Title of Proposed Rule: / Implementation of S.B. 15-100 to Repeal Section 7.000.3 That Allowed Exceptions to Child Welfare Rules
Rule-making#: / 15-4-17-1
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:

(7/10/15 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. How do these rule changes align with the outcomes that we are trying to achieve, such as those measured in C-Stat?)

The proposed rule change complies with S.B. 15-100, which repeals a rule [and reference to said rule] that allowed exceptions to child welfare rules when justification for the exception and the alternative provision meet certain requirements that would not impact the safety and/or risk of a child.

The Legislative Committee on Legal Services reviewed this rule out of its usual cycle and voted to recommend repeal of rule 7.000.3. It was subsequently included in Senate Bill 15-100, the annual rule review. This part of S.B.15-100 is effective upon passage.

An emergency rule-making (which waives the initial Administrative Procedure Act noticing requirements) is necessary:

X / to comply with state/federal law and/or
to preserve public health, safety and welfare

Explain: This rule implements a section of S.B. 15-100 that becomes effective upon passage; thus, it is necessary to promulgate the repeal of this rule on an emergency basis. The Governor signed the bill on May 11, 2015.

Authority for Rule:

State Board Authority: 26-1-107, C.R.S. (2014) - State Board to promulgate rules; 26-1-109, C.R.S. (2014) - state department rules to coordinate with federal programs; 26-1-111, C.R.S. (2014) - state department 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)

19-1-116-(1.5), (2)(b(I), C.R.S. (2014) – alternative services to prevent continued involvement with county child welfare system, including goals and alternative services in plan; and,

26-5.5-103(1), C.R.S. (2014) – authorizes State Board to establish “at risk” criteria

Initial Review / 06/05/2015 / Final Adoption / 07/10/2015
Proposed Effective Date / 06/05/2015 (emergency)
09/01/2015 (permanent) / EMERGENCY Adoption / 06/05/2015

DOCUMENT 2

______

[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)

Yes / X / No
Yes / 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?

Child Protection Task Group, Permanency Task Group, Child Welfare Sub-PAC, Colorado Human Services Directors Association, Office of the Child’s Representative, Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center

Attachments:

Regulatory Analysis

Overview of Proposed Rule

Stakeholder Comment Summary

1

Title of Proposed Rule: / Implementation of S.B. 15-100 to Repeal Section 7.000.3 That Allowed Exceptions to Child Welfare Rules
Rule-making#: / 15-4-17-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Children, Youth and Families/Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Ann “Mimi” 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 will be impacted by this rule change as it will eliminate the possibility of allowing for county flexibility in making exceptions to any child welfare rule under specific circumstances as documented by the county.

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?

As the rule has been in effect for only four (4) months, the impact is negligible.

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)

There is no fiscal impact.

County Fiscal Impact

There is no fiscal impact.

Federal Fiscal Impact

There is no fiscal impact.

Other Fiscal Impact (such as providers, local governments, etc.)

There is no fiscal impact.

4. Data Description:

List and explain any data, such as studies, federal announcements, or questionnaires, which were relied upon when developing this rule?

There were no data, federal announcements, or questionnaires relied upon to make this revision.

4

Title of Proposed Rule: / Implementation of S.B. 15-100 to Repeal Section 7.000.3 That Allowed Exceptions to Child Welfare Rules
Rule-making#: / 15-4-17-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Children, Youth and Families/Division of Child Welfare / Rule Author: Ann “Mimi” Scheuermann / Phone: 303-866-5794

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 another alternative.

There were no alternatives considered in regards to the change in this rule. The Legislative Committee on Legal Services reviewed this rule out of its usual cycle and voted to recommend repeal of rule 7.000.3. It was included in Senate Bill 15-100, the annual rule review.

4

Title of Proposed Rule: / Implementation of S.B. 15-100 to Repeal Section 7.000.3 That Allowed Exceptions to Child Welfare Rules
Rule-making#: / 15-4-17-1
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

7.000.3 / Exceptions: county departments may make exceptions to child welfare rules when justification for the exception and the alternative provision meet certain requirements that would not impact the safety and/or risk of a child / Repealed pursuant to S.B. 15-100 / __ / Yes / X / No
7.000.4-7.000.5 / Place holder for no current rules / Add 7.000.3 to the place holder to account for repeal of the current rule / __ / Yes / X / No
[7.200.12, H / County responsibilities include following the rules and regulations promulgated by the State Board of Human Services, unless otherwise outlined in Section 7.000.3 / Remove incorrect reference to repealed Section 7.000.3 / __ / Yes / X / No]

5

Title of Proposed Rule: / Implementation of S.B. 15-100 to Repeal Section 7.000.3 That Allowed Exceptions to Child Welfare Rules
Rule-making#: / 15-4-17-1
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):

Due to the legislative mandate to repeal the rule upon passage and emergency nature to do it in a timely manner, there was no opportunity to obtain input during development.

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:

Child Protection Task Group, Permanency Task Group, Child Welfare Sub-PAC, Colorado Human Services Directors Association, Office of the Child’s Representative, Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center

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 / No

Have these rules been reviewed by the appropriate Sub-PAC Committee?

X / Yes / No

Date presented _to be presented on May 7, 2015_. Were there any issues raised? ____ Yes ____ No

If not, why. The rule was repealed in legislation.

Comments were received from stakeholders on the proposed rules:

Yes / X / No

If “yes” to any of the above questions, summarize and/or attach the feedback received, including requests made by the State Board of Human Services, 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.

6

(12 CCR 2509-1)

7.000.3 EXCEPTIONS [Eff. 1/1/15]

Exceptions to rule are allowed when justification for the exception and the alternative provision meet the following requirement(s):

A. Do not impact the safety and/or risk of a child(ren); and,

B. Are in the best interest of the child(ren).

The exception shall be documented in the statewide automated case management system and approved by a county department supervisor. Exceptions cannot be granted for requirements of federal law, state statutes, or those rules directly related to the safety and/or risk of a child(ren). Exceptions cannot be granted for financial limitations established in rule.

7.000.3 7.000.4 – 7.000.5 (None)

**************************************

(12 CCR 2509-3)

7.200.12 County Responsibilities [Eff. 1/1/15]

The county department shall be responsible:

A. To deliver prevention and intervention services according to the state-approved service delivery plan that is an addendum to the Core Services Plan.

B. To ensure community agencies and/or other divisions within the county provide prevention and intervention services according to the state-approved service delivery plan.

C. To ensure community agencies and/or other division within the county department refer families, youth, and children to the prevention and intervention service according to the contract with the county Child Welfare Division.

D. To ensure community agencies and/or other divisions of human services offer prevention or intervention services according to the contract with the county department.

E. To ensure documentation in the approved state automated case management system of the names, age, ethnicity, gender, service provided, and the reason the service ended for families, youth, and children referred for or provided prevention and intervention services.

F. To ensure documentation in the approved state automated case management system of all required data elements of each funding source used for prevention and intervention services.

G. To follow the rules and requirements governing the specific funding stream the county elects to use to provide prevention and intervention services.

H. To follow the rules and regulations promulgated by the state board of human services [ , unless otherwise outlined in Section 7.000.3 ]

*****************************************

Rule-making Form SBA-4 (6/02)