Meeting Summary SB15-109 Task Group August 11, 2015 Task Group Members in attendance: Mindy Kemp, Randy Kuykendall, Lori Thompson, Heidi Prentup, Darla Stuart, Scott Storey, Nancy Sharpe, Anne Patton, David Ervin, Kasey Daniel, Jennifer Waller Task Group Members attending by conference call: Jennifer Kelly, Vickie Clark Also attending: Subject Matter Expert Peggy Rogers (APS), and 11 members of the public The meeting was opened by Mindy Kemp at 9:08. After re-introduction of the Task Group members, Mindy and other task force members offered and agreed upon the following “ground rules” in order for the group’s meetings to run smoothly:     

One person talking at a time Being concise as possible (limited time) Participating with feedback on agenda and discussion Speak up so conference callers can hear, and identify yourself Ask the conference callers for their input from time to time

Mindy also suggested that a list be developed by Task Group members identifying their proxies in the event the member is unable to attend a meeting. The group agreed and the list of designated proxies is contained at the end of this summary. Mindy explained the first order of business is to “brainstorm” what information will be needed to make the recommendations required of this Task Group, and after group discussion the following points were noted:      

We need to know what current expenditures are, for all authorities conducting investigations. We need to identify the gap between what is currently being funded and what the costs actually are (we need to be driving to costs). Costs need to be itemized so we know what is included. Since SB109 is a criminal statute but all reports must be shared with APS, it will be law enforcement and APS that bears the brunt of increased reporting/increased costs. Besides the cost factors, investigation takes different forms within different authorities. It is unclear what is investigated by whom and when. Definitions, procedures and participants need to be clarified. Costs at some point should include training since many people who will be involved in investigations need to learn how to work with the I/DD population effectively (especially the first responders and law enforcement).

The group agreed that because of the number of authorities, statutes, systems, definitions, and protocols involved in investigations, some of the participants don’t understand who does what, when – and it would be very helpful to have a visual of some kind showing the role of various groups in

investigations. Then numbers of reports and numbers of investigations could be attached to the visual, perhaps both historically and projected, and costs tied to those numbers. Darla mentioned she had put together a spreadsheet identifying groups involved in investigations, and she will share the information with Peg so it can be updated and brought to the next Task Group meeting. Peg requested data regarding the number of reports and investigations from CCBs and CDPHE, to help in estimating future activity. Scott made the point that the fact the Task Group is required to make recommendations regarding changes to the statute is recognition that these kinds of discussions did not take place before the law was passed. It is our charge to look at how to make the statute better and go back to the legislature with those recommendations. Some of the task group’s members expressed the opinion that our recommendations should focus on the protocols for how this legislation will be implemented and identify areas that are not working and where the system is working well. Other discussions took place around the following issues:  We should also look at what changes are coming down the line – the systems may look very different in the future.  At present, there is no statutory authority for CCBs to do investigations.  Some of the rural counties simply do not have the infrastructure, budgets, or personnel.  Mandatory reporting is not taking place by the medical profession – they don’t report, or they report to the potential perpetrator.  Financial institutions have little way to determine whether an individual is intellectually or developmentally disabled. Peg handed out definitions of mistreatment and noted that the APS and criminal definitions are statutory definitions, but the I/DD definitions are from rule. This is an area that needs to be corrected. Scott cautioned about changing criminal definitions that have been carefully worded to fit legal requirements – and have already been litigated. Peg reported that investigations into mistreatment of individuals with I/DD clients are not only conducted by CCBs. APS investigates reports of mistreatment against individuals with I/DD and about 8% of APS reports concern an individual with I/DD. Out of 1,300 reports last year, 1,000 are living in the community, not in a facility. Mindy noted the impact of Mandatory Reporting on APS was estimated to be a 15% increase in reports but in fact in Fiscal Year 2014-15 reports increased statewide to APS by about 41%. There was consensus that we can get the data, but it will take a while. The question was raised about how much it costs to conduct a typical investigation. The response was that there is no such thing as a typical investigation. The issue was raised that communication issues can create greater difficulty when investigating an I/DD report compared to a typical APS report. Law enforcement is not presently equipped to handle these investigations effectively, and needs a great deal of training, within realistic timelines. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Action items:    

Lori will provide a flow chart showing how and where a client enters the I/DD system. Jennifer K can provide a diagram of protocols for 7 or 8 CCBs. Stefanie Norred has information about overlapping investigations: what’s working and how it works as well as where the gaps are Darla will provide Peg with a systems spreadsheet for updating

Designated Proxies: Committee Member Scott Storey Mindy Kemp Randy Kuykendall Darla Stuart Nancy Sharpe Jenifer Waller David Ervin

Proxy Jane Walsh Peg Rogers Michelle Reese Jean Benfield Gini Pingenot Melanie Layton Stefanie Norred

Proxy email address [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]