TITLE 22. SOCIAL SERVICES

DEPARTMENT FOR AGING AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

Fast-Track Regulation

Title of Regulation: 22VAC30-100. Adult Protective Services (repealing 22VAC30-100-15).

Statutory Authority: §§ 51.5-131 and 51.5-148 of the Code of Virginia.

Public Hearing Information: No public hearing is currently scheduled.

Public Comment Deadline: October 7, 2026.

Effective Date: October 22, 2026.

Agency Contact: Paige L. McCleary, Division Director, Adult Protective Services, Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services, 8004 Franklin Farms Drive, Richmond, VA 23229, telephone (804) 662-7605, or email paige.mccleary@dars.virginia.gov.

Basis: Section 51.5-131 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the Commissioner of the Department of Aging and Rehabilitative Services to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Section 51.5-148 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the department to plan and oversee adult protective services in the Commonwealth.

Purpose: Adult protective services (APS) programs prevent and protect vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and enhance the independence of older adults and individuals with disabilities. This action supports public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring consistency and accuracy in the statutory and regulatory authorities governing the implementation and oversight of Virginia's APS program.

Rationale for Using Fast-Track Rulemaking Process: This action is expected to be noncontroversial and therefore appropriate for the fast-track rulemaking process because it does not change the list of mandated reporters required to report suspected adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation when acting in their professional capacities, which is still governed by § 63.2-1606 of the Code of Virginia, and it removes duplicative language, ensuring statute and the regulation remain clear and that there is reduced potential for confusion.

Substance: This action repeals 22VAC30-100-15, which is a comprehensive list of the professional staff that are required to report a suspicion that adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation has occurred when acting in their professional capacity. This action does not change the list of mandated reporters required to report suspected adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation when acting in their professional capacities, which is still governed by § 63.2-1606 of the Code of Virginia.

Issues: The primary advantage of this action for the public, the agency, and the Commonwealth is that it removes language that is redundant of the Code of Virginia. There are no disadvantages to the public, the agency, or the Commonwealth.

Department of Planning and Budget Economic Impact Analysis:

The Department of Planning and Budget (DPB) has analyzed the economic impact of this proposed regulation in accordance with § 2.2-4007.04 of the Code of Virginia and Executive Order 19. The analysis presented represents DPB's best estimate of the potential economic impacts as of the date of this analysis.¹

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. The Commissioner of the Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services (DARS) proposes to repeal 22VAC30-100-15.

Background. The term "mandated reporters" is defined in 22VAC30-100-10 as "persons identified in § 63.2-1606 of the Code of Virginia who are required to report to [adult protective services] APS when such persons have reason to suspect that an adult is abused, neglected, or exploited or is at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation." APS is defined as services provided by the local department of social services that are necessary to protect an adult as defined in § 63.2-1603 of the Code of Virginia from abuse, neglect, or exploitation. 22VAC30-100-15 is largely duplicative of the portion of § 63.2-1606 of the Code of Virginia that lists mandated reporters. The section starts with "Reports shall be made to the local department of social services or the State Department of Social Services Adult Protective Services Hotline forthwith by the following persons acting in their professional capacity upon their suspicion that adult abuse, neglect or exploitation has occurred:" and then lists eight categories of persons. However, there is one category in § 63.2-1606, "any person who engages in the practice of behavior analysis" that is not in 22VAC30-100-15. Chapter 766 of the 2022 Acts of Assembly added behavior analysists to § 63.2-1606, but 22VAC30-100-15 has not been amended to reflect the legislation. According to DARS, the repeal of this section would ensure the Virginia Administrative Code is kept current and does not contain provisions that are duplicative or potentially inconsistent with state law.

Estimated Benefits and Costs. 22VAC30-100-15 does not include a category of persons that has been added to the list of mandated reporters. When the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Administrative Code conflict, the Code of Virginia prevails. Thus, repealing 22VAC30-100-15 would not affect which persons are legally mandated reporters. On the other hand, readers of 22VAC30-100-15 and not the Code of Virginia currently would be misled concerning the identity of legally required mandated reporters. Thus, repealing 22VAC30-100-15 may be beneficial in that it would reduce the likelihood that some members of the public may be misled concerning the identity of legally required mandated reporters. Additionally, since the definition of mandated reporters in 22VAC30-100-10 references § 63.2-1606 of the Code of Virginia, readers of the regulation would know where to look to find the identity of legally mandated reporters.

Businesses and Other Entities Affected. Readers of the regulation could be affected as described above. In particular, persons who engage in the practice of behavior analysis may be affected in that it could be less likely that they would be misled into believing that they are not mandated reporters. The Code of Virginia requires DPB to assess whether an adverse impact may result from the proposed regulation.² An adverse impact is indicated if there is any increase in net cost or reduction in net benefit for any entity, even if the benefits exceed the costs for all entities combined.³ As the proposal neither increases costs nor reduces net revenue for any entity, no adverse impact is indicated.

Small Businesses⁴ Affected.⁵ The proposal does not adversely affect small businesses.

Localities⁶ Affected.⁷ The proposal neither disproportionally affects any particular localities nor affects costs for local governments.

Projected Impact on Employment. The proposal does not affect employment.

Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. The proposal does not affect the use and value of private property or real estate development costs.

_____________________________

¹ Section 2.2-4007.04 of the Code of Virginia requires that such economic impact analyses determine the public benefits and costs of the proposed amendments. Further the analysis should include but not be limited to: (1) the projected number of businesses or other entities to whom the proposed regulatory action would apply, (2) the identity of any localities and types of businesses or other entities particularly affected, (3) the projected number of persons and employment positions to be affected, (4) the projected costs to affected businesses or entities to implement or comply with the regulation, and (5) the impact on the use and value of private property.

² Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04 D: In the event this economic impact analysis reveals that the proposed regulation would have an adverse economic impact on businesses or would impose a significant adverse economic impact on a locality, business, or entity particularly affected, the Department of Planning and Budget shall advise the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules, the House Committee on Appropriations, and the Senate Committee on Finance. Statute does not define "adverse impact," state whether only Virginia entities should be considered, nor indicate whether an adverse impact results from regulatory requirements mandated by legislation.

³ Statute does not define "adverse impact," state whether only Virginia entities should be considered, nor indicate whether an adverse impact results from regulatory requirements mandated by legislation. As a result, DPB has adopted a definition of adverse impact that assesses changes in net costs and benefits for each affected Virginia entity that directly results from discretionary changes to the regulation.

⁴ Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04, small business is defined as "a business entity, including its affiliates, that (i) is independently owned and operated and (ii) employs fewer than 500 full-time employees or has gross annual sales of less than $6 million."

⁵ If the proposed regulatory action may have an adverse effect on small businesses, § 2.2-4007.04 requires that such economic impact analyses include: (1) an identification and estimate of the number of small businesses subject to the proposed regulation, (2) the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs required for small businesses to comply with the proposed regulation, including the type of professional skills necessary for preparing required reports and other documents, (3) a statement of the probable effect of the proposed regulation on affected small businesses, and (4) a description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the proposed regulation. Additionally, pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, if there is a finding that a proposed regulation may have an adverse impact on small business, the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules shall be notified.

⁶ "Locality" can refer to either local governments or the locations in the Commonwealth where the activities relevant to the regulatory change are most likely to occur.

⁷ Section 2.2-4007.04 defines "particularly affected" as bearing disproportionate material impact.

Agency Response to Economic Impact Analysis: The Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services concurs with the economic impact analysis prepared by the Department of Planning and Budget.

Summary:

Following a periodic review, the action repeals 22VAC30-100-15, Mandated reporters, which is redundant to § 63.2-1606 of the Code of Virginia. This action does not change the statutory list of persons required to report suspected adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation when acting in their professional capacities.

22VAC30-100-15. Mandated reporters. (Repealed.)

Reports shall be made forthwith by the following persons acting in their professional capacity upon their suspicion that adult abuse, neglect or exploitation has occurred:

1. Any person licensed, certified, or registered by health regulatory boards listed in § 54.1-2503 of the Code of Virginia, with the exception of persons licensed by the Board of Veterinary Medicine;

2. Any mental health services provider as defined in § 54.1-2400.1 of the Code of Virginia;

3. Any emergency medical services personnel certified by the Board of Health pursuant to § 32.1-111.5 of the Code of Virginia, unless such personnel immediately reports the suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation directly to the attending physician at the hospital to which the adult is transported, who shall make such report forthwith;

4. Any guardian or conservator of an adult;

5. Any person employed by or contracted with a public or private agency or facility and working with adults in an administrative, supportive or direct care capacity;

6. Any person providing full, intermittent or occasional care to an adult for compensation including, but not limited to, companion, chore, homemaker, and personal care workers;

7. Any law-enforcement officer; and

8. Medical facilities inspectors of the Department of Health. However, medical facilities inspectors are exempt from reporting suspected abuse immediately while conducting federal inspection surveys in accordance with Title XVIII (§ 1846) and Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended, of certified nursing facilities as defined in § 32.1-123 of the Code of Virginia. Findings of adult abuse, neglect or exploitation by a medical facilities inspector shall be made known to adult protective services after the exit conference at the facility so that the local department can provide follow up to facility residents who may be at risk of further abuse, neglect or exploitation.