Section 8.1.9 states "The APS investigation and registration shall remain open..." until APS either receives a RTR request or the 30 days pass w/ no request. If a request is made then "APS investigation and registration shall remain open..." until the director/designee makes a final decision. 

In the last paragraph of Section 8.1.11 it states that if no RTR is requested then "Document in the APS investigation notes, RECLOSE the investigation..."

These two sections are contradictory. Section 8.1.9 states the APS investigation AND registration SHALL remain open which means, in peerplace, that we cannot enter a certification/disposition as this will then close the investigation (not the registration). However, in Section 8.1.11. it states to "reclose" the investigation which suggests that the investigation had been closed, meaning the certification/disposition had been entered, while APS waited to see if a RTR would be requested. In this case, one was not requested so policy is stating to enter this into APS investigation notes (which can only be done in an OPEN investigation) and then reclose the investigation.

So, either we are supposed to enter the certification/disposition into Peerplace to close the investigation, reopen (by an admin) when necessary, and reclose when appropriate OR we follow section 8.1.9 and do not close the investigation which means we do NOT enter a certification/disposition.

If guidance is to be followed in 8.1.9 and the investigation SHALL remain open, then we need an option in peerplace to explain why a certification/disposition was not entered on the due date. 

Unless, however, the state wants us to enter the certification/disposition into peerplace thus closing the investigation and creating a time stamp, and then have the admin reopen the Inv and wait the 30 days to determine if a perpetrator is going to request a RTR or not, enter applicable notes, and then reclose? This then satisfies the needs of having a timely certification/disposition entered while also satisfying the requirement in 8.1.9 of keeping an investigation open.

After skimming over the contents proposed for the update, it appears there is contradictory information regarding whether an investigation remains open for 30 days while waiting to see if an Right To Review (RTR) if received or if the investigation should be closed and then reopened if a RTR if received.  In one section the guidance states the investigation Shall remain open and in another section, it states that once the RTR is received and/or the hearing is held, the case record should be updated to reflect and the investigation be "re-closed".  There needs to be clarification on whether the investigation actually remains open for an additional 30 days or it is closed and reopened if a RTR is received.  Also, there needs to be some way of tracking those investigations left open for the additional 30 days if that is the decided upon way to handle.  Otherwise, they are going to register as overdue. 

Right to Review process does not provide enough protections for the client/victim in situations of domestic violence/family abuse cases. If there is a substantiated case for mental abuse/physical abuse related to family violence and police are involved, it can only delay the Notification letter to the Alleged Perpetrator. If the client/victim refuses APS services then APS involves stops. In many instances, clients/victims do not want to press charges against the alleged perpetrator at which point police would end their investigation. APS would need to send their Notification letter to the Alleged Perpetrator for Right to Review process which may cause more distress and conflict within the family system which potentially puts the client/victim at greater risk. Considerations should be made regarding this abuse type.

8.1.3- Circumstances requiring notification to alleged perpetrator when the disposition is needs protective services and accepts, needs protective services and refuses, or needs protective services no longer exists and the department notified a licensing, regulatory or legal authority of the disposition. 

• This policy requiring notification to the alleged perpetrator be notified (no matter what if the alleged perpetrator is identified and referral was sent to a legal authority or licensing or regulatory authority) potentially puts the adult victim at further risk of abuse or neglect. Simply put is is also unfair to the client.
• This policy takes away the adult's autonomy 
  • If the adult does not want APS involvement, but the APS worker has evidence that the adult was abused, neglected, and/or exploited and the matter was referred to a legal, licensing, or regulatory authority, then the alleged perpetrator has to be notified and given the opportunity for review.
  • Likewise, if the adult does not want the alleged perpetrator to know about APS involvement, however, a legal, licensing, or regulatory authority was notified per policy, and the alleged perpetrator is found to be the perpetrator, then the APS worker is required to notify the perpetrator of the findings and give them the opportunity for review. 
• This policy section is contradictory to policy 2.14.5- Notification to law enforcement and medical examiner "The APS worker is required to notify law enforcement immediately of the following circumstances: When the APS report indicates that sexual abuse, serious bodily injury that is a result of abuse, neglect, criminal activity involving abuse or neglect that places the adult in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, suspected financial exploitation has occurred or there is a suspicious death that may have been the result of abuse or neglect. AND
• Policy 8.1.7 Consultation with law enforcement prior to notification of alleged perpetrator (When the LDSS has referred information to law enforcement at any point during the investigation, the LDSS shall consult with law enforcement prior to providing the notification to the alleged perpetrator 
  • Basically a referral to law enforcement is required to be made in every financial exploitation case. Even if law enforcement don't investigate the matter, the notification was made and if it is determined that the need for protective services exists or did exist and the alleged perpetrator is identified as the perpetrator, then a right to review is required and so is consultation. This is contradictory and could cause harm/risk of harm to the adult victim.

8.1.6 Required contents in the right to review notification: A summary of the evidence and information used by the local department to support the findings for the investigation; inform the alleged perpetrator about his right to review; and if applicable, identify all licensing, regulatory, or legal authorities and the date the authorities were notified. 

• This contradicts the policy 2.36.1 regarding who has legitimate interest in the disposition of the report and 2.36.4  (Agencies or persons who receive confidential information pursuant to 2.36.1 and 2.36.2 shall provide the following assurances to the LDSS 1. The purpose for which information is requested is related to the adult protective services goal in the services plan for adult...) 
  • The alleged perpetrator is likely not using the information provided to him/her for service provision, however, are using it to defend themselves and likely discredit the adult victim. 

8.1.15 When information is requested by the alleged perpetrator:

Identifying information of adult: name, DOB, etc, is prohibited from being released

• How do you conduct a hearing when you can't release the name of the victim that the alleged perpetrator is being identified as having abused, neglected, or exploited? This is unfair to the alleged perpetrator which is contradictory to the whole purpose of the right to review policy for "due process"
• Police reports, medical records, etc are often used as evidence in the APS disposition, but this cannot be released and therefore, the alleged perpetrator and Director simply has to take the word of the APS worker that the evidence exists, which again goes against the purpose of this policy related to due process- fairness. 

In summary, it is my opinion that this policy has the potential to put the adult victim at further risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. There should be a revision of this policy to include the option to not send a right to review to the perpetrator if the adult requests that the review is not be sent and/or that the APS worker/supervisor/director or designee finds that sending a review would put the adult at risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. 

The Right to Review process could be potentially dangerous to the APS clients especially in situations where the client lives with the alleged perpetrator and/or the alleged perpetrator is their primary caregiver.  In many situations the client chooses to not press charges, chooses to remain living with the alleged perpetrator and/or chooses to continue having the alleged perpetrator as their primary caregiver.  Also other family members and/or household members could become upset with the client for naming the alleged perpetrator.  This could cause retaliation to the client or cause the client to refuse other assistance from the APS worker or other community services. 

What does this policy do to protect the elderly and disabled in  the Commonwealth? It appears to affect their ability to pursue the most important philosophy of Adult Protective Services; the right to self determination. This policy places the individual at further risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. Who are we trying to protect; the individual who is in need of services or the perpetrator?