Dear Sir or Madam:

 I am writing as the Director of Campbell County Department of Social Services to express concerns in regard to the revisions to the Adult Protective Services Regulation, 22VAC40-700, now posted in the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall for public comment. I have concerns related to the sections pertaining to notifications to alleged “perpetrators” and the right of “perpetrators” to request a review of the local agency’s investigative findings. The proposed regulation mistakenly implies that the APS assessment is a criminal or punitive process. A summary about APS and concerns about the proposed regulation is below:

• The history and mission of Adult Protective Services (APS) applies casework practices to situations involving vulnerable adults who are at risk of harm and who need services to prevent or remove the risk. APS social workers assess the needs of adults and help to determine services (arranging for home based care, transportation, home delivered meals, and other community and social supports).

•  Findings for investigations are focused on the need for services for the adult: unfounded, needs  protective services and accepts, needs protective services and refuses, or need for protective services no longer exists.

• When the living situation for the adult is not a private home, licensing officials and administrators are informed about the referrals and the findings. Licensing officials and administrators conduct their own investigations. APS workers do not make licensing for personnel decisions.

• Section C of 63.2-105 requires that APS “refer any appropriate matter, all relevant documentation to the appropriate licensing, regulatory, or legal authority for administrative action or criminal investigation.”

• Over the years, criminal legal terms, such as investigation, preponderance of evidence, and perpetrator have been injected into guidance policy. The new regulation introduces “perpetrator” into regulation for the first time and then establishes the right to review. The casework mission of APS is being confused and jeopardized by this change.

•  The proposed regulation does not recognize that in APS cases of self-neglect, in which the “victim” is also the “perpetrator”, comprises more than 50% of APS situations.

• The proposed regulation will result in unintended consequences with “perpetrators” having access to presently confidential information. There may be an increase in risk for vulnerable adults, especially those adults who live with and/or are dependent upon the “perpetrators”.

• Current policy allows for written statements from anyone to be included in the APS record. Anyone can read information about himself in a record.

• A fiscal impact analysis conducted by the League in 2011 indicates a much greater impact than that noted by Virginia Department of Social Services. The League conducted a survey of local agencies and determined a state wide annual cost of $318,214.

 The new APS regulation changes the mission of APS from a casework focus of helping vulnerable adults to a focus upon “perpetrators”. Instead of going in a direction of further “criminalizing” Adult Protective Services, it is recommended that “perpetrators” and other like terms be removed from policy guidance and regulation. The function of Adult Protective Services can be maintained through policy and regulation emphasis upon the APS worker’s role of assessment of the need for services for vulnerable adults and the requirement for referral to licensing, regulatory and legal authorities. Vulnerable adults can live safely in their homes and in facilities with the partnership functions of APS workers and those with legal, regulatory, and personnel authority.

 Sincerely,

 Richard M. Verilla

Director