The Charlottesville Department of Social Services (CDSS) 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)

While CDSS is not opposed to conducting a criminal inquiry through the current platform provided by VDSS (Accurint), LDSS staff are not trained to assess criminal convictions outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia that could potentially be “barrier crimes” as per the Code of Virginia.  CDSS proposes that LDSS 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)

While CDSS supports referrals for services to address substance use disorders for proposed caregivers involved in the PCSPP, 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, CDSS recommends that proposed caregivers 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.  CDSS recommends D.(2.) be stricken and proposes the following language be added to Section D.(1.)(a.)(iii):  

“If the local department’s assessment of the proposed caregiver indicates 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”. 

The Code of Virginia does not address potential substance use by a proposed relative or fictive kin caregiver, and, while CDSS agrees that further evaluation by an LDSS for substance use may be a factor in determining the suitability of a relative or fictive kin placement, this action can be completed using the caregiver assessment referenced in Section D.(1.). 

Section D.(3)

CDSS opposes the language as follows: “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.  CDSS recommends this language be stricken.  CDSS recommends a written assessment of other children in the home be included in the overall proposed caregiver assessment.

Section D.(5)

CDSS opposes the requirements of D.(5) and recommends 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

CDSS proposes 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.-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. 

Summary

While CDSS supports the premise of the PCSPP and supports the implementation of the program, 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 further 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.  The idea behind the legislation was to help 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 has, 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 PCSPP program should be implemented, and the draft regulations put requirements in place that may ultimately undermine the original intent of the legislation.