Rule-making#: / 14-2-10-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Community Access and Independence/ Aging and Adult Services / Rule Author: Fonda Barkofske / Phone: 303-866-2859
E-Mail:
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.)
Adult Protective Services (APS) program rules provide county department APS programs with directions on program requirements. The Colorado Revised Statutes were revised due to the passage of Senate Bill 13-111. As a result, Adult Protective Services is proposing rule revisions to align them with the current law.
Additionally, on July 1, 2014, APS will have a new data system that all counties will be required to use for case management. This rule revision provides counties with guidance on the data system requirements. Finally, these rule revisions provide counties guidance around best practice standards for APS casework and provision of protective services, which can now be implemented primarily because of the new data system and the increased flexibility in case management as a result.
● Updates to the definitions section were made to align with S.B. 13-111 and to define new terms related to the new data system and best practice standards.
● Rules related to documentation have been modified throughout to align with the new data system functionality, including a paperless system of case management.
● Rules were modified to provide counties with updated training requirements to support best practices in APS casework. These changes were recommended by the APS Task Group and will help ensure that county department APS staff persons receive adequate training in order to better serve at-risk adults.
● Rules related to staff duties and responsibilities were updated to improve supervision of casework services to ensure that appropriate protective services are provided for at-risk adults.
Initial Review / 06/06/2014 / Final Adoption / 07/11/2014Proposed Effective Date / 09/01/2014 / EMERGENCY Adoption / N/A
DOCUMENT 2
______
[Note: “Strikethrough” indicates deletion from existing rules, “all caps” indicates addition of new rules,
and brackets denote changes since initial publication.]
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE (continued)
● The timeframes to respond to reports of mistreatment were simplified into two time frames: emergency and non-emergency. This simplification of the rules does not increase timeframes for response. Emergency responses still require the county department to act as soon as possible, but no later than twenty four (24) hours after the report is received. Non-emergency situations still require a response within three (3) working days after the report is received.
● Rules related to investigation, assessment, case planning, and case closure were modified to better reflect best practices for APS casework and to coincide with new data system processes.
● Rules related to county department case assignment and courtesy visits have been simplified, while still ensuring appropriate services are provided to at-risk adults.
● Repeal of rule 30.420 concerning case transfers to align with new data system processes.
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. (2013) - State Board to promulgate rules; 26-1-109, C.R.S. (2013) - state department rules to coordinate with federal programs; 26-1-111, C.R.S. (2013) - 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) 26-3.1-101, C.R.S. (2013) - definitions; 26-3.1-102 and 26-3.1-110, C.R.S. (2013) - reporting requirements;
26-3.1-108 C.R.S. (2013) - states that the State Department shall promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this article regarding protective services for at-risk adults.
Yes / X / NoX / Yes / No
Does the rule incorporate material by reference?
Does this rule repeat language found in statute?
If yes, please explain.
Some definitions from statute have been included in rule Section 30.100 to ensure an effective and efficient document to use in implementing all APS program requirements.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE (continued)
The program has sent this proposed rule-making package to which stakeholders?
County Departments of Human/Social Services; Colorado Commission on Aging; Colorado Legal Services; Colorado Senior Lobby; Area Agencies on Aging; Colorado Cross Disability Coalition; Community Centered Boards; ARCs, Police Advisory Committee (PAC); Economic Security Sub-PAC; APS task group; American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
Attachments:
Regulatory Analysis
Overview of Proposed Rule
Stakeholder Comment Summary
3
Title of Proposed Rule: / Adult Protective Services Program Rule Revision Related to the New Data System and S.B. 13-111 Regarding Abuse of At-Risk AdultsRule-making#: / 14-2-10-1
Office/Division or Program: Office of Community Access and Independence/ Aging and Adult Services / Rule Author: Fonda Barkofske / Phone: 303-866-2859
E-Mail:
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?
At-risk adults and clients of Adult Protective Services (APS) will benefit from the proposed rule changes, which drive best practices and improved outcomes.
County department APS staff will benefit from the proposed rule changes, which drive increased efficiencies and new practices that will improve APS services, and thus improved client outcomes. There will be a minor impact on county departments of social/human services related to training for APS caseworkers.
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?
Clients: The proposed rule changes direct county departments to use the new data system to document all APS casework. Functions have been built into the system to help identify and establish services and practices that improve client outcomes. This will help county department staff in developing appropriate protective services and interventions for clients, leading to improved safety. Additionally, the data system will be able to provide county departments with a screen in and screen out recommendation based upon information received in the report. This will help ensure that county departments across the state are evaluating reports more consistently from county department to county department. This will help ensure that reports are appropriately screened in for investigation and assessment so the client’s need for protective services and interventions are being served.
Another component of the rule changes will require county department supervisors to review an increased number of cases each month to ensure that caseworkers are adequately and appropriately addressing the client’s safety needs. If a county department caseworker is not providing appropriate services and interventions, enhanced supervision will ensure that a supervisor reviews all casework conducted by that caseworker. Rules related to training are being updated. Required training for new caseworkers is an essential component to ensuring improved client outcomes, from the initial intake of the report through case closure. Data shows that workers who attend the Training Academy receive quality assurance scores on case reviews that are approximately fifteen percent (15%) higher than scores for workers who did not attend Training Academy.
All the rule changes will benefit at-risk adults in the long term as new practices, designed to improve outcomes, and additional training requirements are implemented statewide.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS (continued)
County Departments: The proposed rules direct county departments on the data system requirements for data and casework documentation. Full use of the data system will provide county department staff with increased efficiency with casework documentation and will help ensure that workers have thoroughly investigated, assessed the client’s needs, and implemented appropriate services. County departments will able to track data more effectively to measure safety outcomes for clients who are served. The data system will house all data and will no longer require county departments to house paper files or parallel electronic files, saving costs in the long term. Data system functionality will automate many supervisory functions, which will allow supervisors more time to spend with staff on training and development. Built in tickler systems will help caseworkers and supervisors manage caseloads more effectively. New functions in the data system will eliminate the need to collect and report Adult Protection Team activities, staff contact information, education, and FTE percentage, collaborative agreements, and training activities manually, as is the current process.
New best practices have been incorporated into the data system, which will allow the county department to demonstrate to its stakeholders the success rate of its APS casework expectations and will allow county department staff to produce real-time data reports in a matter of minutes.
The rules create efficiencies by simplifying the report response timeframe rules, the case assignment rules, and repealing case transfer rules. The rules change language related to intake, reports, and case to simplify the terminology and better reflect similar terminology used in child welfare.
County departments will need to adjust business practices to accommodate new APS workers’ attendance at the four-day Training Academy. Some minor costs related to travel will be borne by the county department, as detailed in the fiscal impact, below.
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
Mandatory reporting is expected to generate a fifteen percent (15%) increase in the total number of reports received by county departments. S.B. 13-111 provided for an additional $1,360,000 of State General Fund to be allocated to county departments to maintain a caseload average of twenty five to one (25:1) with the anticipated increase in reports.
The data system is being implemented at a cost of $250,000 for initial design and build in FY2014 and $160,000 in ongoing maintenance, upgrade, and licensing fees in FY2015 and beyond. These are State General Funds. These funds were allocated in S.B. 13-111.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS (continued)
County Department Fiscal Impact
County departments must provide a twenty percent (20%) match, $340,000, for the additional administrative funds provided to maintain the 25:1 caseload average with the increased number of reports as a result of mandatory reporting.
There is no additional cost to the county departments for the data system. The State Department has identified approximately five (5) counties that do not have access to a scanner and would need to purchase a scanner.
County departments will have the cost of travel to attend the Training Academy, usually held in the Denver metro area, for any new APS caseworkers who will be required to attend training. The State Department will cover the cost of lodging and meals while in class.
Federal Fiscal Impact
None
Other Fiscal Impact (such as providers, local governments, etc.)
None
4. Data Description:
List and explain any data, such as studies, federal announcements, or questionnaires, which were relied upon when developing this rule?
N/A
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.
None. Rules need to be revised and added for the new data system and to implement S.B. 13-111.
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
// Yes / No /
30.100 / Definition of Assessment / Revises the definition. / X /
30.100 / None / Adds definition of a Case. / X /
30.100 / Definition of Data System / Revises the rule to reflect the new APS data system. / X /
30.100 / None / Adds definition of Enhanced Supervision. / X /
30.100 / Definition of Information and Referral ( I&R) / Repeal. I&R will no longer be used. / X /
30.100 / None / Adds definition of RED Team / X /
30.100 / Definition of Physical Abuse / Repeal. This was amended in the definition of mistreatment per statute. / X /
30.100 / Definition of Referral / Repeal. This will no longer be used. / X /
30.100 / Definition of Self-Abuse / Repeal. This will fall under the definition of self-neglect in rule. / X /
30.220 / APS Program Review and Oversight / Rules added to give county departments guidelines on performance standards and expectations No changes: reverted to original rule text. / X /
30.260 / Documentation / Revises rule for data system use and requirements. / X /
30.330 / Training Requirements / Revises rule to require training for APS staff. / X /
30.340 / Staff Duties and Responsibilities / Revises rule to define supervisors responsibilities and case review rules. / X /
7
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED RULE (continued)
Section Numbers / Current Regulation / Proposed Change /Stakeholder Comment
// Yes / No /
30.400 / Report Receipt and Response / Revises rules to reflect new business processes in the data system / X /
30.420 / Report Categorization / Rules added to address the new statute for mandatory reporting and data system use for report screening. / X /
30.430 / Response Priority / Combines the “immediate” and “twenty four (24) hour” response into a single “emergency” response. / X /
30.520 / Investigations / Revises rule to require a finding for perpetrators and mistreatment categories. / X /
30.530 / Assessment / Revises rule to address the impact of risk factors to the client’s overall risk and mitigating factors that improve safety. / X /
30.600 / Case Planning / Revises rule to give clearer direction and guidance on what needs to be addressed in a case plan. / X /
30.620 / Consent / Revises rule to encourage clients to sign a general release form. Revises rule to provide clarity on how to do involuntary case planning. / X /
30.650 / Provision of Protective Services / Revises rules for data system compliance and guidelines on reassessment requirements. / X /
30.660 / Case Closure / Amends rules to update case closure and final assessment requirement. / X /
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED RULE (continued)