Rule-Making Standards and Procedures s16

Title of Proposed Rule: / Child Welfare Response to Sex Trafficking
Rule-making#: / 16-4-6-1
Office, Division, & Program: OCYF, DCW, CPS Unit / Rule Author: Lorendia Schmidt / Phone: 303-866-4268
E-Mail: lorendia.schmidt@ state.co.us

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

Summary of the basis and purpose for new rule or rule change.

Several rules are required to meet requirements of Public Law 113-183, Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, and House Bill 16-1224, Concerning child abuse involving human trafficking of minors:

· Add rule to 7.303.4 regarding identifying, documenting in agency records, and determining appropriate services for children/youth who have experienced or are at-risk for experiencing sex trafficking;

· Add rule to 7.100 regarding the assessment of allegations of intra-familial sex trafficking; and;

· Add rule to 7.200 and 7.303.4 regarding conducting screening to identify risk and/or experiences of sex

trafficking.

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

Justification for emergency:

Authority for Rule:

State Board Authority: 26-1-107, C.R.S. (2015) - State Board to promulgate rules; 26-1-109, C.R.S. (2015) - state department rules to coordinate with federal programs; 26-1-111, C.R.S. (2015) - state department to promulgate rules for public assistance and welfare activities.

Program Authority:

42 U.S.C. 671, 42 U.S.C. 679(c), C.R.S. 19-1-103(1)(a)(VIII), C.R.S. 19-3-308(4)(c),

C.R.S. 19-3-317.

X / Yes / No
Yes / X / No

Does the rule incorporate material by reference?

Does this rule repeat language found in statute?

If yes, please explain.

The rule incorporates a state-mandated screening tool to screen for instances of sex trafficking, as described in HB16-1224 revisions to C.R.S. 19-3-317.

The program has sent this proposed rule-making package to which stakeholders?

Human Trafficking Task Group

Child Protection Task Group

Child Welfare Sub-Policy Advisory Committee (on agenda for June 2016)

CDHS Policy Advisory Committee (on agenda for June 2016)

Office of the Children’s Representative

Permanency Task Group

Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel

County departments of human/social services

Administrative Review Division

Chafee Program

[Note: Changes to rule text are identified as follows: deletions are shown as “strikethrough”, additions are in “allcaps”, and changes made between initial review and final adoption are in brackets.]

Attachments:

Regulatory Analysis

Overview of Proposed Rule

Stakeholder Comment Summary

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 bear the burden of conducting screening to determine instances of sex trafficking, determining appropriate services, and documenting in the state automated case management system.

County departments of human/social services will bear the burden of notifying law enforcement when a child/youth is found to be a victim of sex trafficking, determining appropriate services, and documenting in the state automated case management system.

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 rule will impact the workload of county departments of human/social services.

The short-term consequences include learning about the screening process, conducting screenings, determining appropriate services, and documenting in the state automated case management system. However, it is not yet known as to how much this will impact county departments because there is very little data regarding the number of children/youth involved with child welfare who are at-risk of being or have been a victim of sex trafficking.

The long-term consequences are that children and youth who are at risk of being or have been a victim of sex trafficking are identified earlier and have access to services to prevent sex trafficking and/or address sex trafficking victimization.

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.

Answer should NEVER be just “no impact” answer should include “no impact because….”

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)

· Additions will need to be made in the state automated case management system (Trails), including adding the sex trafficking screen and space to document the notification to law enforcement when a child/youth is alleged to be a victim of sex trafficking. In addition, web-based trainings will need to be created so that county departments can learn about documentation requirements. Federal dollars (CAPTA) are available to cover the costs of any Trails additions and Trails-related training.

· CDHS, OCYF, DCW will need to provide technical assistance and support to county departments as they begin utilizing the screening tool, identifying victims of sex trafficking, and determining appropriate services. DCW is utilizing IV-E Waiver Savings to hire a part-time staff member to coordinate and provide technical assistance and support to county departments.

County Fiscal Impact

Since there is limited data regarding the number of children/youth involved with child welfare who have experienced sex trafficking, the full impact to county departments is not yet known. However, the new rules will require additional actions to be taken by county departments of human services which assume some fiscal impact in terms of staff time and resources.

Federal Fiscal Impact

If the rules are not incorporated, Colorado would be out of compliance with federal law and would face possible fiscal sanctions.

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

4. Data Description:

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

Public Law 113-183 was utilized to develop this rule.

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.

Answer should NEVER be just “no alternative” answer should include “no alternative because…”

There is no alternative because the federal government requires that all states implement the policies outlined in Public Law 113-183. In addition, Colorado recently passed House Bill 16-1224 which requires a state-mandated sex trafficking screen.

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
Example:
7.104.1(A) / New rule / Adds the requirement that if during an intrafamilial assessment, the county departments of human/social services learns that a child/youth is a victim of sex trafficking, they must notify law enforcement within 24 hours of learning that a child/youth is alleged to be a victim of sex trafficking and to document the report in the state automated case management system.
7.104.1(B) / 7.104.1(A) / Technical change from (A) to (B)
7.104.1(C) / 7.104.1(B) / Technical change from (B) to (C)
7.201.(D) / New rule / Adds the requirement for county departments to conduct a sex trafficking screen on all Program Area 4 assessments.
7.201.1(E) / New rule / Adds the requirement that if during a Program Area 4 assessment a county departments of human/social services learns that a child/youth is a victim of sex trafficking, they must notify law enforcement within 24 hours of learning that a child/youth is alleged to be a victim of sex trafficking and to document the report in the state automated case management system. / /
7.303.11(F) / New rule / Allows county departments of human/social services to utilize Core Services Program to provide services to children/youth involved in child welfare, up to age 21, who are at-risk of being or have been a sex trafficking victim.
7.303.4(A) / New Rule / Adds the requirement to identify youth who are at-risk of being or have been a victim of sex trafficking, determine appropriate services, and document in the state case automated case management system any child/youth in an open Program Area 4, 5 or 6 case. Adds the requirement to use the state-mandated sex trafficking screen. Adds the requirement to notify law enforcement within 24 hours of learning that a child/youth is alleged to be a victim of sex trafficking and to document the report in the state automated case management system.
7.303.4(B) / 7.303.4 / Technical change to (B)
7.303.4(B)(1) / 7.303.4(A) / Change from 7.303.4(A) to 7.303.4(B)(1)
7.303.4(B)(2) / 7.303.4(B)(1) / Change from 7.303.4(B) to 7.303.4(C)(2). Revise rule to add clarity to expectations of reasonable efforts to locate a child missing from out-of-home placement.
7.303.4(B)(3) / 7.303.4(B) / Change from 7.303.4(B) to 7.303.4(B)(3) and revise to provide clarity of expectations when a child returns after being missing from out-of-home placement.
7.303.4(B)(3)(a-c) / 7.303.4(B)(2-4) / Technical change from 7.303.4(B)(2-4) to 7.303.4(B)(3)(a-c) and revise to provide clarity of expectations when a child returns after being missing from out-of-home placement.
7.305.41(G) / New Rule / Adds the requirement to identify youth who are at-risk of being or have been a victim of sex trafficking, refer for appropriate services, and document in the state case automated case management system any youth receiving Chafee program services. Also adds the requirement to use the state-mandated sex trafficking screen.
7.305.41(H) / New Rule / Adds the requirement that if during an open Chafee program case a county departments of human/social services learns that a youth is a victim of sex trafficking, they must notify law enforcement within 24 hours of learning that a youth is alleged to be a victim of sex trafficking and to document the report in the state automated case management system.

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):

The rules were drafted by the Human Trafficking Task Group, with input and support from the DCW Youth Services Unit, Permanency Unit, and Placement Services Unit.

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:

Human Trafficking Task Group

Child Protection Task Group

Child Welfare Sub-Policy Advisory Committee

Office of the Children’s Representative

Permanency Task Group

Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel

County departments of human/social services

Administrative Review Division

Chafee Program

Are other State Agencies (such as HCPF or CDPHE) impacted by these rules? If so, have they been contacted and provided input on the proposed rules?

Yes / X / No

If yes, who was contacted and what was their input?

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

Yes / X / No

Date presented ______.

What issues were raised?

If not presented, explain why.

To be presented at the June 2016, Child Welfare sub-PAC.

Comments were received from stakeholders on the proposed rules:

X / Yes / 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.

Comments from members of the Human Trafficking Task Group were incorporated into the current draft rules. Additional comments will be addressed and added as they are received.