Memo #1 

Date: March 9, 2001

To:  Cheri Walter, Assistant Director, ODJFS; Barbara Riley, Deputy Director, Office of Child and Family Services;        Evelyn Bissonnette, Office of Child and Family Services; Mary McCullough, Office of Child and Family Services; Angie Searls, Office of Legal Services, ODJFS.

From:  Crystal Ward Allen, Associate Director, PCSAO

Re:  PCSAO Statewide Rule Review Response to HB 332 and 448 Draft Rules

As you know, PCSAO has recently developed a process and statewide committee to provide more consistent input to ODJFS as rules pertaining to child welfare are drafted. We have met with Deputy Director Barbara Riley, and members of her staff, to develop a positive process, and partnership with ODJFS, as rules are developed.

The current HB 332 and 448 rules, to which we are currently responding, have not had the up front input we anticipate for future topics, and our feedback is significant for certain rules. We realize the new foster parent category definitions and training requirements present challenges to a system already in place, and it is our hope that our input can provide the county perspective as to why certain provisions proposed within the draft rules are unacceptable and extremely problematic. Furthermore, we are suggesting alternative ways to address the subject matters.

I hope this input is helpful, and I would offer PCSAO assistance in incorporating changes prior to sending the rules on to JCARR. I have attempted to summarize issues on many of the topics, and attached specific rule reviews for some of the draft rules. This feedback is based on reviews by representatives from all sizes and structure of Public Children Services Agencies. It is meant as statewide PCSAO membership feedback.

New Certification Requirements for PCSAs

5101:2-5-02 Applications for an agency to perform specific functions.

5101:2-5-03 Certification of an agency to perform specific functions.

PCSAO opposes adding Public Children Services Agencies into the certification rules listed above, based on the following rationale:

• At the request of ODHS, the Attorney General issued an opinion on this very issue in 1997 (it can be found on the web at http://www.ag.state.oh.us/opinions/1997/97-035.htm. According to the opinion, licensure is not required of PCSAs, and such licensure was not intent of the General Assembly, as written in the ORC. Indeed, the last line of the Attorney General opinion states (other than to run a children’s residential home)...”a public children services agency is not required to be certified pursuant to R.C. 5103.03.” ORC 5103.03 is listed as the source of the rule. Thus, PCSAO would challenge the authority of ODJFS to impose this rule.
• Additionally, PCSAs and PCSAO cannot envision the added value in ODJFS certification of PCSAs, to do functions we are already mandated by law to do, to follow rules we are already mandated by law to follow. There is concern that a certification requirement would add considerable paperwork and bureaucracy to both ODJFS and the 88 PCSAs, at a time when all involved already have overwhelming challenges as we strive to achieve our mission of keeping children safe and families stable.

5101:2-42-05 Selection of a Placement Setting

PCSAO suggests continuation of long-standing practice in the best interest of many children, to allow a custodial agency the ability to place children in non-relative, non-licensed homes, as long as they are not receiving reimbursement. As indicated in the rule review, it makes sense to apply the same type of approval process for these “kin” homes, as we currently do for relative homes.

A prime example of this as a best interest practice, would be the older teen who is unable to remain in her parents’ home due to joint family discord issues, but can live in the home of a friend, to allow continued attendance at the same school, church, etc. Placement of such a youth in a “stranger” licensed foster home, perhaps requiring a change in school, would be extremely disruptive for this youth. Many private citizens are willing to care for a specific “kin” child, or friend of the family, but are not interested or willing to complete the licensure process. A basic approval process for these “kin” homes, would make sense.

I can find no reference in ORC 5103.03 or 5153.16 (the sources of the rule) to support this policy change.

5101:2-47-18 Difficulty of Care Payments

After much discussion and local analysis regarding the impact of the IV-E Difficulty of Care payment changes, we would propose the rule allow the custodial agency more flexibility by assigning a range of levels of care and subsequent payment rate for the types of certified homes. The rule as drafted is too rigid and prescriptive.

I have attached a local Impact Analysis, done by Franklin County Children Services, indicating the potential loss of revenue based on this draft rule. The homes that have traditionally been deemed in the higher difficulty of care payments are frequently private provider homes, and according to this analysis, the loss of revenue to those caregivers would be a minimum of $1.3 Million, and a maximum of $10.6 Million for out-of-home care per diems. While PCSAs would like to reduce our purchased care costs, it is not our expectation that it is feasible for the private provide community to absorb such a loss, nor is it believed that the rates should be reduced to that extent.

We recommend the following ranges for difficulty of care payments within certain categories of foster homes:

Medically Fragile Homes would be eligible to receive the Intensive Difficulty of Care payment for Medically Fragile children, as well as all other levels of care and payments.

Treatment Foster Homes payments would be eligible for Intensive, Exception, Special or Regular rates, dependent on the needs of the child.

Regular Foster Homes would be eligible for Special and Regular rates, dependent on the needs of the child.

PCSAO also proposes always allowing foster homes to care for lesser need children, and be paid the appropriate difficulty of care rate for that child. Thus, a sibling of a medically fragile child, that requires only a regular level of care, could be placed in the same medically fragile home, at a regular payment rate; a child would also be able to stay in the same home, if his level of care was stepped down. This is consistent with the best interest of children, best practice, and will prevent unnecessary moves of children.

Finally, PCSAO suggests a transition time to adjust to the new difficulty of care payments - we would suggest a six month transition time, from the effective date of the final rule (or prospectively coordinate with the ODJFS approval of new Title IV-E approved rates).

New Agency Requirements for Licensing Certain Homes

5101:2-5-36 Agency Requirement for Licensing Medically Fragile Homes

5101:2-5-37 Agency Requirement for Licensing Treatment Foster Homes

PCSAO realizes the challenges in writing rules for these new categories of foster caregivers. Specific reviews of the draft rules are attached. We suggest the following remedies to positively address the issues inherent with the drafting of these rules:

Allow for custodial agency flexibility in placing children with in types of homes, as discussed above in the Difficulty of Care Payment rules.

PCSAO opposes the proposal to require all categories of caregivers to have a high school degree. While we support educational achievement for all of Ohio’s citizens, we do not see the direct correlation with whether an adult has a high school degree and whether they will be a quality foster caregiver. As a child welfare community, we are working hard to develop Family Centered Neighborhood Based Services - establishing any type of additional barriers to the recruitment of caregivers is not in the best interest of our children. We support the new HB 332 pre-placement and on-going training requirements, and I am unable to find any reference in the ORC as to a required educational status of an approved caregiver.

Reformat the Treatment Team for Medically Fragile and Treatment Caregivers to include:

• Team Leader (requires one year of experience working with children who meet the requirements for Intensive or Exceptional levels of Care)
• PCSA or PCPA caseworker
• Parent of child when reunification is planned
• Foster caregivers
• Child according to age and functioning level
• Independent Living Coordinator for youth aged 16 and older

The Treatment Team Leader would invite participation of the other appropriate and involved service entities - whether it be a physician or other health provider, mental health provider, educational professional, etc. Mandating participation of other community entities is not feasible, based on their availability; PCSAs cannot feasibly contract for the time of all other professionals, as would be required in the currently drafted rule.

The arbitrary limit of twelve treatment teams to a team leader (or FTE position) is unreasonable. PCSAO has always supported manageable caseload sizes, but this should not be in rule, as agencies cannot control the numbers of children placed into their custody; or the needs of those children. This is a good Standard for Effective Practice, but until immediate funding and staffing is guaranteed at the state level, this should not be in rule. The same reasoning applies to the arbitrary limit for a supervisor of Team Leaders, to seven Team Leaders. In concept, the additional Pre-Placement and Ongoing training requirements for Medically Fragile and Treatment Foster Home Caregivers should empower and better prepare caregivers to both care for the children in their home, and positively communicate and coordinate activities with the supervising agency. The additional hours of training for the Team Leaders would have the same effect.

PCSAO opposes the requirement to require licensed social workers to be the team leaders and supervisors of team leaders - this is not feasible, or necessary. The Ohio Child Welfare Training Program provides specific training for specialized competencies, and we should continue to develop professional staff and skills in that manner. The rule address increased training for certain professionals, and we support that concept.

Furthermore, the General Assembly specifically considered educational requirements for PCSA caseworkers, within HB 448 last year. Despite the PCSAO proposal to require a four year human service degree, for all new casework hires, the final law addressed the requirement differently - with the end result being that caseworkers would achieve at least that, within a five year period (ORC 5153.112). This proposal to require licensed social workers (only social work bachelor or master degreed individuals are eligible for licensure) to perform our mandated functions, seems in direct opposition to the General Assembly’s decision, which was passed by unanimous vote of both Houses.

Finally, the requirements for around the clock availability for Treatment Team Members is not feasible or necessary. PCSAs are already required to be on-call 24 hours, 7 days a week. All 88 PCSAs provide that service. Identifying special individuals that must be on call 24/7 is unacceptable. In a small county, the burden would be huge for a few individuals; larger counties often offer significant resources around the clock. Once again, the increased training requirements should assist in the ability of the caregivers to handle situations; when additional consultation is required, all 88 PCSAs are available and do respond to all situations, as needed.

Additionally, we will be submitting similar reviews for the following draft rules:

5101:2-5-38 Reimbursement for Foster Caregiver Stipends and Training Allowances

5101:2-5-40 Requirements for Foster Parent Training Programs

Form DJFS 01350

Some of the particular issues related these rules address the following:

The time lines for the stipends to be paid to foster caregivers are unreasonable. Just as ODJFS foresaw difficulty in directly making those payments within 30 days (thus proposing amended language in the Biennial Budget), the local training providers see extreme difficulty in attaching a 5 and 10 day requirement for invoicing such payments.

Providing a training allowance to the recommending/supervising agency, but not requiring the allowance to be paid to the training provider is unacceptable. We recognize HB 332 requires training to be open to all foster caregivers. The training funds must be passed on to the training provider!

The training entity should also be able to prioritize spaces for the caregivers being trained or supervised by that entity (public or private); or by the training provider that has established an association with a recommending agency to assure the training is available.

As currently drafted, a recommending/supervising agency could receive the training allowance for all families under their supervision, and not provide any training, or purchase any training! This is unacceptable.

As currently drafted, private providers receive a full rate of reimbursement for training, and PCSAs would only receive a portion of the training reimbursement. Many public agencies currently assume the cost of training as a part of the per diem for children in purchased care. There is significant concern this policy will encourage double dipping.

Despite the supervising / recommending agency being awarded the training allowance, it appears the training provider is required to keep records of what training was provided, and to whom. This should be a requirement at the state level, or by the recommending/supervising agency. A single foster caregiver could take training from a large number of providers all around the state, and the records would be of little use in the manner proposed.

There is confusion re: the stipulations around the use of video-tapes for training. This is an effective training mechanism, and PCSAO suggests allowing trainers to use video-taping as they see appropriate.

There is confusion over the CPR curriculum requirements.

The proposed deadline to submit a training proposal is April 15, 2001. Given today’s date, this will need to be adjusted; please change to 90 days after the effective date of the rule.

I know this is a lot of information. Our 88 Public Children Service Agencies feel passionately the rules must support best practice, and the best interests of Ohio’s children. We hope you will be amenable to revising the rules, based on these comments. Please let me know how we can assist. Of course, you can always reach me at or ph# (614)224-5802.

cc: ODJFS Interim Director JoAnn Davidson
JCARR Director Bill Hills
Representative Kerry Metzger
Representative Jack Ford
 

Memo #2 

Date:     March 16, 2001

To:         Cheri Walter, Assistant Director, ODJFS; Barbara Riley, Deputy Director, Office of Child and Family Services;    Evelyn Bissonnette, Office of Child and Family Services; Mary McCullough, Office of Child and Family Services; Angie Searls, Office of Legal Services, ODJFS.

From:    Crystal Ward Allen, Associate Director, PCSAO

Re:          Letter #2, PCSAO Statewide Rule Response to HB 332 and 448 Draft Rules

This is the second PCSAO letter, responding to the packet of HB 332 and 448 rules. This feedback is based on reviews by representatives from all sizes and structure of Public Children Services Agencies. It is meant as statewide PCSAO membership feedback.

It is PCSAO’s understanding the intent of the HB 448 language was to expedite the bureaucratic process for certified foster parents, to become approved to adopt specific children that have been in their home for at least 12 months, and then become free for adoption. As individuals across the state read this rule, it is became apparent, the rule is confusing.

We would suggest all of the items in (A)(2) should not have to be revisited, as long as the foster certification is valid. It is also unclear why (A)(4) requires the assessor to complete the Adoption paperwork, when the intent of the legislation is to reduce the bureaucratic paperwork. We would suggest clarity that these specific foster caregivers get to jump right to (E), and complete the application for adoption of a foster child.

We would suggest revision for several points:

• (A)(6) - Juveniles are not convicted, but adjudicated of offenses. Please establish the caregiver should provide this information not only after certification, but during the certification process.

• (A)(14) - Please clarify that the local policies developed under this section of the rule applies prospectively - for upcoming periods of new certification. We cannot apply HB 332 training requirements retroactively - that was not the law for foster parents until 1/1/01, and HB 332 requires the new ongoing training hours to be according to the newly developed Continuing training plans that are developed between the agency and the foster caregiver. We fully support the well written letter from Hamilton CDJFS, addressing this issue.

Furthermore, the foster parent training programs to be established under HB 332 are not up and running - we cannot have expected the availability of extra training, or the completion of the extra training hours. Foster parents should be re-certified under the existing policies by agencies - the new training hour laws should take effect prospectively.

• Respite Policies - while these policies are well meaning, they are not addressed within the law, and are better served as Standards for Effective Practice, rather than rules. (A)(16) is far too prescriptive, and an unfunded mandate. Please require the establishment of respite policies, leaving the details to the local agency.

• (A)(17) - Concern was expressed that this portion of the rule should be consistent with language in the recently adopted MEPA/IEPA rule. There is significant concern about using the word “culture” vs. “race, color, and national origin”.

• (A)(18) - Evaluation for Specialized Foster Care Program - there is concern this is duplicative, and too specific. Couldn’t this concept be a part of the current evaluations done by agencies re: their foster parent programs now?

This rule looks good. Please apply it for non-relative “kin” homes, also known as “fictive” relative homes.

Please clarify in this rule that homes can care for children needing a lower certification (i.e. a medically fragile caregiver could care for a child that is not medically fragile). This reinforces comments made earlier on the difficulty of care rules.

Please change the mandate of a high school education, to a goal of high school education or GED - while agencies want to promote this concept, we do not want educational status to become a barrier. Also, please delete the mandates for the Treatment Team involvement and contact (or coordinate with earlier comments to reformat the Treatment Team). Please clarify that contacts for Medically Fragile homes and agencies are to be twice monthly.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Our 88 Public Children Service Agencies feel passionately the rules must support best practice, and the best interests of Ohio’s children. We hope you will be amenable to revising the rules, based on these comments. Please let me know how we can assist. Of course, you can always reach me at or ph. 614/224-5802.

cc.  ODJFS Interim Director Jo Ann Davidson
JCARR Director Bill Hills
Representative Kerry Metzger
Representative Jack Ford