOLDER COMMENT SUMMARY (continued)
If “yes” to any of the above questions, summarize and/or attach the feedback received by specifying the section and including the Department/Office/Division response. Provide proof of agreement or ongoing issues with a letter or public testimony by the stakeholder.
The Office of the Child’s Representative provided public testimony stating that they do not agree with the removal of this requirement as there are mandatory reporters who make referrals to the departments of human services because they have legitimate concerns regarding the safety and welfare of children. These reports should not be ignored. There are also children dying due to county departments not responding to reports by mandatory reporters, and other community members, and if this repeal is allowed, then more children may be at risk. It is felt that the decision to repeal this rule was based on anecdotal information, and would request that data be gathered to help support this repeal.
Data was collected to show that the 3rd referral in two years, where the first two were screened out, applied to 11% (7,039) referrals for 2011. Of the 3,336 referrals 16.5% (549) received a founded overall disposition, and 30.3% (1,011) either had services opened as a result of the referral, or the referral was linked to an already open case or assessment.
For the purpose of data collection, the Administrative Review Division (ARD) selected a random sample of thirty referrals that met the rule criteria, and went on to have a founded disposition as the result of an assessment, which were then reviewed by the Division of Child Welfare (DCW). The DCW determined that in all thirty instances, regardless of the specific rule section being considered, county departments would likely have accepted the referral because it contained allegations of abuse or neglect.
Of a sample of fifty (50) referrals that met the rule criteria, were accepted for assessment, and resulted in an inconclusive or unfounded disposition, twenty one (21) would have been assigned for assessment due to the nature of the allegations, nine would have been assigned due to significant history, and twenty would have been appropriate to screen out.
Carla Bennett telephoned the Division of Child Welfare and stated that she does not think it is a good idea to eliminate the 3rd referral requirement. She will be at Board to testify against the rule.
The Division of Child Welfare formed a subcommittee with those who have expressed concerns regarding the rule change in hopes of coming to a consensus. This subcommittee met and, at the end of the meeting on 4/2/12, the subcommittee came to a consensus on the language to be added to the rule, but still allowing the original deletion of 7.202.4, G, 4.
Rule-making Form SBA-3d (12/11)
12 CCR 2509-3
PROGRAM AREA 4 7.202.4 – Cont.
7.202.4 REFERRAL procedures
Rev. eff. A. The county department shall have staff available twenty-four (24) hours a day to
3/2/11 receive reports of abuse and neglect, conduct initial assessments of such reports and investigate those reports that are appropriate for child protective services. Continuously available means the assignment of a person to be near an operable telephone, pager system, or to have such arrangements made through agreements with the local law enforcement agencies.
B. The county department shall establish response protocols outlining the county plan for weekends, holidays, and after-hour coverage, to include:
1. How the county will ensure that those individuals reporting abuse or neglect after hours are directed to the designated number or agency for response;
2. Requirements for thorough documentation to support the disposition/ actions of the emergency response worker; and,
3. That referrals must be entered into the automated case management system as outlined in Sections 7.200.6 and 7.200.61 by the next business day.
C. The county department shall provide appropriate referral information to the reporting party in those situations in which there are inadequate grounds to constitute assignment for assessment and investigation. Either casework or supervisory staff shall inform, whenever possible and appropriate, the reporting party of the decision not to investigate and the reasons for that decision.
D. Within thirty calendar days after receipt of a report of suspected child abuse or neglect from a specified mandatory reporter, the county department shall notify the specified mandatory reporting party who is and continues to be officially and professionally involved in the ongoing care of the child who was the subject of the report and has a need to know in order to fulfill his or her professional and official role in maintaining the child’s safety. The county department shall provide the specified mandatory reporting party with: the name of the child and the date of the report; whether the referral was accepted for assessment; whether the referral was closed without services; whether the assessment resulted in services related to the safety of the child; the name of and contract information for the county caseworker responsible for the investigation; notice that the reporting mandatory reporter may request updated information within ninety calendar days after the county department received the report and information concerning the procedure for obtaining updated information. Such specified mandatory reporters are: