Rule-Making Standards and Procedures s1

Title of Proposed Rule: Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (OPPLA)

Rule-making#: 15-2-12-1 Office/Division or Program: Rule Author: Gretchen Russo Phone: 303-866-3197 Office of Children, Youth, and E-Mail: Families/Division of Child Welfare [email protected]

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 use of the permanency goal, Other Permanent Planned Living Arrangement (OPPLA), is used across Colorado and it is the Division of Child Welfare’s assertion that the use of this goal should be limited. Also, it is important for Colorado to align with new federal law that passed in September 2014 that adds additional elements, judicial requirements, and benchmarks in order for this goal to be given to a youth in the custody of the child welfare system.

This rule aligns with the work in C-STAT where on a monthly basis the Division of Child Welfare staff identify and track youth who are legally free and who have not achieved legal permanency. The change to the existing rule will help to narrow the use and scope of the OPPLA permanency goal assigned to youth, in hopes of providing more opportunities for youth to find legal permanency.

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

to comply with state/federal law and/or to 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.

(continued)

Initial Review 05/08/2015 Final Adoption 06/05/2015 Proposed Effective Date 08/01/2015 EMERGENCY Adoption N/A

DOCUMENT 4

______[Note: “Strikethrough” indicates deletion from existing rules and “all caps” indicates addition of new rules.]

1 Title of Proposed Rule: Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (OPPLA)

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE (continued)

Program Authority: (give federal and/or state citations and a summary of the language authorizing the rule-making) 42 U.S.C. 675(5)(C)(i), Section 475(5)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 622(b)(8)(A)(iii)(II)), Section 422(b)(8)(A)(iii)(II), Section 475(5)(C); 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq., Section 475A(a), Part E of Title IV; Public Law 113-183: Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act; Section 112 Improving Another Planned Living Arrangement as a Permanency Option

Does the rule incorporate material by reference? Yes X No Does this rule repeat language found in statute? If yes, please explain. Yes X No The program has sent this proposed rule-making package to which stakeholders? The Permanency Task group, Division of Child Welfare Permanency, Youth and Child Protection Units, Office of Child’s Representative, State Court Administrator’s Office

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?

Youth in the child welfare system who are sixteen years of age and over and are in need of a permanent home will benefit from this rule change. The Colorado Department of Human Services and county child welfare staff believe it is best practice to continue to find legal permanency until the youth exits the system, even if the youth has co- occurring issues such as mental health or disabilities.

County Department caseworkers are already required to provide concurrent planning for all cases, so helping a youth find permanency while preparing a youth for adulthood should not cause an additional burden for county staff.

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?

In Colorado, OPPLA is currently assigned to ninety (90) of 965 legally free children/youth. In 2012, the rule changed that no child/youth under the age of sixteen could be given the goal of OPPLA unless they were Unaccompanied Refugee Minors. The use of OPPLA should only be utilized as a last resort and after careful consideration by the team assigned to the case which, in most cases, will include the youth.

In the short-term, county departments bear the burden to continue to work towards permanency and to provide additional information and documentation to the courts for the judicial officers to make additional findings. The county departments will need to hold staffings on a six month basis until permanency is found or until the case is closed.

In the long-term, helping youth find permanency is in their best interest and can make a difference as they transition into adulthood. Youth can suffer serious consequences if they do not find permanency, such as homelessness, lack of educational success, unemployment, etc.

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 should not be costs for the state associated with this rule. There are potentially long term savings to many systems as youth who achieve permanency are more likely to become self- sufficient adults.

REGULATORY ANALYSIS (continued)

County Fiscal Impact

There may be a fiscal impact to counties to do more recruitment for placements, additional staffings and time to provide more details to the court; however, the fiscal impact of keeping a youth in the system can be higher than finding permanency for the youth.

Federal Fiscal Impact

None identified

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

There may be a fiscal impact to Guardians ad Litem (GALs) if there is additional time spent by being more engaged in the case. In addition, judicial officers may also see an impact because of the additional findings required; however, this is part of federal legislation and the courts will need to determine if any additional resources are needed for their work.

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, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act require states to add additional components to utilizing OPPLA as a permanency goal

Monthly Office of Children, Youth and Families, Division of Child Welfare C-Stat Data

IV-E Waiver Data

Survey results from County practices in August 2014

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.

To align with Federal Public Law 113-183, the Department is proposing updates to the current rule.

The Division of Child Welfare strives to provide guidance and additional support to counties, as well as focus on the safety, permanency and well-being of all children and youth involved in child welfare, but especially those older youth who are legally freed and deserve attention to finding legal permanency. It is important to put into rule the narrowing of the use of assigning Other Permanent Planned Living Arrangement (OPPLA) permanency goal to legally freed youth.

Rule-making#: 15-2-12-1 Office/Division or Program: Rule Author: Gretchen Russo Phone: 303-866-3197 Office of Children, Youth, and Families/Division of Child Welfare

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

7.301.24 Requirements for Use of Revises and updates _X_ Yes _ No Other Permanent Planned language to narrow the Living Arrangements scope of OPPLA

Rule-making#: 15-2-12-1 Office/Division or Program: Rule Author: Gretchen Russo Phone: 303-866-3197 Office of Children, Youth, and Families/Division of Child Welfare

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 Permanency Task group, Division of Child Welfare Permanency, Youth and Child Protection Units, Office of Child’s Representative, State Court Administrator’s Office

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:

The Permanency Task group, Division of Child Welfare Permanency, Youth and Child Protection Units, Office of Child’s Representative, State Court Administrator’s Office

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?

X Yes No

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

x Yes No

Date presented _ March 5 and April 3, 2015 _. Were there any issues raised? __X__ Yes ____ No

If not, why.

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.

El Paso County is concerned with a specific section of this rule regarding unaccompanied refugee minors and believes that statement should stay in the rule.

6 (12 CCR 2509-4 )

7.301.24 Family Service Plan Out-of-Home Placement Documentation [Rev. eff. 12/1/12]

For child(ren) in out-of-home placement, the Family Service Plan documents:

Q. Requirements for use of Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (OPPLA) goals as follows:

1. The county department shall consider another planned permanent living arrangement as a permanency goal:

a. For children/youth WHO ARE SIXTEEN (16) YEARS OF AGE OR OVER AND ARE DEMONSTRATING EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENT THE YOUTH FROM in exceptional circumstances and who have co-occurring complex conditions that make them incapable of living in a family-like environment and therefore preclude their returning home, adoption, legal guardianship or permanent custody.

b. For children and youth who are in the unaccompanied refugee minor program regardless of their age.

2. Use of this THE goal shall be REVIEWED THROUGH THE USE OF A FAMILY ENGAGEMENT MEETING OR EQUIVALENT TEAM THAT REVIEWS PERMANENCY NEEDS. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND CONSIDERED BY THE REVIEW TEAM AND THE RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. by the county permanency review team. The following shall be submitted to the review team:

A. a. DOCUMENTATION PERTAINING TO THE COMPLETION OF A RIGOROUS EXAMINATION OF KIN AND PERMANENT CONNECTIONS. THIS PROCESS SHALL ALSO ADDRESS:

1) A comprehensive assessment of the child/ youth’s strengths and needs. If the assessment time period exceeds more than one year, a new comprehensive assessment must be conducted or a multi-disciplinary staffing (including participants with expertise in the child's needs) may substitute for the updated comprehensive assessment. In addition to updating the ASSESSMENT OF THE child/ youth’s strengths and needs, the updated assessment or staffing shall address the YOUTH’S capacity to live within a family setting.

2) THIS REVIEW TEAM SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE YOUTH’S DESIRED PERMANENCY OUTCOME.

B. b. A detailed description of efforts made to achieve permanency through the other goals and identification of the barriers to achieve them.

C. c. A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF HOW OPPLA IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE YOUTH.

3. If approved by the review team, a compelling reason why the other permanency goals are unattainable THE FOLLOWING is to be documented and made available to the court at EACH the next court review: Documentation which includes the permanency review team's reasons for approving other planned permanent living arrangement shall also be

7 entered in the special review section of the Family Service Plan. The use of this goal must be reviewed by the county permanency review team every 12 months. The county shall request that the court, every 12 months, review the case to determine if the child remains incapable of living in a family-like environment.

a. DOCUMENTATION OF THE BARRIERS TO PERMANENCY TO DATE AND COMPELLING REASONS WHY THE OTHER PERMANENCY GOALS ARE NOT ATTAINABLE.

b. DOCUMENTATION OF THE YOUTH’S DESIRED PERMANENCY OUTCOME INCLUDING GIVING THE YOUTH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND EACH HEARING TO VOICE HIS/HER DESIRED GOAL.

c. DOCUMENTATION OF INTENSIVE, ONGOING, AND AS OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING, UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO RETURN THE YOUTH HOME OR SECURE A PLACEMENT FOR THE YOUTH WITH A FIT AND WILLING RELATIVE (INCLUDING ADULT SIBLINGS), A LEGAL GUARDIAN, OR AN ADOPTIVE PARENT, INCLUDING THOROUGH EFFORTS THAT UTILIZE TECHNOLOGY (INCLUDING SOCIAL MEDIA) TO FIND BIOLOGICAL FAMILY MEMBERS FOR THE YOUTH.

d. DOCUMENTATION OF THE STEPS TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT YOUTH ARE BEING SUPPORTED IN ENGAGING IN AGE OR DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL EVENTS INCLUDING:

1) THE YOUTH’S FOSTER FAMILY HOME OR OTHER PLACEMENT IS FOLLOWING THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT STANDARD; AND

2) THE YOUTH HAS REGULAR, ONGOING OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE IN AGE OR DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING CONSULTING WITH THE YOUTH IN AN AGE-APPROPRIATE MANNER ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITIES OF THE YOUTH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTIVITIES).

e. DOCUMENTATION WHICH INCLUDES THE REVIEW TEAM'S REASONS FOR APPROVING OTHER PLANNED PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT (OPPLA) SHALL ALSO BE ENTERED IN THE 5A OF THE FAMILY SERVICE PLAN.

4. THE USE OF THIS GOAL SHALL BE REVIEWED BY A FAMILY ENGAGMENT OR EQUIVALENT REVIEW TEAM AT A MINIMUM OF EVERY SIX (6) MONTHS. THE COUNTY SHALL REQUEST THAT THE COURTREVIEW THE CASE EVERY TWELVE (12) MONTHS TO DETERMINE IF THE YOUTH IS DEMONSTRATING EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENT THE YOUTH FROM RETURNING HOME, ADOPTION, LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP OR PERMANENT CUSTODY.

5. If this goal is not achieved through relative care, a family-like network of significant people shall be developed to provide the child/youth with a sense of belonging and with support expected to endure over a lifetime.

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