Currently initial face to face visits are mandated to be made within five calendar days of report validation. For years, Child Welfare Services within the Department of Social Services have had five business days to make their initial face to face visit. Five calendar days is very limiting to workers when reports are made on any day other than Monday, and is particularly restrictive on any holiday weekend. For example, if a report is validated on Thursday but the agency is closed Friday and Monday the worker is confined to making their face to face visit on Thursday, the day of the report, or Tuesday of the following week. In this case, the worker essentially only has two days, not five, to meet their initial visit requirement. I would ask that site language would reflect change from five calendar days to five business days. Thank you for your consideration.

I support adding language to allow for business days opposed to calendar days for all APS mandated time frames. 

I am aware that APS investigations are required to be completed within 45 days.  I would like to highlight that as a private citizen, this time frame is not sufficient to conduct a thorough investigation especially cases involving financial exploitation.  The amount of time it takes for an identified individual/organization to prepare and disseminate requested information, it can take at least 30 days.  This does not include the amount of time it takes to analyze the information and put it into writing. Therefore, I propose the investigation time frame be extended to 60 days.  

As a government agency, APS services are involuntary until they are no longer determined to be involuntary.  This determination is made based on an adult's decision making capacity.  Therefore, the need to give all parties involved in the investigation the right to accurate and complete information is critical to being trustworthy and transparent.  If APS moves a case from the investigation stage to ongoing without having obtained any/all information, they lose the ability to obtain information without the victim's consent.  This could be damaging to not only the victim, also those who hold professional licenses.  I am also concerned about this will impact the right to review process.   

I would like to see the policy change for 5 days to 5 business days in which we make contact with the individuals that we serve.  It is a challenge to meet that requirement  with Holidays and the weekends at times because it lessens our time to a day or two. I feel if CPS can be 5 business days so can APS. Thanks for considering the change.

I would like to see the face to face time frame changed from 5 Calendar Days to 5 Business Days.  As long as I have been apart of DSS, the policy for CPS has been 5 Business Days.  This difference for APS can get very tricky when it comes to weekends and holidays, i.e, Thanksgiving- when offices close half-day that Wednesday and we do not open back up until that following Monday, APS is out of compliance with policy and not a ton of flexibility.  We have to treat the cases that come in that Wednesday morning as urgent due to the calendar constraints, and that is providing that there isn't already something that morning that takes precedent.  Changing policy to 5 Business Days to conduct and initial face to face would be very helpful to us.  Thanks so much for your consideration in making this change.

As a Family Services worker with Adult Protective Services, one of the largest challenges that we face are hitting timely deadlines with the increasing population of elderly and disabled adults. There are not increases in positions for Adult Protective Services Investigators to match the demand. Our cases are increasing in complexity and at times the ability to conduct a face to face visit is impacted by the challenging language in state statutes. If you would consider changing the verbiage in policy to reflect a initial face to face visit being conducted in 5 business days versus the current 5 calendar days, it would decrease the difficulty in meeting this time frame. As more and more reports come in and at times they are late in the day prior to a holiday, it is difficult to stay on task with meeting the calendar day time frame and impacts our ability to meet client needs of already established cases due to having to stress getting out on a case in such strict day limits. Your consideration of this change is appreciated very much. Thank you.

I support the action to change the investigation face-to-face time frame, from 5 calendar days to 5 business days, as it pertains to the mandates for APS investigations.

I would like to propose that the APS investigations be completed within 60 days, as often times the investigations go well beyond the 45 days, which results in the APS investigators being out of compliance with policy. Sometimes the challenge involves tracking down all parties that need to be investigated and them available to complete the interview process and the worker gathering necessary documents. When this does not come together, this leaves the APS investigators making a disposition based on minimum evidence that typically end up being unfounded based on lack of evidence and time to gather all pertinent data/complete all interviews.

I am in support of changing the mandate from 5 calendar days to 5 business days. This would allow for workers to have sufficient time to respond to complaints. With the increase in cases, it is becoming challenging to consistently meet this mandate - especially when a case is assigned near a holiday. Often, this results in workers having to treat these 5 day cases as 24 hr cases and have to respond immediately due to holidays.

I support and encourage change to initial face to face visits from 5 calendar days to 5 business days.

I would like to lend support to the proposal to extend the length of time to achieve face-to-face contact with the alleged victim.  In my experience, it has frequently become an issue to satisfy the requirement for reports received late in the work week, or especially prior to long holiday weekends.  This could be true in a small agency setting, like Greene, where few workers cover multiple programs at a time, or in larger localities where the volume of reports may inhibit the ability to respond quickly at all times.  

I would also like to see the investigation time frame extended, especially for financial exploitation investigations, to up to 90 days.  In my experience, it can take time to learn the different process each financial institution requires to access information, and when cooperative the institution will provide worker with a multitude of documents to sort through.  Also, when requesting records from a POA an investigator will have to require 30 days to comply, and may have to interact with legal counsel to achieve results.  Extending the investigation period for financial exploitation investigations would enable the worker to more systematically approach the case and to provide ample time frames for compliance from those providing information. 

I support changing the initial face to face visits from 5 calendar days to 5 business days.

I support changing policy from initial face to face visits being made by 5 calendar days to 5 business days. 

dLCV appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment for proposed revision of the APS regulations. First, we want to acknowledge that many of the changes have strong potential to have a positive impact on the lives of adults with disabilities.

In 22VAC-30-100-10, dLCV supports the inclusion of adding 'qualifying non-residents who are temporarily in the Commonwealth' as an eligible group. In the same section, dLCV supports the changes in language in this definition of 'Guardian'. First, we support the removal of the phrase "duty of taken care of the person" given the fact that this misstates the actual responsibilities of the guardian. Second, the new definition of the duties and responsibilities of the guardian are much more in line with statutory language.

In 22VAC-30-100-10, dLCV also supports the subtle change in language in the definition of "incapacitated person." We all occasionally make decisions that others may find to be 'unreasonable', but this does not make us 'incapacitated.' People who are older or who have a disability should have the right to make their own decisions even if deemed 'unreasonable' by others without having their capacity called into question. By using the term 'responsible," this definition more clearly defines the parameters by which capacity can be measured. A reasonable decision implies some degree of thought and analysis while still recognizing that the ultimate decision may be one deemed unreasonable by others. Both terms are quite subjective, but the determination of capacity is always a subjective process.

In 22VAC-30-100-10  "unreasonable confinement" definition, dLCV supports the removal of the phrase 'without medical orders' from this definition. A restraint used in the absence of an emergency or threat to an individuals safety or well-being is always unreasonable. We also support the clear inclusion of chemical as well as physical restraints.

dLCV's primary concern lies in 22-VAC-30-100-45- Right to review. The inclusion of right to review for alleged perpetrators is welcomed, especially if Virginia ever implements an abuse and neglect registry for adults. However, we believe it doesn't go far enough if there is going to be any meaningful sanction, including loss of or exclusion from future employment. Having only the review of the director of the local office, which made the disposition, is not true due process. As the law and policy stands now, there is no sanction for finding of abuse or neglect unless it meets the criminal standard and is prosecuted. With no meaningful sanction, this minimal right to review is probably sufficient, but if we look to a future where abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults does carry the risk of real consequences, we must allow for real due process.

dLCV appreciates the opportunity to comment on these important revisions to the APS regulations. While the intentional focus on the clarity of definitions should provide a greater protection for those in need of them, the 'Right to review' language should be acknowledged as a work in progress which needs to eventually evolve into a true due process.

Regards,

Colleen Miller

Executive Director