About OPDV

Meeting Notes

Participants: See “Workgroup Participants”

Introductions and Background:

The Workgroup convened in the OPDV Conference Room, 80 Wolf Road, 4th Floor in Albany, New York at 2:20 PM. Facilitator Kirk Mauer welcomed webcast, in-person, and conference call attendants to this third DV Regulatory Workgroup and briefly reminded participants of the workgroups goals to create alignment with legislative intent and to improve case practice. Amy Barasch welcomed all participants and explained that all Sub-Committees would be reporting out about their progress to date and next steps. Gwen Wright provided background about the workgroup efforts to date, the composition of the six sub-committees, the role of the state resource staff and the charge for each group. Lisa Gordon provided a brief overview of the OCFS DV internet site related to the DV workgroup and sub-committees. The website can be accessed at http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/dv/sub_committee.asp

Sub-committee reports:

Sub-Committee #1 – SCR, documentation and record keeping

Cynthia Dansby reported that the sub-committee had met several times, reviewed the charge, selected the chair and agreed on logistics. They carefully examined all applicable regulations to identify gaps and will e-mail a summary of their work to all members of the subcommittee on 2/6/09 for review and comments by 2/16/09 and a follow up meeting in March to prepare a final report.

Sub-Committee #2 – Eligibility Criteria

Sylvia Dutchevici reported that the sub-committee conducted a thorough review of the current regulations and recommends that when face-to-face interviews are not feasible or safe, phone interviews should be an option. The sub-committee also discussed issues involving discharges and denials when a resident does not want to leave (“squatter rules”). Other issues include; diseases – specifically “bedbugs” and whether that should be addressed in regs, and trafficking as it relates to eligibility. The Sub-committee recommends that the final regulatory product not be limiting.

Sub-Committee #3 – Staff qualifications, ratios, per diem, and training

The sub-committee first met on 11/25/08 to discuss ground rules. The group was well informed by the state resource staff, particularly regarding per diem rates and how they were established. The group found some overlap with “services” and also foresees “length of stay” as a significant issue. They are working with Patti Jo Newell on a survey to be sent to DV programs to gather information on actual practice vs. regulatory requirements (ie. Staff qualifications, counseling, etc.)

Sub-Committee #4 – Confidentiality

This sub-committee met four times. They identified overlap with staff qualifications, ratios, per diem and training. In response to some local districts (ie. ACS) requesting that shelters share more information, the group recommended that DV advocates and ACS/LDSS need to meet to identify methods of sharing information without compromising confidentiality/safety. One option discussed was informed consent/releases. The group identified the face to face interview requirement as an overlap with other sub-committee and also agreed that phone contacts should be allowed in lieu of face-to-face screenings. According to this sub-committee, the access to information regulations are not compatible with the Violence Against Women Act requirements. The group reported that 18 NYCRR 462.9, which advocates for the perpetrator to have access to information, is outdated and should be eliminated. The group recommended that regulations should contain specific consequences for breaches of confidentiality, including breaches by state staff. L. Gordon reminded group that the program regulations are applicable to dv programs. Joe Nitsche, OCFS Legal, explained that there may be other places to address agency codes of conduct. The group identified the need to recognize various collective bargaining agreements in terms of rules around confidentiality.

Sub-Committee 5 – Services and Contracts

Rachel Halperin, stated that the sub-committee met several times to define the areas of work, developed a work plan and subdivided into smaller groups in order to examine three major areas: Residential Emergency Services, Non-Residential Emergency Services and Contracts. Each smaller group met several times. The group encountered some opportunities for change, including: the extent to which the regulations should include information/referral/services to batterers; relooking at self sufficiency in terms of self determination; assessing the various definitions of family violence (IPV, courts, etc); screening procedures for volunteers, and interventions for cross county payment disputes - especially when a victim has to leave her county of residence as a result of fleeing the perpetrator. Lisa Gordon and Wendy Buell clarified that there is a system in place (District of Financial Responsibility – DFR) that deals with cross county payment issues whereby the county where the victim resided at the time of the incident is responsible for the cost of care. Related bulletins include OTDA 06-INF 34 and OTDA 02 INF 27 & OCFS 02 INF 06. There is also a helpline that was created to address conflicts involving jurisdictional issues (518-474-9344). The related informational bulletins will be shared on the OCFS website and with state staff of the subcommittees. This sub-committee is recommending that the length of stay be increased from 90 to 120 days and that the local county has the discretion to engage in a contract for more than 12 months. This sub-committee is in the process of putting all their work together to finalize at their next meeting.

Sub-Committee # 6 – Non-Residential Programs

Kathy Magee reported that the subcommittee has 12 members with 2 state resource staff and met 4 times. From the beginning, they noticed the variation among programs in terms of the extent, type and quality of services, number of staff, etc. The group noted that the current definition of a Non-Residential Program is very vague and additional clarity is needed. There was some discussion about pursuing a “licensing process” for non residential programs. Joe Nitsche does not think there is legal authority in the DV Prevention Act to license non-residential programs. Participants may need to review the county plan approval requirements. This sub-committee is planning a survey to better understand practice in non-residential programs. The survey will address staff qualifications, the scope of services offered, direct vs referral services, professional vs paraprofessional counseling, etc. The plan is to have survey results submitted in March and then smaller committees will use these in addressing each aspect of the regulations. The next meeting is planned for April 1. This group identified overlap issues related to confidentiality and services.

Amy Barasch suggested that since two groups have identified the need for a survey, perhaps they could work together on one comprehensive survey. Patti Jo Newell was identified as the point person for both sub-committees to create one instrument. The sub-committees were advised that the survey would need to be implemented asap in order for the workgroup activities to be completed in timely manner. It was decided that on March 9th , Sub-Committees #3 and #6 would meet to develop a working strategy on the survey.

Considering the extent of work needed to address non-residential issues, it was decided that the workgroup would tackle residential regulations first and set separate time frames for the non-residential regulation recommendations.

Workgroup Group discussion on Subcommittee reports

Amy led the group in framing the discussion, determining any changes sub-committees intend to make as a result of the report outs, and identifying overlapping issues. Amy suggested some critical issues and/or “elephants in the room”, that may also need to be addressed, including:

Trafficking
One-stop delivery centers
Male victims
Funding issues - should DV programs get LDSS approval prior to accepting cross county clients to ensure payment; should there be a payment floor rather than just the per diem which is driven by occupancy rates
Format and flow of regulations
The potential for statutory reform

Parked issues:

Visitation
Co-location

Overlap issues:

Services and Per diems
Surveys – subcommittees 3 and 6
Length of stay
Confidentiality and services in residential and non residential regulations
documentation, and eligibility (face to face interviews, informed consent)

Next steps

End of April - complete all sub-committee work.
A template (see attached) was provided for each subcommittee to submit a summary of their recommendations broken down by; a) regulations that need to remain, b) regulations that need further clarification, and c) regulations that need to change.

End of May – subcommittee charts collated and distributed to state support staff to be shared with subcommittees.
May and June – subcommittees review and revise document and address overlapping issues
End of June – committee chairs and state staff meet to agree to strategy for completing recommendations; create new subcommittees and schedule meetings through summer as needed.
End of August – final document shared with subcommittees
September – 1-2 day retreat to complete final proposed changes

Attachments

Agenda
Workgroup participants
Information Bulletins
Workplan template