Department Response to SB 1515 Rulemaking Comments

The Department released proposed rule changes to implement SB 1515 to stakeholders and requested

feedback. The Department did not receive comments at the public rulemaking hearing held on October 17,

2017. The Department did receive the written comments documented below. The Department has provided a

response to each comment received. After taking comments into consideration, the Department permanently

adopted rules to implement SB 1515 on December 1, 2016. The final rules are available at

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/policy/childwelfare/policy_releases.htm.

Oregon Alliance of Children's Programs:

Comment Department Response

Identify list of “common sense” events which do not need to have an incident

report filed; also for reported events which do not need an investigation.

The Department prepared and distributed materials to clarify for

child-caring agencies the types of reports that need to be made,

when the reports need to be made and how to make the reports.

This includes reports of child abuse, critical events, and incidents.

The Department has distributed the quick reference guide on this

topic and will be communicating that information to providers in

upcoming communications and trainings.

Increase the timeframe for evaluating incident reports to determine if an

investigation needs to be opened to 5 days (previous period allowed).

Under prior law (ORS 419B.005) and SB 1515, the Department

must always assess reports of abuse immediately. This is

considered the "screening" process and should be completed

within 24 hours unless critical information is unavailable. CPS

routinely screens reports in or out within this 24 hour period.

OAAPI is expected to do the same under the law. That said, there

are two relevant changes to the OAAPI rules:

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/policy/childwelfare/policy_releases.htm

OAAPI's screening rule, OAR 407-045-0825, includes a provision that allows for an extension (CPS rule also

allows for an extension): "The OAAPI Director or

designee may grant an extension of an additional 24 hours

to the 24 hour screening deadline if critical information,

such as the child's location, is still needed to determine the

Department response. The screener shall document in the

Department's electronic information system the reason for

the extension, including the critical information that

remains to be collected, and the Director or designee’s

approval. Such an extension does not relieve the

Department of the responsibility to make notifications as

described in 407‐045‐0895." Additionally, when the screener determines that the report

meets the definition of abuse and should be assigned for

investigation, the rule requires the screener to assign a 24-

hour or 5-day investigation response time, although the 5-

day response can only be used when child safety will not

be compromised and an intentional delay is less likely to

compromise child safety.

Establish a “triage” system for not requiring reports on certain events, as well as

screening out incident reports to focus on more significant incidents.

The Department has distributed a quick reference guide clarifying

reporting requirements and will be communicating that

information to providers in upcoming communications and

trainings. As to screening, to be assigned for investigation, a

report must include information that meets the statutory

definitions of abuse. Information that does not meet that

definition will be reviewed for licensing or contract violations,

but a child abuse investigation will not be opened.

Written notifications must be sent by electronic mail to the executive director as

soon as possible when a decision to open an investigation is made.

The executive director of the CCA is notified by email when

there is a concern reported, including a report of child abuse.

The notification of the opening of an investigation must include an explanation of

the information that will be available to the provider during the investigation

process, including contact for information for the investigator assigned, notices of

any requests for extensions of an investigation period, and identification of the

incident report that is being opened into an investigation.

The information shared with the executive director may vary

depending on whether the concern is a report of child abuse or

not and may include a brief description of the concern, who else

was notified of the concern, whether additional follow up by DHS

will occur and, if so, who is assigned to follow up.

Investigation extensions – Establish rules that specify specific reasons under which

an extension may be granted. Establish time limits for the extension (no more than

10 days), and limit the number of times an extension may be granted (no more than

2). The provider must be notified immediately by email if an extension has been

granted, and for what period of time.

OAR 407-045-0890(2) requires an OAAPI abuse investigation

report to be completed within 30 business days from the date the

case was assigned for investigation, except that the OAAPI

Director or designee may authorize an extension. The rule

requires the OAAPI investigator to ensure the contact person for

the child-caring agency is notified of the extension and the new

due date for the report's completion.

While the CPS worker has 30 days to complete their

investigation, OAR 413-015-0480 allows the CPS supervisor to

approve a one-time extension of an additional 30 days for

completion of the CPS assessment if critical information

(information necessary to determine child safety or a child abuse

or neglect disposition) is outstanding. Additional extension of

time may be approved by the Child Welfare program manager if

the ability to obtain critical information is beyond the reasonable

control of the CPS worker.

Providers are to be notified by email when an investigation is closed. At the conclusion of a child abuse investigation, any individual or

entity who was notified of the child abuse report. When licensing

is following up on a concern that requires contact with the CCA,

the assigned licensing coordinator will communicate outcomes

with the CCA and likewise when Well Being is following up on a

concern that requires contact with the CCA, the assigned

compliance specialist with communicate the outcome of the

follow up.

Entities who received notices of the opening of an investigation must also receive

notices when the investigation is closed.

The Department agrees with this recommendation, and is

currently working on implementation.

Executive Director to be given a list of all entities receiving a notification of an

investigation.

When the executive director is notified by email that a concern is

reported, who else was notified of the concern is included in the

notification.

Determine quickly when med error was pharmacy mistake, and don’t open an

investigation on staff.

OAAPI has a robust screening process which includes contacting

collaterals, such as pharmacies, in order to determine if a report is

an allegation of abuse. This screening process should allow

OAAPI to quickly screen reports which do not meet the definition

of abuse out and refer them to more appropriate entities for

follow up if needed.

Don’t open investigations on med errors unless harm to the child occurred. Child abuse may include actions that could result in harm, but did

not.

Once an investigation is closed, OAAPI must provide a written report to the

provider within 5 days.

OAAPI is currently working through a back log of reports. The

goal is to have the reports out the door within the 30 business

days as prescribed by rule.

Create an appeals process for an Inconclusive finding. OAR currently only provides formal administrative review for

Substantiated findings, which are considered to be Potentially

Disqualifying Conditions for employment screening by DHS

under the Background Check Unit rules. Inconclusive findings

are not considered to be Potentially Disqualifying, so there is no

formal review process offered by OAAPI. Persons with

inconclusive findings may provide additional information to

OAAPI or CPS at any time if they believe it will assist in

resolving the Inconclusive finding. In addition, all OAAPI

determinations are subject to judicial review as other than

contested cases under ORS 183.484.

Investigators must be trained in trauma-informed interviewing for children and

staff.

All investigators have some form of trauma-informed interviewing

training. In addition, OAAPI is in the process of sending all

investigators to Oregon Forensic Interview Guidelines training,

which includes information on trauma-informed interviewing.

When organization/staff acknowledge a reported incident was an abuse/neglect

violation, the period of the investigation must be shorted to 5 days.

DHS will consider clarifying in rule or procedure that a full

investigation may not be required when sufficient information (such

as an admission) is gathered to reach the evidentiary burden. There

is no requirement in rule to take the maximum time allotted.

Eliminate opening investigations of biological children when a staff person is

involved in a reportable incident at work.

Investigations are not automatically opened into the child of an

accused staff person. But if DHS has reason to suspect abuse of any

other child, including a biological child, we have obligations under

ORS 419B that must adhered to.

Provide information on individuals on whom there was a founded abuse/neglect. When a report of abuse is substantiated, the executive director and board members will be notified.

Develop a protocol for required efforts to schedule interviews with witnesses;

include engaging with the supervisor or executive director in securing witnesses for

interviews.

OAAPI is working on developing standard procedures and best

practices around scheduling interviews.

The CPS worker is required by OAR 413-015-0640 to meet with

the owner, manager, operator, or appropriate authority

responsible for the child-caring agency or proctor foster home at

the beginning of the assessment to provide in person notification

of the allegations, arrange for access to the facility, plan

interviews that will take place at the facility, and gain access to

names of other children, young adults, employees or other

individuals who may have been a witness or could be a collateral

contact.

Establish a high standard (ie imminent danger of physical harm) that must be met

to remove children or close intake.

DHS will consider these recommendations; where ORS and OAR

are not explicit, licensing will develop procedures regarding

appropriate types of corrective actions to impose.

Prioritize corrective actions for return of children as soon as possible. Licensing imposition of corrective actions are prioritized around the safety and protection of children.

Trauma screening must be done for each child moved. Licensing supports this and will have discussions with placing agencies to determine the best way to follow through with this

recommendation, in concert with CW and OAAPI.

Provide a partial day payment to the provider for any closed service slot or moved

child.

DHS will consider these recommendations.

Establish rules which identify who has access to information, written or verbal,

during investigations which have not been concluded with a report completed.

Establish rules which allow named parties (accused persons) in investigations, and

other CCA individuals (executive director) who may request information from

investigations.

Child abuse investigation information is protected by state and

federal law. Additionally, depending on the circumstances,

disclosing information may compromise the integrity of an

investigation or impact the safety of a child or other person. DHS

has rules about confidentiality of client information and these

include what information may be released to whom and when.

Establish due process for staff who are suspended for work during an investigation

so they can appeal and return to work.

DHS does not suspend staff during an investigation, only the

CCA can suspend an employee. However, depending on the

circumstances a safety plan may be developed and may include a

CCA employee not having contact with a specific child or all

children being served by the CCA. It may also include a

limitation being placed on specific duties an employee can

perform. If the CCA is not willing to take the steps necessary to

ensure the safety of the child or children, including, restricting

contact with an employee when necessary DHS can take steps to

remove the child or children from the CCA.

Licensing does have the authority to impose a written condition

on the CCA’s license that prohibits contact between an employee

who is the accused/alleged perpetrator and children.

This clarification will be provided to CCA’s in an upcoming

webinar and in written materials.

Rationale for licensing revocation should not include issues or matters that are not

specifically named in licensing standards.

A license cannot be revoked without citation to the particular rule or

statute that was violated.

Establish circumstances under which a licensing condition could be required. ORS 418.240(3) as amended by section 4 of SB 1515 grants the Department broad discretion to place conditions on any license,

provided the circumstances under which conditions may be imposed

are reflected in Department rules (see ORS 418.240(1) in section 4

of SB 1515). In addition to the broad authority in ORS 418.240(3):

ORS 418.240(2)(b) as amended by section 4 of SB 1515 specifically allows conditions to be placed when the agency

is not in full compliance with the requirements in ORS

418.240(2)(a)(A)-(J) in section 4 of SB 1515;

ORS 418.240(2)(d) allows conditions to be placed if the Department becomes aware that the child-caring agency, or

the owner or operator of the agency, has been found by other

state or federal entities to have engaged in financial, civil or

criminal misconduct.

ORS 418.260(2) as amended by section 11 of SB 1515 allows the Department to place conditions "if the

Department finds…that [alleged] abuses, deficiencies,

violations or failures to comply are founded…"

ORS 418.327(3) as amended by section 24 of SB 1515 allows conditions to be placed on the license of a private

residential boarding school consistent with ORS 418.240.

Section 37 allows conditions to be placed on a license when a child-caring agency interferes with or hinders an abuse

investigation.

These requirements are reflected in the following licensing rules:

OAR 413-215-0121(1) The Department may suspend, revoke, or

place conditions on the child-caring agency's license, certificate, or

other authorization in the following circumstances:

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolledhttps://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolledhttps://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolledhttps://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolledhttps://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolledhttps://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolledhttps://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolledhttps://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1515/Enrolled

The child-caring agency is not in full compliance with the requirements of OAR 413-215-0001(5) or other applicable

requirements in OAR 413-215-0001 to 413-215-1031.

The Department finds, after investigation by the Department or law enforcement, that abuses, deficiencies, violations, or

failures to comply are founded.

The child-caring agency, or the owner or operator of the child-caring agency including proctor foster homes,

interfered with or hindered an investigation of abuse of a

child in care, including, but not limited to, intimidation of

witnesses, falsification of records, or denial or limitation of

interviews with the child in care who is the subject of the

investigation or the witnesses.

OAR 413-215-0121(3) The Department may immediately deny,

suspend, revoke, or place conditions on the child-caring agency's

license in the following circumstances:

The child-caring agency failed to permit an inspection of premises or of the books and records of the child-caring

agency.

The child-caring agency failed to make corrections within 45 days from the effective date of the plan of correction under

OAR 413-215-0111.

The Department determines at any time during or after an investigation that the abuses, deficiencies, violations or

failures to comply are or threaten a serious danger to any

child or to the public, or place a child in care at risk with

respect to the child in care's health, safety, or welfare.

OAR 413-215-0121(5) The Department may deny issuance or

renewal, suspend, revoke, or place conditions on a license,

certificate or other authorization if the Department becomes aware

that a child caring agency, or the owner or operator of the child-

caring agency, has been found by other state or federal entities to

have engaged in financial, civil, or criminal misconduct.

OAR 413-215-0111(3) allows the Department to impose conditions

while corrective actions are pending.

Where ORS and OAR are not explicit, licensing will develop

documented procedures regarding determining the appropriate type

of corrective action to impose.

Re-establish options for corrective actions and offering technical assistance to

providers as a response to compliance issues.

These are still options. Except for the circumstances under which the

law requires certain licensing enforcement actions or in direct

response to egregious violations or health and safety concerns, the

new tools DHS has under the bill (placing conditions on a license,

etc.) will generally be used when technical assistance or corrective

actions have not resolved the issue.

If condition placed on license is for training, there must be flexibility for how the

training is scheduled so it doesn’t impact staffing ratios or other child safety

In the few instances that DHS has imposed a requirement for

training from a specific source, multiple training sessions have been

offered to minimize the impact on agencies. Licensing imposition

of corrective actions are prioritized around the safety and

protection of children. DHS will be mindful of direct or indirect

consequences of corrective actions and there impacts on child

safety. Documented procedures regarding appropriate types of

corrective action to impose will consider this.

Named reasons for placing conditions, suspending or revoking a license need to

identify the connection to the licensing requirement.

Citation to the relevant rule or statute violation is required for all of

these licensing actions.

If the training is to be conducted by DHS, it must be done within 1 week, or set up

to be a “train the trainers” option.

DHS will consider this suggestion. In the future, DHS will make

sure the capacity exists to delivery training timely. The availability

of DHS staff or resources will not be a barrier to a CCA meeting

a requirement outlined in a condition imposed on a CCA.

Provide written authorization to the CCA for amended conditions for admitting

children outside of their approved licensing conditions.

All amended conditions will be documented in writing and provided

to the CCA.

Establish rules allowing cross-gender youth access to bathrooms and other

generally gender restricted areas.

Department rules do not specify whether gender refers to the child's

identity or biological sex. The policy of the Department is to ensure

adequate accommodations for all children, including those whose

gender identity differs from their biological sex. We will follow up

with DOJ as we continue the rulemaking process to ensure the rules

do not limit the ability of child-caring agencies to serve these

children. The Department believes the licensing rules do not contain

any provision that would require a child-caring agency to disregard

the gender identity of a child in their care.

Notice of the opening of intake after a closure must go out to all of the referring

entities (ie DHS case workers, OYA central office and field, OHA, CCO’s etc)

DHS will consider this suggestion. Currently, DHS notifies our

regulatory partners: OHS, Well Being, OYA, etc. when conditions

are lifted. DHS will continue to work with these partners to

determine how best to disseminate information in the future.

Conditions and the removal of conditions are provided to the child-

caring agency in writing and the agency could share that

documentation with referral sources.

Specifically state in the rules that runaways are not reportable. Child-caring agencies are required to report child abuse or neglect to a DHS screener or law enforcement under ORS 419.005 and section

38 of SB 1515. These requirements are also reflected in the licensing

rules. Under those laws and rules, child-caring agency staff must

report to a DHS screener or law enforcement when they have

reasonable cause to believe child abuse or neglect, as defined in

ORS 419B.005 or section 36 of SB 1515, has occurred. A missing

child, absent other information, does not meet those definitions.

However, when a child is missing there may be additional

information about the reason the child is missing or what occurred

when the child was located for example that does constitute a report

of child abuse.

To comply with federal law, effective 9/29/16, DHS rules require

BRS providers to notify law enforcement, the Department, and the

National Center on Missing and Exploited Children when a child in

their care is missing. However, this report does need to be made to a

DHS screener, with the caveat above regarding additional

circumstances that may rise to the level of child abuse or neglect.

As stated earlier, the Department prepared and distributed

materials to clarify for child-caring agencies the types of reports

that need to be made, when the reports need to be made and how

to make the reports. This includes reports of child abuse, critical

events, and incidents. The Department has distributed the quick

reference guide on this topic and will be communicating that

information to providers in upcoming communications and

trainings.

Morrison:

Comment Department Response

One of the most significant impacts of SB 1515 for Morrison is the costs

associated with placing staff on administrative leave while the OAAPI

screenings and investigations proceed. The timeframes defined by SB

1515 for the OAAPI investigation processes are not being met. Morrison

has had multiple investigations that have lasted for more than 60-90 days.

The costs of paying staff while on administrative leave are escalating and

are a financial burden for the agency and the Morrison residential care

programs. Carrying the financial burden of the investigations is not

sustainable for Morrison.

Current rule states an investigation will be completed within 30 business

days, unless an extension is granted. The rule allows an extension for

specific reasons and only with the approval of the director or designee.

Due to the increase in investigations and limited staffing, OAAPI

investigations have gone beyond the 30 day timeline. However, OAAPI is

committed to, and currently in the process of, clearing the backlog of

investigations.

As to placing staff on leave, as mentioned above, DHS does not require

staff to be placed on leave during an investigation; that is a child-caring

agency personnel decision. Paying staff on leave during an investigation is

not required by DHS per se.

This clarification is in part outlined in one of the responses above and will

also be provided to CCA’s in an upcoming webinar, as well as in written

materials.

Several Morrison foster parents have resigned as they have become

discouraged and demoralized by the process that their availability to care

for children and their income. The Oregon foster care system is in crisis,

a population of foster children are living in hotels and motels, because

there are not foster care placements available. It is difficult to see

therapeutic foster parents resigning from their roles at Morrison due to

new and very broad definitions of child abuse and a lower standard of

proof.

The definition of abuse and standard of proof (which was lowered to align

with other child abuse investigations) is in statute and therefore is not

discretionary for the Department. That said, the Department appreciates

this concern and is working to improve implementation of the law.

Morrison is concerned about the labels used to describe Morrison staff

and foster parents, for example, accused person and alleged offender.

Applying these labels to individuals involved in reportable incidents that

The Department will consider this suggestion.

are screened out or found to be unsubstantiated seems harsh. The labels

contribute significantly to the demoralization of staff and foster parents.

We ask that these stigmatizing labels be removed and believe that the goal

of protecting children can still be met.

Association of Private Schools:

Comment Department Response

OAR 413-215-0021(5)(d) requires the school to report any instance of the

“child-caring agency or a member of its staff or board of directors has

been found guilty of any crime under federal, state, or foreign law.”

Comment: As written, this rule is unworkable. There is no way for an

academic boarding school to know of all instances of all of its staff or

board violating any law, which could include traffic infractions, etc.

Suggested Change: Schools can only report incidents they know of. They

can require such reporting of these incidents of their board and staff but

can’t guarantee compliance.

We suggest changing the wording by adding language in CAPS: “...report

any instance IT KNOWS OR LEARNS ABOUT…”

Agreed. This change is reflected in final permanent rules.

413-215-0026(3)(a) provides “A child-caring agency must provide to the

Department current internal financial statements, general ledgers, bank

statements, and any other financial records upon request.”

(3)(b) provides “Beginning January 1, 2017, agencies with annual revenue

in excess of $1,000,000 must provide annually to the Department:

(A) An annual audit completed by an independent certified public

accountant who is not an employee of the child-caring agency and not

otherwise affiliated with the child-caring

agency and any financial statements or records submitted for purposes of

that audit;

Comment: We have no problem with Academic Boarding Schools

providing annual financial reports to the Department. We have no

objection to providing records for inspection upon request. We object

strongly to the requirement that academic boarding schools must provide

“any financial statements or records submitted for purposes of that audit.”

Agreed. This change is reflected in final permanent rules:

"and any financial statements or records submitted for purposes of the audit" has been deleted from 413-215-0026(3)(b)(A).

"and any financial statements or records submitted for purposes of the review" has been deleted from 413-215-0026(30(C)(B).

"and records" has been deleted from 413-215-0081(4)(i).

First, in the case of my own school, this could easily amount to four or

more file boxes of materials, which is a burden to copy, transport, for the

department to store, etc.

Second, to require all of these records to be automatically required

exceeds the language of SB 1515 which states only that the department be

provided with the annual

financial statements: SB 1515 [Section 10, (3)(a)] requires that “a child-

caring agency...that has annual

revenues in excess of $1 million must provide the department with annual

financial statements that have been audited by an independent certified

public accountant at such times as the department specifies by rule”

[Section 10, (3)(a)]

Section 4 “The department may, upon request at any time, inspect and

audit the books and records, including but not limited to financial records,

of the agency.”

Third, we know of no other agency or organization that requires a

financial report that also asks for the records submitted for that report.

Fourth, removing this requirement from the proposed rules would be

consistent with other parts of the proposed rules that make it clear that

financial records must be provided when requested. Page 39 requires

academic boarding schools to “(8) Provide the Department with financial

records and documents when requested by the Department.”

Suggested Change: We suggest that the Department delete “and any

financial statements or records submitted for purposes of that audit”.

Note: Page 18, (3)(c)(A) has a similar requirement for providing an

annual review and “any financial statements or records submitted for

purposes of that review and it also

needs to be changed by deleting “and records”

Note: Page 36 (4)(i) also needs to be changed by deleting “and records”

from “Annual financial statements and records as described in OAR 413-

215-0026.”

Page 19 begins proposed rules regarding Children and Family Rights

Policy and Grievance Procedures.

Section (1) requires a school to “enact and adhere to a policy ensuring

those rights” of children and families and a “written copy must be

distributed to all children in care and families served.” The rule

enumerates a list of rights.

Comment: This section should not apply to Academic Boarding Schools

because it is simply inappropriate. Parents enroll their children in

academic boarding schools and they would quickly remove their children

if any of the rights listed were violated - from denying communication

with their children to any violation of rights of privacy, etc. The market

correctly corrects any such violation.

Some of the rights listed are very inappropriate to families with children

in academic boarding schools. Providing such a list would confuse parents

and raise concerns about the nature of the program. They would not

understand why a school has provided them with a policy outlining the

child’s “right to an appropriate education”, “right to participate in

recreation and leisure activities”, and “right to have timely access to

physical and behavioral health care services.” They have chosen an

Oregon academic boarding school because the parent decided that its

academic program was appropriate for their child, that the recreation and

leisure activities were also appropriate, etc.

Suggested Change: This section should not apply to academic boarding

schools and should including language such as ”Except for Academic

Boarding Schools”.

Section 4 of SB 1515 requires child-caring agencies to "ensure child and

family rights" and directs the Department to enumerate those rights. We

will consider whether we have authority to distinguish the rights required

based on the type of agency.

Page 21 Section (2) provides Grievance Procedures:

(a) A child-caring agency must enact and adhere to written procedures for

the children in care and families the child-caring agency serves to submit

a grievance. For an academic boarding school this subsection only applies

to grievances about health or safety issues. The child-caring agency must

provide the procedures to each child in care and family.”

This is not a new requirement. Additionally, Section 24(5) of SB 1515

ORS 418.327 allows for complaints to be made regarding academic

boarding school. It is reasonable and prudent for DHS to establish a

grievance requirement for children and families served which may reduce

or resolve complaints before coming to the attention of DHS.

The procedures include providing the “name, address and phone number

of the Department licensing coordinator.

Comment: We support the general exclusion of boarding schools, but

Academic Boarding Schools should be totally exempt from all issues, not

just health and safety issues. This provision is not needed because if a

parent is unhappy with any issues (including health and safety issues) they

take their children out of the schools or the school corrects the issues.

Suggested Change: State clearly this does not apply to Academic

Boarding Schools, by including language such as ”Except for Academic

Boarding Schools”

Page 27 has the section on Discipline, Behavior Management, and Suicide

Prevention (Excluding Adoption Agencies). Current rules exclude

Academic Boarding Schools.

These proposed rules add Academic Boarding Schools to this section.

They also add new items to the section: discipline policy (section 2),

behavior management (section 3), and suicide prevention (section 4).

Comment: Academic Boarding Schools do not provide behavior

management, non-violent crisis intervention, use of time-outs, physical

restraints or suicide prevention.

Parents enroll their children in an Academic Boarding School for the

educational opportunities, not for behavior management. Academic

Boarding Schools do not serve the population of troubled youth, and don’t

address these issues. These rules do apply to therapeutic boarding schools

which specialize in helping troubled teens; behavior management methods

may be part of their program. This section is not applicable to Academic

Boarding Schools.

Suggest Change: Don’t change the existing rule. Continue to exclude

Academic Boarding Schools from this rule.

“Discipline of children” is applicable to academic boarding schools.

“Suicide prevention” is applicable to academic boarding schools. The CDC

reports that for youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third

leading cause of death. Requiring a policy is reasonable and prudent.

Finally, many aspects of “behavior management” are likely not applicable

to many academic boarding schools. However, it is possible that some

academic boarding schools would utilize techniques such as time out or

other similar techniques. When used, a school will need to have a policy

and expectations about its use.

Page 54 begins a section that applies specifically to Licensing Academic

Boarding School. Pages 63-64 address Furnishings and Personal Items for

Children in Care [in Academic Boarding Schools].

Licensing rule does not specify who is obligated to purchase these items,

rather the rule requires the child has these items for their use while in the

care of the Academic Boarding School. Making arrangements with parents

Comment: The proposed rules require Academic Boarding Schools to

providing many items that are not typically provided by Academic

Boarding Schools. Other than the bed, all other items are provided by

families or by the student themselves, such as linens and personal hygiene

supplies. Academic Boarding Schools do not provide these, because

students and their families provide their own linens (3), purchase their

own personal hygiene supplies (4), and their own “adequate and

seasonally appropriate clothing” (5).

Suggested Change : Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be deleted as

inapplicable in an Academic Boarding School setting where parents are

paying for their child’s education and caring for their children’s needs,

providing them needed supplies (or arrange for their local purchase by the

student), etc.

or other responsible parties to ensure the child has the items is acceptable.

However, the parent’s failure to provide the item does not relieve the

school of responsibility to provide the item for the child.

Page 69 (Section 5) addresses Academic Boarding School Transportation.

Part (b) addresses Vehicle Requirements, and requires that:

Each vehicle used to transport a child in care must have aboard a first aid

kit, a fully charged and working fire extinguisher with a rating of at least

2-A:10-BC, and a copy of the medical insurance card of each child in care

being transported .

Comment: First, based on working at a boarding school for the past 43

years, it is no longer necessary to carry a medical insurance card for each

child being transported when they are in need of urgent medical care

when they are off campus. This can now done electronically when needed.

Second it is impossible to keep up-to-date insurance information on each

student in each vehicle when the student population is dynamic and

changes regularly, individual insurance carriers and coverage changes

rapidly, etc.. It would be extremely burdensome to try to keep up to date

insurance cards for each student in each vehicle in a large school with

many vehicles. This rule may have made sense in the past but is out of

sync with reality and the way urgent care works today with the use of

electronic record-keeping which is more accurate and up-to-date.

Agreed. This is reflected in final permanent rules.

Suggested Change: Delete “and a copy of the medical insurance card of

each child in care being transported.”

Comment: This rule should only apply to school-owned vehicles. It

should not apply to the occasional transport of students in private vehicles

of faculty, parents, fellow students or volunteers. It is unrealistic and

workable for them all to have first aid kits and fire extinguishers in all

privately-owned staff, student or parent vehicles used occasionally to

transport students.

Suggested Change: This rule should only apply to vehicles owned by the

school so we suggest adding additional language (in CAPS) “Each vehicle

OWNED BY THE

SCHOOL used to transport a child…”

Page 70 addresses Health Services. The section on Medical History

requires that schools (within 30 days) “must obtain available health

history and other health-related information”.

Comment: All Academic Boarding Schools want to have complete

medical records.

They often require that some sets of medical records and medical history

information be provided during enrollment. But this new rule creates a

requirement (“must obtain”) that may be impossible to meet - to get all

available records within 30 days. It is hard enough for public and private

schools to get immunization records for all students. That simple

requirement takes lots of time and effort on the part of all schools to

accomplish this. This rule goes far beyond immunization records. This

“all available health records” requirement would be even more difficult if

not impossible to meet. A school can only request or require that the

parent contact their child’s health care professionals to provide all of this

data, but the school has no ability to make a parent do this. The school

cannot insure it will receive the information within 30 days, because it has

no control over the parents or health care providers and no way to make

them comply. Academic Boarding Schools with international families

Not having this information could put a child with significant health issues

at great risk. If a parent is not willing are able to provide this information

the child may not be safe remaining in the Academic Boarding School.

face even more logistical challenges including dealing with records in

other languages and unique formats, time-zone communication problems,

etc.

Suggested Change: The rule should be changed to require that school’s

promptly request that parents ask their healthcare providers to provide this

information, and that the school be diligent in its efforts of obtain such

records.

The section should be revised as follows (INSERTIONS IN CAPS) (2)

Medical History. Within 30 days of a child in care starting in an academic

boarding school, the academic boarding school must REQUEST AND

WORK DILIGENTLY TO obtain available medical history and other

health-related information on the child in care, including...:

Page 70, Health Services (3) Health Services states “An academic

boarding school must provide or arrange for the following health services,

as applicable:” and the proposed rules lists information on reproductive

health, birth control, well-baby care, prenatal care, fetal alcohol

syndrome, etc.

Comment: This section should be removed because it is both inapplicable

and inappropriate in an academic boarding school to require such

services. It goes beyond anything covered in SB 1515. Parents are

primarily responsible for their children’s care.

Nothing in SB 1515 addresses prenatal care or the other items addressed

here.

These requirements were removed from the final permanent rules.

Academic boarding school students do not have infants with them, they

do not have babies with fetal-alcohol syndrome, etc.

Parents choose academic boarding school programs in part because they

can choose a program that most matches the family’s educational plan for

educating their children, including how they children are educated about

marriage, family, raising children, etc. This rule would force academic

boarding schools to address subjects with students that parents would find

inappropriate and/or objectionable for their children. Many families

This reference is removed from the academic boarding school final

permanent rules.

choose academic boarding schools because they do not want these

subjects taught to their children at school (leaving it the parents to take on

this aspect of their education) or they may object to how the subjects are

taught in their public schools.

This rule serves as an unfunded mandate for a school to provide

curriculum and teaching services on these subjects.

The Department has no right to require a school to provide these services.

Parents can request them and the school can decide how to handle such

requests, but the school can’t be required to provide them to all students

as a matter of law or regulation. This intrudes on the private academic

boarding school’s right and freedom to determine its own curriculum.

These are parental education issues that must be left to the parent and the

program of the academic boarding school the parent chooses for their

child.

Suggested Change: Section 3 should be removed from these rules..

Section (4) addresses Medical Examinations. “An academic boarding

school must safeguard the health of each child in care it serves by

providing for a medical examination by a physician or qualified medical

professional at the following intervals:”

It then outlines the number of examinations required including “three

examinations during the first year of a child’s life”, etc.

Comment : First, no academic boarding school boards infants or very

young children, and the rule schedule requires exams at infancy, two,

four, six and nine years of age.

The schedule makes no sense and appears to be misplaced in the rules; it

may fit some section other than academic boarding schools.

Second, it is not the job of an academic boarding school to provide or

arrange examinations of all students at specific times. They should

provide them at parent request or based on the school’s health concerns.

Parents usually arrange for and provide medical practitioners for their

Section 23 of SB 1515 includes this requirement, which is applicable to

academic boarding schools.

children’s examinations when the students are visiting at home, or make

arrangements for local doctor examinations.

From my over 40 years of boarding school experience, I know of no

boarding school that provides them directly or requires them regularly

after enrollment for all students because this is really a parental matter.

There are exceptions for team sports and related activities, but these are

only required if the student desires to participate. Our students return

home regularly where they usually receive such services.

Most academic boarding schools want recent physical examination

information during the enrollment process, along with vaccination

information, allergy information, etc. But all parents and children are

different. The state can’t mandate a schedule because nothing in SB 1515

addresses this issue and it interferes with a parent’s right to determine the

proper health care for their children.

Suggested Change: Section 4 should be eliminated.