Category Archives: Direct Care Professionals/Home Care

Seattle Times “Opinion”

I want to be hopeful but am afraid that nothing will change.  Even though The Seattle Times published an article by Maureen O’Hagan entitled ” State ignoring abuse at group homes “ and The Seattle Times published the editorial “DSHS must investigate alleged abuse at group homes for the disabled” my hopes of reform fade.  We hear that The Arc – Washington State will be advocating with legislators on this.  The Arc-Washington writes “The basis of the problem lies with DSHS. It takes weeks or months for them to respond to reports of abuse and often nothing happens. The Governor proposes to add funding for more investigators.”

This is just “talk” and will amount to “no action” from The Arc, Disability Rights Washington, Washington State Developmental Disabilities Council and other agencies which receive public funds to advocate for this population.  The history is that they use these funds to discriminate our most vulnerable.   In the name of deinstitutionalization these groups have advocated for community inclusion.  What these groups do not understand is that many of these same people already lived in a community – it may have been a different type of community than what the people who run these organizations may choose to live in,  but it is a community for the people who find it supportive, safe and stable.

The mis-placed and misguided advocacy of these groups is also the basis of this problem.  I know that I am not the only one who has attempted to educate these advocacy groups on the issues of unsafe conditions in these group homes or issues of safety and stability.  These groups have not wanted to hear or acknowledge that there were problems.  They wanted to see that moving people from stable and safe supportive communities to individual homes scattered far from their friends and families to be “included” in community was an experiment that was succeeding. They wanted to see “inclusion” and “integration” work.  I do too – the difference is that I see inclusion as being part of the community – community meaning participating, contributing and belonging.  I believe each person can define what that community is to them and they can make a choice.  The misguided advocates do not allow people to make this choice and have defined “community” to mean something else.  Many times the “community” these misguided advocates force upon people does not lead to “inclusion” but to  ISOLATION and IMPRISONMENT.

This experiment failed – many have been harmed or killed.  It’s time to stop this experiment on unsuspecting people. How many of these people provided “informed consent” to this social experiment?

Where is the advocacy for improved oversight, better staffing levels, better pay for caregivers?  These are critical to improving care, safety and stability for all.  Yes, we need investigations but investigations without action will do nothing except waste more money and cause more harm.

 

 

Stickin’ my neck out – Part 1

I will have to keep repeating myself and trying to reach as many people as I can with the hopes that you all start to ask the same questions that I have been asking.

Given the illogical data from the Division of Developmental Disabilities which almost all the puppet DD Advocacy groups use as truth,  I had to ask where the data came from.  No one from The Arc (either Washington or King County), the Developmental Disabilities Council or Disability Rights Washington could answer my question with anything but “that is what DDD tells us and we don’t question them.”

Well, I do question them because their data just does not make sense.  The more I look into their “research” and data, the more I see that they give extremely misleading information to base legislative policies on. They manipulate good data into nonsense.  Some reports hailed as fact do not draw conclusions from the  researched data but are  manipulated to fit the agenda which as become truth.  These reports, which could be beneficial if the conclusions actually came from the data, are in fact misleading at best.    I  am continually amazed at their presentations regarding their misleading data (specifics below) and the fact that many legislators rely on their information and believe they are supplying full and correct information.  To question them is suspect.  I know – I’m suspect.  That’s okay though because it may help to open some eyes.

Looking through this blog you will find much research and many questions – none have been answered by DDD yet I have been chastised for asking and criticized  for being too generalized in my accusations against DSHS and for not giving resources.   See the message which Senator Adam Kline sent to me:

From: Kline, Sen. Adam [mailto:Adam.Kline@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:57 AM
To: Cheryl Felak
Subject: RE: DDD Budget Errors and Missing Data

 

Ms. Felak,

Please be more specific.  Your frequent accusations against DSHS are ineffective so long as you state them solely in generalities, and do not take responsibility for researching and stating the facts as you believe they should be stated.  These criticisms have the effect of increasing the heat without shedding any light.

I have at least these three questions.  Please answer them in sequence, and in detail. 

First: What data are you referring to? 

Second: As to those DSHS statements, what part(s) of it is/are inaccurate?  What objective evidence do you have of the inaccuracy?

Third: For each inaccurate statement, what is the true data that should replace it?  What objective evidence do you have for the replacement?

I look forward to a conversation based on information, rather than rhetoric and accusation.

Adam Kline

It is clear that Senator Kline did not read anything that I had sent to him  or maybe he didn’t understand what I sent to him.   This is a shame since he has been one of the major players in creating the continued crisis for our citizens with developmental disabilities yet is hailed as a hero by the very people who he is hurting.  This just does not make sense.  Is everyone brainwashed?

I had spoken with Scott Livengood of Alpha Supported Living and the Legislative  Advocate for Community Residential Services Association, regarding increasing wages to promote stability and sustainability in our community residential settings .  I supplied Mr. Livengood with the Certified Cost Reports from the Supported Living Agencies and data regarding costs and direct care.  It is obvious from Mr. Livengood’s response that he has not interest in working together to look at solutions to this critical issue.

From: Scott Livengood [mailto:Livengood@alphasls.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 1:20 PM
To: Cheryl Felak; chigman@gopsrs.org; melissajohnson@att.net
Cc: sue@arcwa.org; diana@arcwa.org
Subject: RE: Cmmunity Residential Services Association

 

Cheryl,

 

Thank you for your interest in trying to direct support to increase pay and stability for the dedicated direct support staff in community programs.  It would be great to have the full advocacy community lending their voice to stabilize, if not increase, the funding for community programs, rather than continue to cut the funding for staff compensation.  Why continue to target employees compensated at the lowest level in the range of residential settings?

 

With regard to the data you present, I wanted to make some corrections.  It is important to correct these inaccurate figures since one of the reasons that we continue to face cuts is because individuals and organizations present data that has been either incorrectly calculated or misrepresented to somehow convey that community programs are more expensive, therefore being overfunded.  By presenting reports that state community programs are expensive, it sends the message to legislators that we should be cut.  This is part of the reason why we are in this crisis.  

He also wrote:

Cheryl,

 

I assume people have chosen not to respond to your repeated emails and questions because, despite any answers provided, data compiled, or the numerous reports presented by DDD and outside consultants over the years, your consistent approach is to distort and manipulate the data. You choose to do this because you feel you understand the funding mechanisms and support systems in both community supported living and the RHC’s, and it supports your position to permanently maintain RHC services.  It does not seem to matter what information or data is provided to you, as you manipulate the data to communicate that community residential settings are as, if not more expensive than RHC’s.  Your lack of knowledge and understanding of services and funding is glaringly apparent in one report that you posted in which you claim that the “Cost correct for Resident Acuity” is over $850 per person for the Arc of King County, while you list the RHC costs at or below $200.  I fully understand that you are the parent of a person that resides within an RHC, and that you believe you are advocating for all people who experience an intellectual or developmental disability to have access to a continuum of care.  However, your approach plays as one-sided, is immensely inaccurate, slants towards de-valuing community residential services, and does not support a continuum of care.

 

By continuing to adjust data and inflate figures, you send the message to state personnel and legislators that community services are over-funded. You consistently take this stance despite the fact that funding has been cut twice in the last three years, outside consultant reports have stated that community services are under-funded, and the Governor’s current budget proposal contains an additional reduction of over $1 per hour for community residential services.  Your continued efforts on a daily basis to distort the truth and inflate the data to present community services as more expensive sends the erroneous and destructive message to decision-makers that services can be further cut.  You are playing a dangerous role in your efforts and as such, I ask if you are even aware that your efforts will lead to further erosion of community services for people with developmental disabilities and will have grave and serious impacts upon those individuals who currently live independently in the community with community residential supports?  You have stated that you are for a continuum of care, but your actions speak loudly that you want community services to be cut to a point that survival is not possible. I do not believe that you fully comprehend the consequences of your actions – while you advocate for the services you believe your child requires, you are simultaneously advocating to destroy those services that 4,000 other individuals with ID/DD depend upon daily. 

Mr. Livengood points out one major problem – the reports and data used over and over again by DSHS – they are not complete nor accurate.  I question them.  I hope others start to question them too – they are not logical.

Mr Livengood is very incorrect in other assumptions that he makes in the above letter to me but it is clear to me that I hit a nerve with him – he believes I am attacking his livelyhood – far from it.  I support community homes and hope to make them more stable and safe for those who need those services.  I would think that the Executive Director of a Supported Living Agency would also strive for that.  I have never said that community living is more expensive – I have said that for those with higher support needs, community living is more expensive for those people.  This is a fact and is well documented when looking at the cost reports that each agency submits to the  State.

I can say though, that from researching through all the Certified Cost Reports and visiting homes and neighborhoods,  Alpha Supported Living has a higher standard, provides more services, keeps their homes in better shape than most every other agency.  Alpha Supported Living provides a care for each home for resident transportation and has fundraising to pay for these services which are not provided for by the state.    Alpha Supported living is an agency to be looked at as a standard to strive for.

Misleading data will be in part 2

DD Systems Task Force – Stacked panel

Tomorrow is the second meeting of the DD Systems Task Force in Washington State.  This task force was created from legislation SSB 5459 in 2011 which closed one of our states Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs)  and  denied access to services for those under 21.

Agenda for September 6, 2012 meeting

SSB5459 Overview

This task force is faced with the task of reporting to the legislature in December 1, 2012 and they are just now getting underway.  This tack seems overwhelming to me.

I would love to attend this meeting but I work.  As in most every other decision that has been made regarding the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, the decision are made by those who do not work or live with these individuals.  The decision makers are people who work in other areas of DD advocacy and part of their job is to go to these meetings and hearings.  They are paid to attend, have their travel expenses paid and probably a per diem.  The advocates who are the experts in caring for our most vulnerable citizens and who understand the intense support needs are either busy caring for their loved ones or work in other jobs – jobs that do not allow them the freedom to travel to Olympia to be involved in advocating for our most vulnerable.

This imbalance contributes to our crisis situation.  On this panel, there is one person who is not a paid advocate.  She has to pay her own way to these meetings and she has to travel across the state.  I believe all others are able to attend as part of their jobs.  Is this really an evenly balanced membership?

Since I will be working at my nursing job tomorrow, I am unable to attend.  I have submitted the following letter and have attached the charts which illustrate the issues which I wish to address.  I do hope that the task force members have a chance to review this information and ask me for any clarification if needed.  I will be anxious to hear how the meeting goes tomorrow.l

 

September, 4, 2012

Dear DD Service System Task Force,

 

I am unable to attend the meeting on September 6 but would like to submit the following comments and concerns regarding the future use of our Residential Habilitation Centers. I am an advocate for a continuum of care which means that I believe we need to have a place for safe, stable, sustainable and cost effective support for all levels of support care needs of our most vulnerable citizens. A continuum of care means that I advocate for all levels – from the most intensive support care needs at the RHC to community homes to family homes. We cannot exclude one group based on support needs or age but must find a way to address the spectrum of needs and a continuum of care system does just that.

 

The main two issues that I would like to address are that of acuity (support needs) and age of clients.

Acuity (Support Needs)

1.   The report entitled “Assessment Findings for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served in Residential Habilitation Centers and Community Settings” has some excellent information in it. The problem with this report is that the authors wrote “key findings” which are not supported by the data in the report. They also incorrectly combined the three environments which were studied and into two environments to report the “key findings.” My comments and concerns regarding this report which is often referenced are attached. In addition I have attached charts which look at the data in this report. From these charts, it is clear to see that the support needs of the those in the RHC are significantly higher than those in community or “other” residential settings.

 

2.   In reviewing the Certified Residential Providers Cost Reports submitted each year to the Division of Developmental Disabilities I have made a graph of the acuities and costs from these reports. It is clearly evident that the acuities (as reported as resident hours per day) in the community homes are much lower than the acuities of the residents in the RHCs. One reason for this is the number of residents who have high acuity levels in 3 or more assessed areas of support.

When measuring acuity in 7 areas of care, there is a major difference between a person who has high acuity in 1 area and low in 6 areas and a person who scores high in multiple acuity areas. This fact is not addressed in the report by Lucenko and He but by looking at the data they present I have been able to get a rough estimate of the number of residents who rank high in 3 or more areas. The results of this are staggering and one can see the significant difference between the residents in the RHC and the residents in community residential settings.

Each additional area in which a resident scores “high” can exponentially increase the level of support care needs for that individual. Yes, there are many who live in the community who score “high” on at least one area assessed but for those who score “high” in 3 or more assessed areas, their care may be best addressed in the RHC – a facility which provides more stable and sustainable care and is cost effective for these high support needs individuals.

3.   As the acuity levels increase, the cost of care to safely care for these individuals increases too. This fact is evident in the information that the providers submit to DDD for reimbursement. Please see the attached information entitled “Cost of Care for 2011 for DD Task Force.” It documents the cost and the reported acuity level of the residents in each facility.

4. The increased cost of care is documented in the Support Intensity Scales data. This is measured in the section entitled “Exceptional Support Needs”. Graph on attached document.

Age of Clients

I am greatly disturbed by SSB5459 which passed into State Law discrimination against our youth who may need the level of support services only provided in the RHCs. I can find no mention of limiting support services by age in either the US DD Act or the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead which would support such discrimination.

In regards to the Federal Home and Community Based Service Waivers, these are set up to allow for choice to not live in an institution and to promote community care. The states may have choices to limit waivers to certain groups or populations but I do not see information from CMS which allows a state to deny those under 21 the supports services needed in the ICF/ID or that the ICF/ID has a federal age requirement for admission. (See attached document regarding ICF/ID services) When there are no community alternatives for one under 21 who may need these support services and the person is denied long term admission to the RHC, where is this person supposed to go? The issue is not if these services are available, they are – the issue is denying these services to those under 21 only due to the fact of this person’s age.

Former Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services, Susan Dreyfus, responded to my question regarding this issue with “they still have a choice – they can send their child out of state.” Why, when we have the appropriate services right here in our state would we choose to send our children to other states to receive the same service?

Below are some excerpts from the HCBS Waiver applications and contracts which refer to choice. These individuals have been assessed to have the level of care support needs of the RHC but are not given the choice to utilize those services.

Currently, I am working with a family who has an 18 year old boy at Fircrest. They family has requested that he receive long term placement at Fircrest given his intense support care needs and having no safe alternative in a community setting for him. He had been on the CIIBS waiver until his recent short term admission for crisis care at Fircrest. The family has looked at over 8 community placements and with each setting there would be significant problems regarding safety for this individual. These issues range from close proximity to busy streets (this boy has a history of elopement and is very fast and strong) to high staffing turnover (up to rates of 49% in community residential homes) which would significantly put this young man at risk given the fact that he is non-verbal, aggressive, has PICA, does not sleep through the night and has to be moving constantly.

Since being on a short term stay at Fircrest, this boy has improved with his sleep patterns and behavior and has met the short term goals. The reason he has met these goals is because he has the support staff that he needs to be successful at Fircrest. This issue of support needs is often misunderstood. This does not mean that now this boy is “cured” and he can return to his old environment and he will maintain the skills that he has accomplished at Fircrest. This means that in order to be successful, he needs to have these supports in place. Without these supports his life is at risk.

I would really like to emphasize this fact of support needs. These individuals are not individuals who will learn a skill then go on their way. These are individuals who will need to have these supports throughout their lives. It is the level of supports which are stable and sustainable that enables these individuals to be successful and contributing members of our community. Removing these supports puts their lives at risk.

Please take into consideration these issues when looking at the DD System of supports and the role of the RHC in that system. I believe that the RHC is a critical part of the continuum of care service model which is a model that can best serve ALL citizens with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

 

Thank you,

Cheryl Felak, RN, BSN

Seattle, WA

 

 

 

This means that each resident, on average, scores high in 3.6 (RHC), 2.1 (Community)  and 1.6 (Other) areas assessed.  Each additional “high” score greatly increases the overall support needs of that client.  These areas need to be looked at as a “whole” and from this picture, it is clear that on a “whole”, the average RHC resident has a significantly higher support need than the average community or “other” resident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These “exceptional needs” score only mean that for the same score assessed, these are exceptional and the cost of care for these individuals will run higher than a person without this “exceptional needs” score.  One can see that the residents in the RHC have higher “exceptional needs” than those in community or other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information for the chart above is taken from Support Intensity Scale

 

 

Works Cited

Barbara A. Lucenko, P. a. (2011). Assessment Findings for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served in Residential Habilitation Centers and Community Settings. Department of Social and Health Services. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/5/36.pdf

Support Intensity Scale. (n.d.). Retrieved from American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: http://www.siswebsite.org/cs/SISOnline

 

 

 

 

Developmental Disabilities Council, Disability Rights Washington and The Arc – Pay attention to the new coalitions

I am buoyed by the increasing number of citizens who are reaching out and contacting me regarding the issues of caring for our loved ones with intellectual disabilities.  Many of us who care for those with more profound disabilities or those with higher support needs are quite frequently left out of the discussions, left out of stakeholder meetings, left out of decision making processes that affect us.

Why?  Because the above mentioned agencies and those who are connected with them do not follow the federal law and guidelines as outlined in the US DD Act or the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead.  But with increasing opportunities for those in the community to speak out about their needs and to be adequately informed of issues and participate in decision making processes that affect them, the above agencies will have to start listening to those who they supposedly advocate for.

Not once has anyone from the above agencies proven me wrong with the data I have presented.  Not once has a person looked at it and questioned me about it.  Until I am proven wrong through investigations and discussions, I believe I am on the right track.  I believe that because rather than being proven wrong with facts, executives and employees of the above agencies have only attacked me personally – no facts, no data  - only personal assaults which are unrelated to the facts that I have shared.

With new coalitions forming outside the Arc monopoly, I believe advocates for people with intellectual disabilities will start to look different.  Rather than attacking one segment of the population and using them as scapegoats for the crisis, we will be looking at a continuum of care model and looking at how best to serve ALL people with intellectual disabilities in a safe and quality driven, cost effective manner which is accountable to the public.

 

So far this has not happened.

 

 

Autistic Man walks away from drunk caretaker

This story exemplifies some of my worst fears.

Answers sought after autistic man walks away from drunk caretaker.

I hate to take advantage of situations which have caused harm to others but in this case, I must point out that this is the very issue which I am trying to advocate against.  I have been trying to have the so-called DD Advocates (The Arc, Disability Rights Washington, the Washington State Developmental Disabilities Council, the Community Residential Service Associates and others) look at the facts more accurately.  They refuse.  Maybe more stories such as this will help open their eyes to what they are really advocating for with regards to our most vulnerable citizens with the highest support needs.  They are not advocating for safe, quality, cost effective care but for substandard and negligent care.  Rather than advocating for the vendors, it is time they really advocated for our citizens in need.

Here is my post to the KOMO News story:

As a healthcare provider, parent of a child with intense support needs and advocate for our most vulnerable citizens, this story more than sickens me. I am appalled at the care, lack of oversight and more that is reported in this story and am so thankful that this man was found and will hopefully now be cared for in a caring, safe, healthy and humane environment for him.

I’m so afraid that we will hear more and more about abuses such as this one. The Arc, Disability Rights Washington and even the Washington State Developmental Disabilities Council all oppose any type of congregate care for our most vulnerable citizens – stating that all citizens can be safely cared for in community settings for less cost. The only way to have it cost less than a congregate care community is to endorse negligent care such as this type of care.

With staffing turnover rates of up to 45% in these community settings, there is no stability or sustainability and I wonder about the level of training and lack of back up support for the staff and residents. To me, this situation is a time bomb ready to go off at any moment.

This is so unfortunate since the so-called DD advocates will not address the facts about support care levels and safe care. They support the vendors, such as Service Alternatives rather than our loved ones.

I support a continuum of care model – a model which is based on the assessed needs and choices of the person and their family/guardian. This model includes the Residential Habilitation Center (Fircrest, Yakima Valley School, Rainier School and Lakeland Village) through independent homes. It is the safest and most cost effective model to best serve ALL our citizens with intellectual disabilities.

Much of the factual information has been shared with these so-called DD advocates and legislators – but they do not want to address the facts. I do hope that publicizing these tragedies will serve some good in knocking some sense into those who make the policies. Much of the research regarding the facts of the issues can be found at www.becausewecare1.com.

It is our duty as a society to safely care for our most vulnerable. Yes, this is a hard job, I know, I’ve been there and I am SO thankful for the care that our son is finally able to have at Fircrest. He loves his home there, he loves his school (Shorecrest) and he is active in his community. Yes, it’s not perfect but it’s the best we can do and it is the safest and least restrictive environment for him and many others.

I do know there are some excellent community homes with excellent caregivers.  We need to support our caregivers – they are the backbone which provide stability and sustainability.

We need to learn from Prisons and Privatization

Reading the Op-Ed piece in The New York Times , it brought to light some of the issues which we face in caring for our citizens with Intellectual Disabilities.  We need to look at this and realize that privatization of care does not mean better quality, better stability or more sustainable.  It really means profits for the agencies.

Caring for our most vulnerable citizens is the responsibility of us all – that means that it is the state’s and government’s responsibility.  This can not be “outsourced” to others.  (I have to say I am not an economist – this is only my opinion)  I see this from looking at the non profits and financial statements which manage supported living homes and also looking at the staff turnover rates and pay scales for the caregiving staff.  What I see are big profits for the agencies and high CEO salaries with staffing turnover rates up to 45% in the non-profit sector of supported living homes.

On the contrary, the SOLAs (State Operated Living Alternatives) have a staffing turnover rate of 11-17% ( see graph ).  The state operated facility offers more stability and sustainability and therefore is inherently more safe for the client.

“But the main answer, surely, is to follow the money. Never mind what privatization does or doesn’t do to state budgets; think instead of what it does for both the campaign coffers and the personal finances of politicians and their friends. As more and more government functions get privatized, states become pay-to-play paradises, in which both political contributions and contracts for friends and relatives become a quid pro quo for getting government business. Are the corporations capturing the politicians, or the politicians capturing the corporations? Does it matter?”  (Paul Krugman)

 

The above quote scares me.  Is this what happened in 2011 in our state with the passage of SSB5459?  One will never know but SSB 5459 was certainly not a bill which looked to protect our vulnerable citizens – it was a bill to put money in the pockets of the vendors.

 

How can we have stability and sustainability with up to 45% staffing turnover?

Stability and sustainability are critical to adequate care for everyone and most important for our most vulnerable.  With staffing turnover rates of up to 45% where is the stability for those who most require it?

This is the graph from the Division of Developmental Disabilities survey.  King  County has higher wages than the surrounding area – maybe this explains the lower turnover rate?  SOLA’s are state employees and this setting does provide more stability in staffing when compared to non-profit and private supported living homes.

The graph below is taken  from the same survey which indicates the high rate of staff leaving within the first 6 months of employment.  What does this rapid cycling of new staff not only do to the clients but how does it affect the training and staffing costs to the agencies?  Why are these people leaving so quickly?  Is it lack of training, lack of support, inadequate orientation, poor fit to the job, poor wages?

I’ve looked at the IRS 990 Tas Returns for at least 65 non-profit agencies which work with people with developmental/intellectual disabilities in our state.  You can view this excel workbook here:

non profits and financial statements

It is interesting to see the profits of some of these agencies – I can only wonder what the above graphs could look like if some of these agencies with large profit margins could increase the wages of the caregivers just a tad – would that help reduce this rapid cycling of staffing turnover?  Maybe just by slowing the turnover rate a bit the training and education costs would also decrease so the profits may not actually decrease – wouldn’t that be a win-win situation for all?

This is just wishful thinking in my part, I’m sure but I still can not help but think that it could be a possibility?  What do you think?

Stability and Sustainability

Regardless if one supports a continuum of service care model or if one opposes all forms of congregate care we, I would hope that as goals for all of us we would agree that

Stability and Sustainability are far better than Crisis and Chaos

This is a goal that we should strive for.

 

Support HB 2150

Please support HB 2150

This bill is geared at raising revenue which will be put into a fund to provide for  vendor rates and oversight of community residential service businesses.

Our community residential services for people with an intellectual disability are crumbling.  The devastating cuts have already reduced the low wages of the direct support professionals  (DSP)who provide the daily care to some of our most vulnerable citizens.  We rely on these DSPs to safely care for our loved ones and we need to support them in their jobs.

There is currently at least a 40% turnover rate among DSP – most likely due to the low wages and incredibly challenging work. About one third of these employees work a second job (as reported on TVW January 11, 2012 Public Hearing at House Ways and Means Committee) or work overtime due to staffing needs.   This staffing turnover leads to greater instability in the workforce.  Without a properly trained and rested staff, our family members suffer.  This then leads to injuries – both to staff and residents.

King County DSPs make about 61 cents more an hour than DSPs in neighboring counties.  This disparity causes a problem in the neighboring counties since staff will travel to King County to work and if needed to work overtime will generally opt to take the overtime in King County and call in “sick” to work in neighboring counties.  This causes undue stress to residents and also a higher turnover rate in counties which neighbor King County.

Cost of care as reported by each agency and DSHS payments to each agency based upon support needs of residents

Please encourage your legislators to vote for HB2150 – this will help our state in living up to our Washington State Constitution – Article 13 as shown below.

Washington State Constitution

Article 13

 

 

ARTICLE XIII
STATE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 1 EDUCATIONAL, REFORMATORY, AND PENAL INSTITUTIONS. Educational, reformatory, and penal institutions; those for the benefit of youth who are blind or deaf or otherwise disabled; for persons who are mentally ill or developmentally disabled; and such other institutions as the public good may require, shall be fostered and supported by the state, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law. The regents, trustees, or commissioners of all such institutions existing at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and of such as shall thereafter be established by law, shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate; and upon all nominations made by the governor, the question shall be taken by ayes and noes, and entered upon the journal. [AMENDMENT 83, 1988 House Joint Resolution No. 4231, p 1553. Approved November 8, 1988.]

Original text — Art. 13 Section 1 EDUCATIONAL, REFORMATORY AND PENAL INSTITUTIONS — Educational, reformatory and penal institutions; those for the benefit of blind, deaf, dumb, or otherwise defective youth; for the insane or idiotic; and such other institutions as the public good may require, shall be fostered and supported by the state, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law. The regents, trustees, or commissioners of all such institutions existing at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and of such as shall thereafter be established by law, shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate; and upon all nominations made by the governor, the question shall be taken by ayes and noes, and entered upon the journal. (Washington State Constitution)

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx