Chairman Carey:

The Amelia Department of Social Services (ADSS) submits the following comments regarding the draft regulation to implement the Parental Child Safety Placement Program, 22VAC40-705, sections 60 & 200: 

Section D.(1)(a)

Child welfare staff are not trained to assess which criminal convictions are “barrier crimes”.  LDSS staff are also not trained to assess criminal convictions outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia that could potentially be “barrier crimes” as per the Code of Virginia.  LDSS should be required to document any prior criminal history of a proposed caregiver and document a full assessment with the proposed caregiver about the circumstances of any criminal history as part of the overall caregiver assessment. 

Section D.(2)

A regulatory requirement directing LDSS to conduct drug screenings for proposed caregivers could lead to a disproportionate number of relatives or fictive kin being eliminated as placement options for children.  Instead, proposed caregivers should be screened for potential substance use disorders through the Permanency Assessment Tool rather than the proposed “reason to believe” criteria that may be challenging for staff to assess. It is recommended that D.(2.) be stricken and the following language be added to Section D.(1.)(a.)(iii):  

“If the local department’s assessment of the proposed caregiver indicated that a substance use disorder requires further assessment, the local department will provide necessary referrals for treatment to include a substance use assessment and/or screening for substance use. This action will be documented in the child welfare case management system”. 

Section D.(3)

The language as follows is opposed: “including the assessment of safety risks posed by other children living in the home”.  While LDSS may assess the characteristics of other children living in the home, LDSS has no way to assess potential safety risks posed by “other children” as juvenile criminal records and medical, school, or other assessments would not necessarily be available to an LDSS. 

Section D.(5)

Replace the requirements of D.(5) with the following language:

“The identification of a criminal conviction or founded child protective services disposition requires further assessment, including a discussion with the individual about the circumstances surrounding the crime/founded disposition, time frame of the crime, current status (probation, parole, etc.), and the individual's explanation of the crime/conviction/founded disposition. This information must be documented in the case record. A supervisory approval review of the placement by the supervisor, Director, or Director's designee is required before the child may be placed into the home of the proposed caregiver with a criminal conviction or founded disposition. Documentation of the supervisory approval review must be entered in the case record. The Department will periodically review placements of children that require supervisory approval reviews.”  

Section F

ADSS agrees with the VLSSE proposal that the number of business days to conduct the facilitated meeting be increased from five business days to 14 calendar days. Given that logistical factors such as holidays, weekends, availability of facilitators for the meetings, and availability of relatives to attend due to other commitments, such as employment, may impact the ability of LDSS to conduct the meeting, this additional number of days gives the LDSS and the family additional time to plan attendance and participation in the facilitated meeting. The timeline of 14 days is also consistent with other LDSS program requirements for children entering foster care.

Section K.(2)

Section § 63.2-1533(g.) of the Code of Virginia states: “(iii) the local department should seek a child protective order or other court action”.  Section K.(2.) requires an LDSS to seek “removal”.  The language in Section K.(2.) should be aligned with the Code rather than specifying a removal petition as a child protective order is the least restrictive option. 

ADSS supports the premise of the PCSPA and agrees with the VLSSE comments and summary included in this letter. We agree further restrictions upon its use by LDSS working with families and children could lead to underutilization of the program by LDSS, families, and proposed relative caregivers. There could be an increase in the number of children entering foster care rather than being placed with relatives or fictive kin and could also be create situations of LDSS noncompliance with the requirements of the program which will lead to the decline of the safety, permanency, and well-being of children. This program was meant to codify the practice of diversion from foster care and provide relatives and fictive kin with financial support to care for children at risk. VLSSE advocated for guidance and legislation that would support LDSS’ ability to further engage with families by placing children with relatives and fictive kin rather than with stranger foster families and/or in congregate care facilities. The benefits of placement with relatives and fictive kin have, in numerous studies, been documented to provide better outcomes for children and their families and exemplifies a “Kin First” culture in the Commonwealth. The proposed draft regulation, as written, will further hamper LDSS efforts to place children with relatives and fictive kin. The Code of Virginia already sets out how the PCSPA program should be implemented, and the draft regulations put requirements in place that may ultimately undermine the original intent of the legislation.

Additionally, after discussion with ADSS Family Services, using Accurint for background checks basically searches public information that has been collected and placed in one location.  Our staff can find more accurate criminal history information related to convictions using a universal search on the court website.  Also, the education stability piece of this does not seem to be addressed and is extremely important. VDSS should work to create a cooperative agreement with the VDOE surrounding this issue.  Schools’ outside of the child’s home school (if they are staying with family in another locality) do not have to enroll these children. VDSS and VDOE should create a MOU that if a child was placed with a relative as part of an agreement (safety plan) with DSS, that school district must enroll the child.

Sincerely,

Audra D. Morris

Audra D. Morris, Director

Amelia County Department of Social Services