PRO-10-08-00002-P Preliminary Procedure for PINS Probation Intake and Diversion Services

3/5/08 N.Y. St. Reg. PRO-10-08-00002-P

NEW YORK STATE REGISTER

VOLUME XXX, ISSUE 10

March 05, 2008

RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES

DIVISION OF PROBATION AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES

PROPOSED RULE MAKING

NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

 

I.D No. PRO-10-08-00002-P

Preliminary Procedure for PINS Probation Intake and Diversion Services

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:

Proposed action:

Repeal of Part 357, addition of new Part 357, and amendment of Part 354 of Title 9 NYCRR.

Statutory authority:

Executive Law, art. 12, sections 243(1) and 256(1); Family Court Act, section 735(a); Social Services Law, section 34-a(4)(b)

Subject:

Preliminary procedure for PINS probation intake and diversion services.

Purpose:

To reflect statutory changes and promote consistent application of law and best practices.

Substance of proposed rule (Full text is posted at the following State website: www.dpca.state.ny.us):

These regulatory amendments would replace the former Part 357 Intake for Article 7 and delete references as to Article 7 cases in Part 354 so that there will be one rule related to Persons In Need of Supervision (PINS). These regulatory amendments to Part 357 were developed by a DPCA working committee comprised of DPCA staff and local probation department representation across the state of all COPA regions, and including all levels of probation staff, including director, deputy director, supervisor, senior probation officer, and probation officer. The existing Part 357 Intake for Article 7 was last revised in 1986, and was in effect made defunct by the repeal and reenactment of Family Court Act Section 735 effective April 2005. This rule was applicable to jurisdictions with approved PINS plans and Part 354 governed jurisdictions without an approved PINS plan. In light of recent statutory changes creating one procedural process for handling of PINS, the work of the subcommittee was significant, requiring a near complete rewriting of Part 357. In drafting new rule language, the committee's primary objectives has been to: 1) ensure conformity with all current laws, most notably the 2000 and 2001 PINS to 18 laws and the 2005 PINS Diversion and Detention Reform law (specifically Chapter 596 of the Laws of 2000, Chapter 383 of the Laws of 2001, and Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2005); 2) reflect best practice as it has evolved over the past 20 years; 3) incorporate evidence-based practice that has come to the forefront of probation practices in recent years; and 4) integrate statute and best probation practice into a single document organized according to the flow of cases through preliminary procedure.

In meeting statutory requirements of Family Court Act Article 7, these regulatory amendments eliminate former suitability language, given that all PINS cases are now considered to be suitable for diversion services. Amendments articulate the requirements of these aforementioned PINS laws revising Article 7 of the Family Court Act, and require directors to issue policies and procedures that address statutory requirements, including timeframes for case initiation and criteria for determining “diligent efforts” and “no substantial likelihood” standards. Other statute requirements specified include: the provision of information at the first point of contact with the parties; diligent attempts to engage the youth and family, including documentation; providing an immediate response to families in crisis; identifying and utilizing appropriate alternatives to detention; and attempting to divert youth from Family Court. For school based complaints, these amendments articulate the requirement to review steps taken by the school and attempt to engage the school in further attempts if deemed beneficial to the youth. These regulatory amendments incorporate language regarding termination of diversion efforts, and the ability to continue to provide diversion services after filing of a petition where it is determined that the youth and family will benefit from further attempts to prevent the youth from entering foster care. Statutory requirements for referral for petitions are incorporated, including the “no substantial likelihood” standard. The pre-requisites of parental cooperation and participation are delineated for instances where the case has been terminated because of the failure of the parent(s)/guardian(s).

Section 357.1 Definitions.

These regulatory amendments eliminate most of the definitions of the old Part 357 rule, and define nineteen terms not previously defined under the old Intake rule. Some of these terms have come into widespread use in probation practice over the past 20 years, others are anchored in the 2005 PINS law, and others originate from evidence-based practice. For example, more and more counties are involved in pre-diversion services, and so a new definition for pre-diversion services distinguishes these services from “information only” and “diversion services” work. To improve the system's ability to communicate about and distinguish among different types of services, the revised Part 357 rule contains new definitions for intervention service, accountability measure, and control measure. Other new definitions have been developed for: actuarial risk, case plan, complainant, conference, diligent efforts, diversion services, evidence-based practice, no substantial likelihood, Person In Need of Supervision (PINS), potential respondent, services, referred for petition, risk assessment, successfully diverted, runaway, and youth at risk of placement.

Section 357.3 and 357.4 — Applicability and Jurisdiction.

The changes to Part 357 address applicability and jurisdictional issues. They clarify that this Part applies to probation departments responsible for the conducting of preliminary procedure, in whole or in part, either because they are the lead agency, or because they are responsible to provide a portion of preliminary procedure. They also provide guidance regarding cases where the child lives in one county but the behavior occurred in a different county, and provides a mechanism in such instances in order to address provision of services for moderate and high risk youth by ensuring access to such services in the county of residence.

Section 357.5 — General Requirements for PINS Preliminary Procedure.

Issues related to school are addressed throughout the revised rule. Under the general requirements section, the revised rule specifies that parent-initiated complaints of ungovernability/incorrigibility may be made for youth who are not attending school and are beyond the compulsory education age. For school complaints, where a parent refuses to cooperate, clarifies that an educational neglect report may be made. For special-education students, the revised rule requires probation to gather information from the Committee on Special Education as part of preliminary procedure, and that, prior to referring the matter for petition, documentation that a Manifestation Determination hearing was held to determine whether a special education youth's behaviors are intentional and ongoing and not related to the youth's disability. Finally, regulatory amendments address the role of probation to establish procedures by which schools report to probation steps taken to improve youth attendance and conduct, and to determine whether acceptable efforts have been made to improve youth attendance and conduct.

Section 357.6 — Probation Intake.

The probation intake section reaffirms eligibility requirements, that is, in order to accept a PINS complaint, the alleged behavior must meet the criteria set forth in Article 7 of the Family Court Act. It recognizes pre-diversion services as an alternative to pursuing a PINS complaint. In cases where the complainant indicates that the youth is a runaway, it requires probation to advise the parent of the need to file a missing person report, and encourages probation to attempt to contact youth for the purpose of engaging the youth in diversion services. It clarifies that, where feasible, at least one joint intake conference in real time with all parties should be held. It underscores that parents need to be advised of a potential bar to filing a petition where there is failure to consent or to participate in diversion services (DPCA plans to develop a model advisement form for use at local option).

Section 357.7 — Diversion Services.

The regulatory amendment requires an initial case plan to be developed within 30 calendar days of case initiation, and reassessment to be conducted 60 days later and every 90 calendar days thereafter. Case plans must be based initially on assessment results, updated periodically in accordance with reassessment results, and focus on the priority areas for intervention to resolve the presenting problem. Further, these amendments require that referrals for service incorporate the results of the actuarial risk assessment to target the specific underlying dynamic risk factors related to the PINS complaint. Further, they clarify that in addition to intervention services, accountability and control measures may be applied as part of diversion services, and that electronic monitoring may be used only with director consent and upon specific court order.

Section 357.8 — Assessment, Case Planning, and Reassessment.

New in these regulatory amendments are requirements for actuarial risk screening at intake in order to triage cases, and consideration for prompt termination of diversion efforts with minimal or no intervention services where youth present as low risk for continuing in the PINS behaviors. Consistent with the actuarial screening and triage functions at intake, the rule language requires as part of diversion services a full assessment of all youth who are at moderate or high risk for continued PINS behavior, and directs that diversion services be prioritized to higher risk youth.

Section 357.9 — Petition To Court.

The regulatory amendments clarify that probation may file a petition in instances where the parent is prohibited from filing after diversion is terminated due to their lack of cooperation and the youth's behavior remains problematic as a result. They also add that once a petition is filed diversion efforts may continue pending court action. New language outlines all of the legal requirements for filing that must be addressed (DPCA and the rule drafting workgroup have developed a model PINS petition report to the court for use at local option).

Section 357.10 — Return From Court.

This section reaffirms that probation is to notify the court of the status at case closing when it closes a diversion case that was returned from the court for diversion services.

Sections 357.11, 357.12, and 357.13 — Pre-Diversion Case Designation Requirements and Criteria, Case Closing Requirements, and Case Record Keeping Requirements.

For pre-diversion services, these regulatory amendments require that at minimum, a record be maintained of the date of receipt of the complaint, and a description of pre-diversion services either referred to or directly provided. Where preliminary procedure was commenced, the case closing options have been modified to reflect the current options under the law. New language delineates the required documents and other information to be included in the case record.

Part 354

Necessary amendments have been made to Part 354 to delete reference to Article 7 cases or PINS language in order that there is now one rule (Part 357) governing these matters. Other minor technical amendments are further made as necessitated by removal of such language.

Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:

Linda J. Valenti, Counsel, Division of Probation and Correctional Alternative, 80 Wolf Rd., Suite 501, Albany, NY 12205, [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:

Same as above.

Public comment will be received until:

45 days after publication of this notice.

Regulatory Impact Statement

1. Statutory authority:

Executive Law Article 12, specifically § 243(1), authorizes the State Director of Probation and Correctional Alternatives to “adopt general rules which shall regulate methods and procedure in the administration of probation services, including investigation of … children prior to adjudication, supervision, casework, recordkeeping program planning and research so as to secure the most effective application of the probation system and the most effective enforcement of the probation laws throughout the state.” Such rules are binding with the force and effect of law. Further, Article 12-A of such law, specifically § 256(1) and (6)(a), requires probation agencies to perform intake services pursuant to law.

Family Court Act (FCA) Article 7 § 735(a) requires “[E]ach county and any city having a population of one million or more shall offer diversion services … to youth who are at risk of being the subject of a person in need of supervision petition. Such services shall be designed to provide an immediate response to youth in crisis, to identify and utilize appropriate alternatives to detention and to divert youth from being the subject of a petition in family court. Each county and such city shall designate either the local social services district or the probation department as lead agency for the purposes of providing diversion services.” Additionally, Social Services Law § 34-a (4)(b) requires every jurisdiction to submit a multi-year consolidated services plan which includes diversion services for persons in need of supervision. It outlines services planning requirements, in that “The commissioner of the office of children and family services shall review and approve or disapprove the diversion services portion of the plan jointly with the director of probation and correctional alternatives …. The requirements for the portion of the plan and report regarding the provision of diversion services shall be jointly established by the commissioner to the office of children and family services and the director of probation and correctional alternatives …. The multi-year services plan and where appropriate the annual implementation reports shall be based upon a written understanding between the local social services district and the probation department which outlines the cooperative procedures to be followed by both parties regarding the diversion services pursuant to section 735 family court act, consistent with their respective obligations as otherwise required by law.”

2. Legislative objectives:

These regulatory amendments are consistent with legislative intent regarding critical probation functions and the promotion of professional standards which govern administration and delivery of probation services in the area of intake (preliminary procedure) for family court involving Persons In Need of Supervision (PINS). By vesting the State Director with rule-making authority, the Legislature authorized the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA) to set minimum standards in this area.

Passage of statutory changes amending Article 7 of the FCA (specifically Chapter 596 of the Laws of 2000, Chapter 383 of the Laws of 2001, and Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2005) resulted in numerous probation department requests for DPCA's formal direction regarding implementation of such changes. These amendments are necessary to: 1) conform to current law, most notably the 2000 and 2001 laws raising the PINS age to 18, and the 2005 PINS Diversion and Detention Reform Law; 2) ensure consistent statewide application; and 3) incorporate contemporary evidence-based (research-supported) practice principles for effective interventions.

3. Needs and benefits:

Probation is responsible for conducting preliminary procedure, because they are either the designated lead agency in their county or responsible to provide a portion of preliminary procedure under a PINS Memorandum of Understanding with the local department of social services.

The amendments clarify PINS eligibility requirements pursuant to Article 7 criteria; recognize pre-diversion services; and eliminate former “suitability” regulatory language. They promote consistent application of statutory requirements through statewide standardization of terms by eliminating obsolete terminology, updating, and adding definitions that: 1) reflect model probation practices, including evidence-based (research-supported) practices; or 2) are anchored in the aforementioned PINS laws amending Article 7 of the FCA.

To promote consistent application of law and best practices, these amendments address issues and confusion related to applicability, jurisdiction, school-related and legal concerns. For example, where PINS behavior occurs in a county other than where the youth resides, a mechanism is provided to ensure access to needed services in the county of residence. Among other provisions where clarification is made are that: probation may continue diversion services after filing a petition in certain instances; parent-initiated complaints of ungovernability/incorrigibility may be made for youth beyond compulsory education age who are not attending school; educational neglect reports may be made in school-filed complaints where a parent refuses to cooperate; and, probation may file a petition in instances where the parent is prohibited from filing after diversion is terminated due to their lack of cooperation. They clarify that electronic monitoring may be used only as part of diversion services where there is director consent and specific court order.

Consistent with good practice and/or certain legal provisions, these amendments reaffirm probation's responsibility to give advisements to parents as to potential bar to filing a petition, and regarding probation's need to notify the court of the status at case closing for cases returned from court for diversion services. Prior to referring PINS matters for petition, the rule requires probation to gather information from the Committee on Special Education (CSE) if a special education student is involved. The rule requires probation to inform parents of procedures required for filing a missing persons report for runaway youths. Where preliminary procedure was commenced, case closing options have been modified to reflect current law. The amendments specify documents and other information for inclusion in case records and provided to court to satisfy legal filing requirements.

Model probation practices have been incorporated. While some are prescriptive, there is flexibility for jurisdictions to develop policies and procedures that meet local needs and resources (i.e. timeframes for case initiation; criteria for determining “diligent efforts” and “no substantial likelihood” standards; procedures by which schools report to probation steps taken to improve youth attendance and conduct; and how “acceptable efforts” determinations will be made).

These amendments incorporate nationally recognized evidence-based practice principles demonstrated in research to reduce risk of recidivism, (continuing in a PINS pattern of behavior) by addressing needs underlying the PINS behaviors. These principles include actuarial risk and needs screening and assessment; prompt termination of diversion efforts with minimal or no intervention services where youth present as low risk for continuing in PINS behaviors; and full assessments for all PINS youth at moderate or high risk for continued PINS behavior. Diversion services are to be prioritized for moderate and high risk youth, with focus on addressing youth criminogenic needs in the community to reduce costly detention and placement outside the home and improve long term outcomes for youth and their families.

4. Costs:

DPCA believes more effective PINS diversion services can reduce long-term state and local governmental costs for youth at risk of continued involvement with the juvenile justice or criminal justice system. We anticipate no additional costs in adhering to these amendments beyond what is currently required in law and regulation. Rather, initial triage at intake and sharing resources, wherever appropriate and feasible, with other agencies and services providers is designed to produce cost savings in the short-term, as well as generate longer-term savings by increasing youth capacity to lead productive, law-abiding lives.

Further, DPCA has made available, at no cost to jurisdictions, the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) tools and software for youth intake, investigation and supervision services. Fifty-four counties (54) currently use YASI. Consistent application and sharing of screening, assessment, and case planning protocols and results will further add savings by avoiding duplication of efforts within and across probation departments.

As part of DPCA's efforts to streamline recordkeeping, avoid duplication, and achieve cost savings, DPCA has supported the deployment of web-based case management software, known as Caseload Explorer/ProberWeb. Currently, thirty-six (36) departments participate and forty-four (44) are expected to participate by December 2008.

As to any anticipated in-service costs of educating staff, DPCA believes orientation can be readily accomplished through memoranda and supervisory oversight without incurring any direct costs. Any minimal costs are outweighed by significant benefits of meeting the intent of current law and regulatory provisions to serve the best interests of PINS youth and their families, and in turn will reduce monetary costs associated with court processing, detention, and placement.

5. Local government mandates:

DPCA has always had agency rules governing PINS preliminary procedure, and does not anticipate that these new requirements will be burdensome. While this regulatory reform requires specific attention to key areas, establishing provisions for effective preliminary procedure consistent with traditional and emerging probation practices, it also provides flexibility and recognizes differences among jurisdictional policies and resources. DPCA requires actuarial risk and needs assessments along with case planning tools and protocols approved by the Director. DPCA has made YASI software available to all jurisdictions free of charge. As the state oversight agency, and consistent with our supervision rule classification process (9 NYCRR § 351.3), our approval of any assessment tool is appropriate.

6. Paperwork:

DPCA has provided leadership in the development and deployment of Caseload Explorer/Prober Web case management software which is streamlining paper requirements by avoiding duplication of efforts. Thirty-six (36) probation departments participate and forty-four (44) are expected to participate by December 2008.

7. Duplication:

These amendments do not duplicate any State or Federal law or regulation. They clarify and reinforce certain laws regarding provision of preliminary procedure for youth engaged in PINS behaviors.

8. Alternatives:

These amendments integrate law, research, and model probation practices to establish specific minimum standards for probation's provision of diversion services to PINS youth and their families. Strengthening and supporting consistent application of preliminary procedures is essential to ensure effective diversion of youth, wherever appropriate. By addressing youth needs within the context of their families and communities, the state can realize savings in detention, placement, legal and social costs. Accordingly, it is not a viable alternative to have a seriously outdated probation rule, or no rule, governing preliminary procedure for the PINS population.

In preparation and drafting proposed amendments, DPCA was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the state: 1) in May-June 2006 DPCA held three regional PINS meetings to discuss strengths, issues, and concerns voiced by probation departments regarding implementation of the 2005 PINS law; 2) In March 2006, DPCA constituted a PINS rule drafting workgroup of representatives from small, medium, and large jurisdictions representing urban and rural jurisdictions—this workgroup was comprised of all levels of probation staff, including director, deputy director, supervisor, senior officer, and officer; 3) In March 2007, DPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; 4) In April 2007, DPCA met with a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) for their professional association's feedback; and 5) in April DPCA presented all written comments from the twelve responding jurisdictions at a special workgroup meeting for consideration.

Most of the feedback indicated that these amendments reflect current model best probation practices. Some feedback sought clarification of language, alternate language, or increased flexibility. The majority of substantive suggestions for change were incorporated, and the workgroup clarified issues raised, and increased flexibility in certain instances. Overall, DPCA has received favorable support from probation agencies that these amendments are manageable and consistent with good professional practice. For reasons stated throughout this document relative to approval and use of actuarial tools, and while remaining non-YASI jurisdictions may object to state approval of their assessment tools, it is essential that DPCA ensure departments are using fully validated instruments.

9. Federal standards:

There are no federal standards governing the probation intake/preliminary procedure process.

10. Compliance schedule:

Through prompt dissemination to staff of the new rule and its summary, local departments should be able to promptly implement these amendments and comply with its provisions. These regulatory amendments shall take effect as soon as they are published in the State Register under a Notice of Adoption.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Small Business and Local Government (RFASBLG) (SAPA § 202-b) is required for an amendment of Parts 354 and 357 of Title 9 NYCRR regarding the Executive Law, Sections 243, 255(2), 256(1) and (6)(a); Sections 735 and 742 of the Family Court Act.

1. Effect of Rule:

This proposed rule revises existing regulatory procedures in the area of Persons In Need of Supervision (PINS) diversion services and will impact local probation departments which are responsible, in whole or in part, for the delivery of such services to alleged PINS and may indirectly impact local social service departments that enter into a Memoranda Of Understanding with local probation departments.

DPCA does not anticipate that these new requirements will be burdensome upon probation departments. While this regulatory reform requires specific attention to key areas, establishing provisions for effective preliminary procedure consistent with traditional and emerging probation practices, it also provides flexibility and recognizes differences among jurisdictional policies and resources and the establishment of local policies and procedures in this area.

These amendments integrate law, research, and model probation practices to establish specific minimum standards for probation's provision of diversion services to PINS youth and their families. Strengthening and supporting consistent application of preliminary procedures is essential to ensure effective diversion of youth, wherever appropriate. By addressing youth needs within the context of their families and communities, the state can realize savings in detention, placement, legal and social costs. Accordingly, it is not a viable alternative to have a seriously outdated probation rule, or no rule, governing preliminary procedure for the PINS population.

No small businesses are impacted by these proposed regulatory amendments.

2. Compliance Requirements:

While DPCA will require actuarial risk and needs assessments along with case planning tools and protocols approved by the Director of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, as the state oversight agency, and consistent with DPCA's Supervision Rule requiring a classification process to identify risks and needs (9 NYCRR § 351.3), state agency approval of the assessment tools is appropriate.

This rule does not change the monthly workload reporting requirements to our state agency, the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA). However it does modify the types of PINS intake (preliminary procedure) case closing categories to be reported, consistent with recent statutory changes. The proposed rule, while requiring modification of these data elements, will not require the completion of additional forms or other paperwork.

There are no small business compliance requirements imposed by these proposed rule amendments.

3. Professional Services:

DPCA recognizes that pursuant to Social Services Law § 34-a(4)(b), local social services districts and probation departments are required to develop a written memorandum of understanding approved by the Office of Children and Family Services and DPCA which outlines the cooperative procedures to be followed by both parties regarding the provision of diversion services. These regulatory changes are consistent with minimum requirements established by both our respective agencies that encourage sharing of services between different local services providers within the same jurisdiction. The proposal also supports cooperation between local government jurisdictions.

There are no professional services required of small business associated with these proposed rule amendments.

4. Compliance Cost:

DPCA does not foresee these reforms leading to significant additional costs, and does not anticipate that these new requirements will be burdensome, nor require additional staffing above and beyond current needs. Initial triage at intake and sharing resources, wherever appropriate and feasible, with other agencies and services providers will produce cost savings.

Additionally, DPCA has provided leadership in the development and deployment of Caseload Explorer/ProberWeb case management software, which is streamlining paper requirements by avoiding duplication of effort. Thirty-six (36) probation departments currently participate and forty-four (44) are expected to participate by December 2008.

5. Economic and Technological Feasibility:

Local probation departments should have no problem in complying with this rule as DPCA is providing free of charge the YASI software for participating jurisdictions which enable them to have a validated DPCA approved risk and needs assessment tool and we have supported the development and deployment of Caseload Explorer/ProberWeb case management software for interested probation departments. DPCA does not anticipate any economic problems experienced by probation departments with these rule changes. There are no economic or technological issues faced by small businesses as these proposed rules do not affect them.

6. Minimizing Adverse Impacts:

In preparation and drafting proposed amendments, DPCA was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the state: 1) In March 2006, DPCA constituted a PINS rule drafting workgroup of representatives from small, medium, and large jurisdictions representing urban and rural jurisdictions—this workgroup was comprised of all levels of probation staff, including director, deputy director, supervisor, senior officer, and officer; 2) in May-June 2006 DPCA held three regional PINS meetings to discuss strengths, issues, and concerns voiced by probation departments regarding implementation of the 2005 PINS law; 3) In March 2007 DPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; 4) In April 2007 DPCA met with a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) for their professional association's feedback; and 5) in April DPCA presented all written comments from the twelve responding jurisdictions at a special workgroup meeting for consideration.

Most of the feedback indicated that these amendments reflect current model best probation practices. Some feedback sought clarification of language, alternate language, or increased flexibility. The majority of substantive suggestions for change were incorporated, and the workgroup clarified issues raised, and increased flexibility in certain instances. Overall, DPCA has received favorable support from probation agencies that these amendments are manageable and consistent with good professional practice.

While there was discussion as to DPCA requiring all jurisdictions to obtain approval of their screening instrument, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions already use YASI. As the state oversight agency, and consistent with our supervision rule as to requiring a classification process to identify risks and needs (9 NYCRR § 351.3), state agency approval of any assessment tool is appropriate. Flexibility in policy allows for counties to choose a validated assessment, approved by DPCA, other than utilizing YASI at no cost.

These proposed regulatory reforms require specific attention to key areas, establishing provisions for effective preliminary procedure consistent with traditional and emerging probation practices, yet provides flexibility and recognizes differences among jurisdictional policies and resources and the establishment of local policies and procedures in this area.

7. Small Business and Local Government Participation:

As noted earlier, DPCA sought to engage probation departments from across the state on development of and refinement of our proposed regulatory changes: 1) In March 2006, DPCA constituted a PINS rule drafting workgroup of representatives from small, medium, and large probation departments, representing urban and rural jurisdictions and comprised of all levels of probation staff, including director, deputy director, supervisor, senior officer, and officer; 2) in May–June 2006 DPCA held three regional PINS meetings to solicit input regarding implementation of the 2005 PINS law; 3) In March 2007, DPCA circulated a refined regulatory draft to all probation directors/commissioners; 4) In April 2007, DPCA met with a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) for their professional association's feedback; and 5) in April 2007, DPCA presented all written comments from the twelve responding jurisdictions at a special workgroup meeting for consideration.

Rural Area Flexibility Analysis

1. Types and estimated number of rural areas:

Forty-four local probation departments are located in rural areas and will be affected by the proposed rule amendments.

2. Reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements, and professional services:

DPCA continues its requirement that probation directors maintain local written policies and procedures governing preliminary procedure (intake) for persons in need of supervision (PINS), and specifies key areas to be covered regarding timeframes, standards, criteria, case record documentation, and school communication. These key areas for local policy development recognize 2000, 2001, and 2005 statutory changes amending Article 7 of the Family Court Act (specifically Chapter 596 of the Laws of 2000, Chapter 383 of the Laws of 2001, and Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2005), while granting certain flexibility that takes into account local needs and resources.

There are no additional professional services necessitated in any rural area to comply with this rule. DPCA does not believe that these regulatory changes will prove difficult to achieve. Through prompt dissemination to staff of this new rule and its summary, local probation departments should be able to promptly implement these amendments and comply with its provisions.

This rule does not change the monthly workload reporting requirements to our state agency, the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA). However it does modify the types of PINS intake (preliminary procedure) case closing categories to be reported, consistent with recent statutory changes. The proposed rule, while requiring modification of these data elements, will not require the completion of additional forms or other paperwork.

3. Costs:

Fifty-four counties (54) currently use at no cost, the DPCA approved actuarial Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) which promotes consistent application of screening assessment and case planning protocols for youth intake, investigation, and supervision services. Only three rural counties, Hamilton, St. Lawrence and Tompkins will remain as non-YASI counties. While one or more of these counties may object to requiring state approval of their assessment tools, DPCA as the oversight agency believes that this is imperative, and consistent with evidence-based practice principles, and has the authority to require a validated instrument to measure risk of recidivism, and the needs that must be addressed to reduce the likelihood of youth continuing with the PINS behaviors.

DPCA believes that more effective PINS diversion services can reduce long term state and local governmental costs for those youth who are at risk of continued involvement with the juvenile justice or criminal justice system. DPCA anticipates no additional costs in adhering to these amendments beyond what is currently required in law and regulation. Initial triage at intake and sharing resources, wherever appropriate and feasible, with other agencies and services providers will produce cost savings. Consistent application and sharing of screening, assessment, and case planning protocols and results will further add savings by avoiding duplication of efforts within and across probation departments.

As part of DPCA's efforts to streamline recordkeeping, avoid duplication and achieve cost savings, DPCA has supported the deployment of a web-based case management software, known as Caseload Explorer/ ProberWeb case management software. Currently, thirty-six (36) probation departments participate and forty-four (44) are expected to participate by December 2008. Many rural counties are and will continue to benefit from this deployment.

Any anticipated in-service costs of educating staff, can be readily accomplished through memoranda and supervisory oversight without incurring any direct costs. Any minimal costs are outweighed by significant benefits of meeting the intent of current law and regulatory provisions to serve the best interests of PINS youth and their families, and in turn will reduce monetary costs associated with court processing, detention, and placement.

4. Minimizing adverse impact:

DPCA foresees that these regulatory amendments will have no adverse impact on rural areas. Our agency collaborated with jurisdictions across the state, including rural areas in developing the proposed rule and incorporated numerous suggestions from probation departments representing urban, rural, and suburban areas to clarify or address issues raised and to reflect good probation practice across the state. To our knowledge no adverse impact on rural areas were identified, and DPCA embraced flexibility where it was found to be consistent with good probation practice.

5. Rural area participation:

These revisions were developed by a DPCA working committee comprised of DPCA staff and eight local probation departments representing all geographic regions of the state, including rural, and involving all levels of probation staff, including director, deputy director, supervisor, senior probation officer, and probation officer. DPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners, the Council of Probation Administrators, (the statewide professional association of probation administrators) which assigned it to a specific committee for review, with rural representation, and subsequently met with DPCA to provide feedback. The proposed regulatory amendments incorporate verbal and written suggestions gathered from probation professionals, including rural entities, across the state to address problems which probation departments have experienced in the area of PINS preliminary procedure.

In preparation and drafting proposed amendments, DPCA was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the state: 1) In March 2006, DPCA constituted the aforementioned PINS rule working committee with representatives across the state from small, medium, and large jurisdictions representing urban and rural jurisdictions; 2) In May–June 2006 DPCA held three regional PINS meetings to discuss strengths, issues, and concerns voiced by probation departments regarding implementation of the 2005 PINS law; 3) In March 2007, DPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; 4) In April 2007, DPCA met with a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) for their professional association's feedback which has rural county participation; and 5) in April 2007, DPCA presented all written comments from the twelve responding jurisdictions at a special workgroup meeting for consideration.

Moreover, DPCA did not find significant differences among urban, rural, and suburban jurisdictions as to issues raised or suggestions for change. DPCA is confident that these amendments have the flexibility to accommodate rural jurisdictional needs.

Job Impact Statement

A job impact statement is not being submitted with these proposed regulations because it will have no adverse effect on private or public jobs or employment opportunities. The revisions incorporate changes in 2000 and 2005 laws with respect to preliminary procedure for probation in the provision of intake and diversion services for persons in need of supervision (PINS). They also address out-of-date requirements and reflect up-to-date best practices in the area of probation services. These changes are not onerous and can be implemented through correspondence and in-service training of probation staff.