|Action||Compliance with Virginia’s Settlement Agreement with US DOJ|
|Comment Period||Ends 7/22/2020|
Minimize vs. Prevent
Section 170-C- Reads that Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) submitted by providers must have a detailed description of the actions to be taken to minimize the possibility that the violation will occur again. Section 170-H-Reads that the provider would put into place additional measures to prevent the recurrence of the cited violation. The language is in conflict. The word prevent is very much different from the word minimize. This language again is in conflict with Section 620-D, 3 which reads that the CAP submitted to the Department will include additional measures to prevent the recurrence of the cited violation.
The language used in Section 170 and 620, specifically the word and thought that the provider can prevent violations from occurring again is unrealistic. The provider cannot be expected to prevent incidents from happening in all cases. Support services provided include human beings and life situations which are not in the control of the provider. Such risks in life situations and choices are to be protected even in the Department's DSP Orientation and Training.
As written, if the provider fails to prevent the incident/violation from happening again another CAP would be issued by the Department. This holds an unrealistic requirement/expectation and focuses on issuing a CAP vs. supporting the provider through difficult situations in order to provide supports to individuals receiving services.