The proposed regulations make the necessary conforming changes to Subparts 165-1, 182-1 and 182-2 of the Title 9 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR). Subpart 165-1 governs state funding to municipalities for youth development programs and RHY programs; Subpart 182-1 sets forth the regulatory standards for short-term RHY programs such as RHY shelters, and Subpart 182-2 sets forth the regulatory standards for longer-term transitional independent living support programs (TILSP) that serve homeless youth.

The proposed regulations amend section 165-1.3 of Subpart 165-1 to require municipalities that seek RHY funding from the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) to include in their required RHY plans what, if any, of the new statutorily specified options they choose to implement. These options include extending how long RHY youth may stay in residential RHY programs under certain circumstances, raising the maximum permissible age of homeless youth who may be served by RHY programs from 21 to 24 years of age, and allowing homeless youth under 16 years of age to be served by a TILSP.

The proposed regulations also make necessary conforming changes to various sections of Subparts 182-1 and 182-2 of Title 9 NYCRR including: modifying the name and definition of approved runaway programs; adding the definition of homeless young adult; and eliminating the requirement that non-residential RHY programs be approved by OCFS. The proposed regulations also include the necessary conforming changes to require RHY programs to notify the applicable Local Department of Social Services (LDSS) if a youth is believed to be a destitute child; and to inform applicable youth of their right to re-enter foster care and refer them to the LDSS, upon request. The regulations also implement the new statutory provisions requiring that any RHY residential program, to include a TILSP, that serves youth under 18 years of age, or that is contained in a municipality’s RHY plan must be certified by OCFS and, if certified on or after January 1, 2018, must be operated by an authorized agency. In addition, the proposed regulations make conforming changes to reflect the ability of RHY programs to provide those expanded services that a municipality has opted to include in its RHY plan.

Finally, the proposed regulations permit any residential RHY program that is not contained in any municipality’s RHY plan to apply to OCFS for a variance related to the age of youth served or the length of time youth may remain in such program under the same circumstances applicable to municipalities.

Changes made to the last published rule do not necessitate revisions to the previously published Regulatory Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Rural Area Flexibility Analysis and Job Impact Statement.

As a rule that requires a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2021, which is no later than the 3rd year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.

The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) provided an opportunity for public comment on proposed regulations regarding options for municipalities to expand services that are offered to runaway and homeless youth (RHY). OCFS received comments from one legal services organization. The following is a summary of the comments and the response of OCFS to each comment received.

Comment 1: The first comment suggested revising section 165-1.3(b)(6) to move the wording “age fourteen or older” to the part of the regulation that refers only to periods of 60 days and to add the word “initial” before the text where periods of lengths of stay are discussed.

Response: OCFS considered this comment and made the change suggested regarding the positioning of the wording “age fourteen or older” as it clarifies the option provided to municipalities under the Executive Law. OCFS did not add the word “initial” as recommended as the relevant language in the section mirrors the statutory language and is further addressed under section 182-1.9(d)(5).

Comment 2: With respect to section 182-1.2(c) and the definition of runaway and homeless youth crisis services program, the commenter suggested specifying the applicable Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) regulations in order to provide clearer guidance to the localities and programs that must adhere to them.

Response: OCFS considered the comment and did not make the suggested change as the text as written mirrors the statutory language and the applicable OTDA regulations may change over time.

Comment 3: With respect to section 182-1.2(k), the commenter noted that this subdivision contains a typographical error in paragraph (2).

Response: OCFS agreed and made this change.

Comment 4: With respect to section 182-1.4, the commenter noted that this section generally describes approval of non-residential RHY crisis services programs and certification of residential RHY crisis services programs and suggested that notification should also be provided to the applicants, at minimum for applicants to operate residential programs, who submit their applications directly to OCFS.

Response: OCFS considered the comment and did not make the suggested change, as residential programs will receive notice of the approval of their application upon certification.

Comment 5: With respect to section 182-1.9(d)(2), the commenter suggested adding the word “initial” before each period of stay described in this section.

Response: OCFS considered this comment and did not make the suggested change, as the language in this section mirrors the statutory language, and is further addressed under section 182-1.9(d)(5).

Comment 6: With respect to section 182-1.9(j), the commenter suggested maintaining consistency with the amendments to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (d) by amending paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) to change 30 days to the maximum length of stay authorized under subdivision (d) of this section.

Response: OCFS agreed to this conforming change and amended section 182-1.9(j) as suggested.

Comment 7: With respect to section 182-1.15, the commenter suggested paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) be amended to refer to the applicable maximum length of stay period set forth in paragraph (2) instead of paragraph (3) of the subdivision. The commenter also suggested that paragraph (6) would be clarified by inserting a cross reference to the applicable paragraph of subdivision (d) that references the maximum length of stay.

Response: OCFS considered the first comment and disagreed that section 182-1.15(c)(5) erroneously refers to paragraph (3). Therefore, OCFS did not make the suggested change. However, OCFS did include a reference to subdivision (3) in paragraph (6) of this subdivision.

Comment 8: The commenter noted that section 182-2.2(k) contained a typographical error in paragraph (2).

Response: OCFS agreed with the comment and corrected this.

Comment 9: With respect to section 182-2.4, the commenter suggested that this section be revised to clarify that applicants of non-residential programs should submit their applications to municipalities similar to the provisions in section 182-1.4.

Response: OCFS agreed with this comment and made the suggested change.

Comment 10: With respect to section 182-2.4, the commenter noted that Subpart 182-2 appears to be silent as to residential programs receiving notification of decisions and suggested amending subdivision (e) of this section to include OCFS notifying applicants of the decision.

Response: OCFS considered this comment and did not make the suggested change, as RHY residential programs will receive notification upon certification.

Comment 11: The commenter noted that section 182-2.8(a) contains a typographical error.

Response: OCFS agreed with this comment and made the suggested change.

Comment 12: The commenter noted that section 182-2.17 contains a typographical error.

Response: OCFS agreed with this comment and made the suggested change.