CFS-49-15-00005-A Youth Development Program Funding and Implementation
8/17/16 N.Y. St. Reg. CFS-49-15-00005-A
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XXXVIII, ISSUE 33
August 17, 2016
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
I.D No. CFS-49-15-00005-A
Filing No. 744
Filing Date. Aug. 01, 2016
Effective Date. Aug. 17, 2016
Youth Development Program Funding and Implementation
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Repeal of Subparts 165-1 and 165-2; and addition of new Subpart 165-1 to Title 9 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Social Services Law, sections 20(3)(d) and 34(3)(f); Executive Law, sections 419 and 501(5); L. 2013, ch. 57, part G
Subject:
Youth development program funding and implementation.
Purpose:
To implement statutory changes regarding youth development program funding and implementation.
Substance of final rule:
Part G of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2013 (Chapter 57) repealed subdivision 1 of Section 420 of the Executive Law, as it pertained to special delinquency prevention programs (SDPP) and youth development and delinquency prevention (YDDP) services, and replaced it with a new subdivision 1. Section 420(1) of the Executive Law, as added by Part G of Chapter 57, streamlined the funding for youth development programs by providing a single stream of funding to replace multiple funding streams, each with its own set of rules.
These proposed regulations repeal subparts 165-1 and 165-2 of Title 9 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), which provide rules for SDPPs and YDDPs, and add a new subpart 165-1, which provides rules for implementing the new youth development programs. The proposed regulations also contain an amendment to the title of Subtitle E of 9 NYCRR, to reflect that the prior Division for Youth is now the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS).
The following is a summary of the provisions of the proposed subpart 165-1:
Section 165-1.1 states the purpose of the proposed regulations, which is to provide for the coordination and allocation methodology for funding for a range of community level programs and services that will promote positive youth development through youth development programs.
Section 165-1.2 provides definitions for the youth development program regulations. The following terms are defined: Office (meaning the Office of Children and Family Services); youth; municipality; youth development program; youth bureau; municipal youth bureau; local youth bureau; youth board; comprehensive plan for youth development programs; and youth development funding.
Section 165-1.3 provides information about comprehensive plans for youth development programs.
Subdivision (a) of section 165-1.3 requires that each municipality that seeks youth development funding submit a comprehensive plan for youth development programs (comprehensive plan) that is written in consultation with its municipal youth bureau. The comprehensive plan must be submitted in the manner and form and at such time as designated by OCFS and is subject to the approval of OCFS.
Subdivision (b) of section 165-1.3 describes the information that must be included in the comprehensive plan for youth development programs.
Subdivision (c) of section 165-1.3 addresses the instances in which OCFS may approve all or part of a municipality’s comprehensive plan for youth development programs. Upon receipt of a notification that OCFS has not approved all or part of its comprehensive plan, a municipality has sixty days under the proposed regulations to submit a revised plan or documents to OCFS. If OCFS does not approve the revised plan submitted during the 60-day period, OCFS may withhold youth development funds from the municipality until its plan is fully approved.
Subdivision (d) of section 165-1.3 requires that municipalities obtain OCFS approval of any amendments to their comprehensive plans for youth development programs prior to the plans taking effect.
Subdivision (e) of section 165-1.3 provides a municipality with the ability to request a waiver of any non-statutory regulatory requirement relating to the content or timing of its comprehensive plan for youth development programs.
Subdivision (f) of section 165-1.3 allows OCFS to waive any non-statutory regulatory requirements related to the content or timing of a comprehensive plan for youth development programs where it is determined that the requirement will impose an undue burden or unreasonably impede a municipality’s ability to implement its comprehensive plan. OCFS may establish alternative requirements as a condition of receiving the waiver.
Section 165-1.4 provides rules for implementing the funding of youth development programs.
Subdivision (a) of section 165-1.4 provides that each municipality operating a youth development program is eligible for 100% state reimbursement of qualified expenditures, exclusive of federal funds and subject to the availability of youth development funds. This subdivision also establishes regulatory provisions for youth development funding regarding the following: eligibility, the distribution methodology, the establishment of a single municipal youth bureau by two or more municipalities, and the possible use of funds for statewide training and technical assistance.
Subdivision (b) of section 165-1.4 provides rules regarding reimbursable expenditures and claims for youth development programs.
Subdivision (c) of section 165-1.4 provides rules for instances in which two or more municipalities join together to establish, operate and maintain a municipal youth bureau.
Subdivision (d) of section 165-1.4 permits a municipality to include in its comprehensive plan for youth development programs the funding for a municipal youth bureau and one or more local youth bureaus that are approved by the municipality after April 1, 2013. It also provides that any youth bureau that was approved by OCFS on or before April 1, 2013 shall be an approved local youth bureau. The proposed regulations also provide for minimum requirements that pertain to the funding of local youth bureaus by a municipality.
Subdivision (e) of section 165-1.4 establishes limitations that OCFS may place on reimbursable expenditures and claims.
Subdivision (f) of section 165-1.4 permits OCFS to require municipalities receiving youth development funding to submit reports estimating expenditures.
Section 165-1.5 addresses the administration of youth development programs.
Subdivision (a) of section 165-1.5 prohibits discrimination in the provision of services or in employment of personnel by youth development programs.
Subdivision (b) of section 165-1.5 permits municipalities to enter into contracts in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations to effectuate youth development programs.
Subdivision (c) of section 165-1.5 establishes rules that are applicable to the administration of municipal youth bureaus, including requirements regarding the employment and responsibilities of an executive director or other designated person who is employed by the municipality; youth boards; youth board composition; and the powers, duties and responsibilities of youth boards for municipal youth bureaus.
Subdivision (d) of section 165-1.5 provides for rules regarding the establishment of local youth bureaus.
Subdivision (e) of section 165-1.5 requires a municipality receiving youth development funding to make its youth development program records available for examination or inspection upon the request of OCFS.
Subdivision (f) of section 165-1.5 requires municipalities to submit any statistical or other reports related to youth development programs that OCFS may require.
Final rule as compared with last published rule:
Nonsubstantive changes were made in sections 165-1.3(a) and 165-1.5(c)(1).
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Public Information Office, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 52 Washington Street, Rensselaer, New York 12144, (518) 473-7793, email: info@ocfs.ny.gov
Revised Regulatory Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Rural Area Flexibility Analysis and Job Impact Statement
Changes made to the last published rule does not necessitate revision to the previously published Regulatory Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Rural Area Flexibility Analysis and Job Impact Statement because the changes that were made to the rule do not affect the information provided in the previously published Regulatory Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Rural Area Flexibility Analysis and Job Impact Statement.
Initial Review of Rule
As a rule that requires a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2019, which is no later than the 3rd year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.
Assessment of Public Comment
The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) received comments from seven persons concerning its proposed regulations for youth development programs. Many of the comments centered on a concern that the importance of the youth bureaus in taking the lead on matters regarding youth development programs had been diminished in the proposed regulations. Several comments cited the importance of the role of the directors of youth bureaus as leaders of comprehensive planning for youth development.
1. Section 165-1.2(i) - Definition of “Comprehensive plan for youth development programs”. Three people submitted comments asking that the definition of the comprehensive plan for youth development programs be revised. The definition in the proposed regulations is: “Comprehensive plan for youth development programs shall mean the plan developed by a municipality, in consultation with the applicable municipal youth bureau, to offer youth development programs in accordance with section 420(1) of the Executive Law. The comprehensive plan for youth development programs shall be subject to the approval of the Office and shall be submitted to the Office by each municipality at such time and for such periods as the Office shall determine.”
The commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition does not acknowledge the centrality of youth bureaus in youth development. All three suggested changing the first sentence to: “Comprehensive plan for youth development programs shall mean the plan developed by a youth bureau on behalf of its municipality to promote youth development and offer youth development programs in accordance with section 420(1) of the Executive Law.”
Response: Executive Law § 420.1(c) requires the municipality to develop the comprehensive plan, in consultation with its youth bureau. The regulation reflects this statutory requirement. Executive Law § 420 also requires that the comprehensive plan for youth development programs be submitted as part of each county’s Child and Family Services Plan; such plan includes information about many service areas other than youth development, including child welfare and child care, and must be submitted by the county (i.e., municipality.) We might also note that, while under the previous law OCFS provided direct payments to specific youth development programs, funding for youth development programs is now directed to the municipality, not to the youth bureau or to specific youth development programs. Therefore, the municipality must maintain responsibility for determining an overall plan for its jurisdiction. The current definition reflects the language and intent of the law and as such OCFS will not be amending the definition.
2. Section 165-1.3(a) - Development of the comprehensive plan for youth development programs. Four commenters wrote asking for a change in the wording in this subdivision. Three of those indicated that they were concerned that the current wording here, and in other part of the regulations, could result in a diminishment of the influence of youth bureaus and youth bureau directors in the planning process for developing youth development program plans. They were specifically concerned that with the current language, youth bureau directors might lose the traditional leadership role they have had in youth development program planning. Three commenters asked that the first sentence be changed to, “To be considered for youth development funding, each municipality must ‘submit a comprehensive plan for youth development funding developed by its youth bureau, which documents consultation with all key stakeholders in addition to’ any documentation as may be required by the Office…” One additional commenter asked that OCFS add the word “must” in specifying that the youth bureau “must” be consulted by the municipality when developing its youth development plan.
Response: The regulatory language that OCFS has been asked to substitute for the currently proposed regulation would contravene the language of the Executive Law, which states that the municipality shall develop the comprehensive youth development program plan. OCFS finds that the concepts of community participation and consultation are captured in section 165-1.5(c)(2) of the regulations, which describes the role of youth boards. Section 165-1.5(c)(2) requires each youth bureau to have a board that is representative of the community, that includes key stakeholders, and that advises the municipality throughout the process of developing the comprehensive plan for youth development programs.
However, OCFS acknowledges and agrees with the concerns expressed about the desirability of providing a strong role for youth bureaus in the planning process. Although OCFS believes that the proposed regulations already address this, we are making a non-substantial change to clarify the requirement that a municipality consult with its youth bureau in developing its comprehensive plan for youth development programs. The sentence will now state, “To be considered for youth development funding, each municipality must consult with its applicable municipal youth bureau to develop a written comprehensive plan for youth development programs including any documentation as may be required by the Office…”
3. Section 165-1.3(b)(1) - Emphasis on municipalities with youth population of 20,000 or more. Two commenters expressed concern about the requirement that comprehensive plans for youth development programs must “describe the need in the municipality for youth development programs, and specify, at a minimum, how the municipality will address the need for youth development in villages, towns, and cities that have a youth population of 20,000 or more persons.” Both commenters suggested adding language to the paragraph, so that it would start, “describe the needs of all youth 0-20…” They explained that they thought such language would emphasize the intention to address the needs of all youth, not just those in larger jurisdictions.
Response: The current proposed regulations reflect the statutory requirement and use the same language as that used in the Executive Law pertaining to this subject. “Youth” is already defined in section 165-1.2(b) as any person under twenty-one years of age. Therefore, OCFS does not see the need for the addition of an age range in this part of the regulations. Furthermore, nothing precludes any municipality from including every part of its jurisdiction, including places with low population, in its youth development plan. For these reasons, there will be no change in this regulation.
4. Section 165-1.4(d)(2) - Limitation of 15% for local youth bureau administrative expenses. One commenter inquired about the statement: “No more than fifteen percent (15%) of the youth development funds that a municipality provides to a local youth bureau may be used for administrative functions performed by the local youth bureau,” asking three questions:
a. Is the 15% an overall administrative fee for all combined youth programs conducted by the youth bureau?
b. Can the local youth bureau request up to 15% for each program funded by OCFS?
c. Is the 15% included in the dollars funded to the program or is it in addition to the funding for a program?
Response: OCFS considered whether to change the proposed regulation to clarify the rule, but determined that there is no need to make any change. OCFS believes that the current language is clear. The limit of 15% applies to all funds that a municipality provides to a local youth bureau.
5. Section 165-1.5(c) - Requirements regarding the leadership of the municipal youth bureau. Six people provided comments expressing concern about the terminology in the section on staffing of municipal youth boards. As proposed by OCFS, section 165-1.5(c)(1) states, “Each municipal youth bureau must employ sufficient staff to implement its approved youth development programs. An executive director or other designated person must be designated by the municipality to maintain overall responsibility for its municipal youth bureau.” Five of the commenters all proposed the same language as a substitute: “Each municipal youth bureau must employ sufficient staff to develop and implement its comprehensive plan, including the administration of youth development programs. An executive director designated by the municipality must have sufficient time, training, expertise, and authority to fulfill the responsibilities of its municipal youth bureau.” Four of those five also suggested that the regulation continue on to state that, if a municipality encounters significant hardships in recruiting or training a fully-qualified county employee as executive director, it could seek a waiver to obtain permission to designate another county employee to fulfill the duties of youth bureau director. Some of these commenters expressed the concern that removing the designation of “director” would endanger the traditional role of the head of the youth bureau as a community leader who generates collaboration in planning strategies for youth development. There was concern expressed that some counties might assign someone who lacked expertise, time, or authority to perform the role effectively. OCFS also received one comment about this section that urged that the regulations make clear that the executive director or other designated person be a county employee.
Response: OCFS understands the expressed concerns. Under the proposed regulation, each county will have the flexibility to determine the title that best meets its needs. Nothing in this regulation precludes designating the head of the municipal youth bureau as “director” or “executive director.” OCFS believes that the proposed regulations implicitly require that municipal staff must direct the municipal youth board. However, OCFS agrees that the regulations should specify that the municipality must employ its own staff to direct the municipal youth board rather than contract out this work, and thus has added language to clarify this.
