Scattered, dispersed housing = Community?

A letter from the National Council on Disability (NCD) was published urging the US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to swiftly comply with the US Supreme Court Decision of Olmstead.  This is great – except the interpretation of Olmstead is incorrect and the NCD assumes that independent choice is the apparent optimal  goal for people with intellectual disabilities (ID).

I cannot disagree more with the Federally funded National Council on Disability, which states they represent and advocate for our loved ones. My response letter is available  here.  (May 21 letter to HUD)  Community is not a place but relationships.  NCD does not consider relationships and what those relationships mean to many in supportive communities.

We need to define choice and what that means to various people.  Those with severe intellectual disabilities with or without co-occurring psychiatric disorders are by the very definition of their condition, not able to make informed choices.  If independent choice is the apparent goal, would an independent choice of someone with severe ID and psychiatric disorder by wise and safe?  I would tend to think not.

When thinking about choice and housing it is critical to understand what type of choice is desirable – independent or supported.  One should not presume that independent choice is always the most desirable outcome.  “A well-supported choice leading to selection of a wise alternative may be preferable to a more independent but ill-informed choice that results in problems.” (R.J. Stancliffe, 2011)

With this distinction about the definition of choice and what may be safe for each individual, we then can examine Olmstead and the arguments of many regarding community housing for those with ID.

The other very concerning issue other than that of “choice” is what about the caregiver.  Does the NCD not understand that many of these people who they so want to make independent choices often need 24 hour live in and AWAKE care?  If all these people choose to have their own house, who will be there to care for them?  Does the NCD not realize that we are already in a crisis trying to find qualified caregivers for those who may live in supported communities or group homes – how will we be able to safely staff isolated and dispersed homes?

Scattered and dispersed housing does not a community make!

Let Your Voice Be Heard

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal agency charged with advising the President, Congress, and other federal agencies regarding policies, programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with disabilities.
NCD’s quarterly meetings are open to the public. People and organizations that represent the interests of people with disabilities are encouraged to attend these meetings, in person or by phone. The next NCD meeting is April 22 – 23, 2013 in Washington, D.C. The focus of this meeting will be NCD’s future “Policy Roadmap.” Families living in the D.C. area are encouraged to attend in person or you can join the meeting by phone (download the agenda, with location and phone details, here).

 

Next Phone & In-Person Public Comment Opportunities

April 22 – 23, 2013 during the NCD Quarterly Meeting

NCD will host two open public comment periods at its upcoming quarterly meeting on April 22-23, and we’d love for you to share your insights with us about emerging issues or other concerns on which you believe NCD should focus its attention.

For the two open public comment periods, statements will be received on any topic on a first-come, first-serve basis by phone and in-person. The first 30-minute open session is Monday April 22, from 4:45 P.M. until 5:15 P.M. ET and the second open session is Tuesday April 23, from 11:45 A.M. until 12:00, noon ET.

On Tuesday, April 23, NCD will hold an additional public comment period from 9:30 – 10:00 A.M. ET, reserved for in-person comments only regarding recommendations for NCD’s engagement on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

If you are interested in giving public comment, you will be asked to provide your name and organizational affiliation, if applicable, and to limit your comments to three minutes so we can hear from as many people as possible (for this reason, it’s advisable to write out what you intend to say).

NCD’s quarterly meeting is open to the public, and interested parties may join in-person or by phone in a listening-only capacity (with the exception of the public comment periods) using the following call-in number: 1-888-727-7630; passcode 5450168. If asked, the call host’s name is Stacey Brown or Jeff Rosen.

You may also provide public comment at any time by sending your comments in writing to Lawrence Carter-Long, Public Affairs Specialist, at LCarterLong@ncd.gov, using the subject line of “Public Comment.”

 

NCD April 2013 Meeting Agenda

 

Pilot Program Promising

Comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care – this is not impossible!

Children’s Comprehensive Care Clinic is a pilot program in Texas which is showing promise.  In Washington, we could expand on this by utilizing the campus communities at the Residential Habilitation Centers to become “Comprehensive Care Clinics” for our citizens with developmental disabilities.  The report, Medical Care Task Force Jan 2002,  outlines a process to establish comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care.

When looking at cost of care for residents in the supportive communities or dispersed communities, some of the major costs that are not included in the dispersed community costs are medical, psychological, and therapeutic costs.  Removing these costs from the cost analysis does not mean they are free – it means they are not available or accessible or not provided.  Of the many, many studies that have been done this issue of not including medical costs is a problem.  What is interesting though is that the studies that have been conducted in the UK are more accurate – different funding and different agendas.  The UK studies have consistently found that dispersed community services are more expensive than institutional services.

Another interesting issue is “quality of care” and “quality of life”.  The Arc and other DD Advocates do not look at issues that are outside the personal outcome measures, such as choice and community involvement.  They are missing a huge part of “quality of care” issues by their narrow focus and do not realize that “quality of care” influences “quality of life”.

Quality of care (health and safety outcomes) can be measured objectively where as “quality of life” is more subjective.  We meed to include measurements of quality of care into our assessments and cost analysis.  Below are some examples of areas needing evaluation.

a..  access to comprehensive health care services (primary, psychiatric and dental care as well as ancillary services, including care coordination)
b.  rates and status of abuse/neglect reports and investigations (including victimization in the community)
c.  mortality review
d.  access and utilization of behavioral services and
e.  similar direct measures.

When people who require complex care from a variety of professional services receive all their care in a “medical home” model, such as the ICF/ID, dispersing these people  will make access to healthcare, therapies, nursing, recreation and more unavailable. It is well documented that people with ID have higher rates of chronic medical and psychiatric illness than the general population.   It is also well documented that people with ID have an increased incidence of medical illnesses and have need for comprehensive, coordinated medical services. (Kaye McGivney, 2008)  For the best care it is critical to maintain the same providers over time and to avoid disruption of services. (Kaye McGivney, 2008) No longer will services be accessible or able to be shared.    This means that either the cost of care will greatly increase or that the person will not receive care.

Research also shows that those with DD, when admitted to the hospital, stay longer than those without a developmental disability.  People with DD are also less likely to be discharged to their pre-hospitalization living arrangement due to the fact that the needed supports were not accessible.  This fact highlights the importance of having specialized residential centers (ICF/IDs) to help alleviate the cost of care, crisis care and hospitalizations.  Having such centers increases stability is cost effective and provides stability to the citizens.  (Haier Saied, 2003)

Developmental Disabilities are not only experienced by the person but by the family.  We need to look at not only individual quality of life but the families’ experience and quality of life too. (Colvin, 2006) It is critical to the health and safety of our most vulnerable citizens and  a responsibility of our communities and government to realize that we need supportive communities such as the ICF/ID to best care for some of our citizens in the most cost effective, stable, reliable and safe method.

To do otherwise, is negligent.

Works Cited

Colvin, A. D. (2006). Variables Influencing Family Members’ Decisions Regarding Continued Placement of Family Members with Mental Disabilties in One State Operated Institution.

Haider Saeed, H. O.-J. (2003). Length of Stay for Psychiatric Inpatient Services: A Comparison of Admissions of People with and without Developmental Disabilities. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 30(4), 406-417.

Kaye McGinty, R. W. (2008). Patient and Family Advocacy: Working with Individuals with Comorbid Mental Illness and Developmental Disabilities and their Families. Psychiatric Quarterly, 193-203.

 

Self Advocacy and The Arc of King County

“You do not have my permission to use my picture or any image from our publications, website, blogs or Facebook.

Sylvia Fuerstenburg (Executive Director, The Arc of King County)

given the above restrictions put on me by the Executive Director of The Arc of King County, I cannot put a link to her blog on my site.  The name of the blog is Sylvia’s Blog and there is an entry on March 4, 2013 regarding self-advocacy to which I have attempted to post a comment.  My comment is below but may not be posted to Sylvia’s Blog as it may stay under “awaiting moderation” so that it will not be visible to others who may read the blog.

Cheryl Felak on March 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm said:  This post was not approved and was removed from the website.  I have therefore attempted to post again  - see note below:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I fully support the work of self-advocates but I also have some serious questions regarding self advocacy for those who are not able to be their own advocate. I believe The Arc assumes that everyone can be their own self advocate if they have the training to do so – as evidenced by the quote ” Becoming a self-advocate simply means protecting one’s own self-interests — demanding re­spect, reaching out for the services and supports needed to fully participate, and simply making others aware of what it means to be a person with I/DD. When you empower yourself in this way, you can then empower others to join in the cause with you.’

My reality and the reality of many who I know and work with, being their own advocate is something that they cannot even comprehend. This is why they need others to advocate for them and why they need guardians to help protect them. Are you saying then that the people who advocate for those who are unable to be their own advocates are not needed? How does The Arc value the concerns and work of these advocates who advocate on behalf of our most vulnerable who are unable to be their own advocates?

When a person has no concept of personal safety, how to stay safe, what they may need to manage their own personal care, is unable to figure out out to get things they may need for food, shelter, personal safety, and without someone there to help them every day to maintain their health and safety, how does The Arc envision teaching these people to be their own advocate? What if these people cannot voice their concerns? What if these people do not know what they need?

I do not see these issues addressed in connection with self-advocacy and I would really appreciate knowing how The Arc and self-advocacy groups address these issues and how they view the advocates who work on these people’s behalf.

 

I fully support the work of self-advocates but I also have some serious questions regarding self advocacy for those who are not able to be their own advocate. I believe The Arc assumes that everyone can be their own self advocate if they have the training to do so – as evidenced by the quote ” Becoming a self-advocate simply means protecting one’s own self-interests — demanding re¬spect, reaching out for the services and supports needed to fully participate, and simply making others aware of what it means to be a person with I/DD. When you empower yourself in this way, you can then empower others to join in the cause with you.’
My reality and the reality of many whom I know and work with, being their own advocate is something that they cannot even comprehend. This is why they need others to advocate for them and why they need guardians to help protect them. Are you saying then that the people who advocate for those who are unable to be their own advocates are not needed? How does The Arc value the concerns and work of these advocates who advocate on behalf of our most vulnerable who are unable to be their own advocates?
When a person has no concept of personal safety, how to stay safe, what they may need to manage their own personal care, is unable to figure out how to get things they may need for food, shelter, personal safety, and without someone there to help them every day to maintain their health and safety, how does The Arc envision teaching these people to be their own advocate? What if these people cannot voice their concerns? What if these people do not know what they need?
I do not see these issues addressed in connection with self-advocacy and I would really appreciate knowing how The Arc and self-advocacy groups address these issues and how they view the advocates who work on these people’s behalf.
I’m also very curious how The Arc addresses the issues of the incompetent person as defined in Washington State Law and guardianship. By definition of one’s disability and functional abilities some people are not able to make safe choices and by court order are unable to make those choices. How does The Arc address these people with regards to being a self-advocate?
The court realizes that some people are unable to make safe decisions and the court has taken steps to ensure there is a person who will make those decisions on behalf of those who are, by definition of their very disability, legally incompetent. This makes them dependent on their parents/guardians to represent them. Why does The Arc seemingly discriminate against court appointed legal guardians to advocate on behalf of their ward?

 

Deinstitutionalization – a National Disgrace

Did you know that if a person has a developmental or intellectual disability they can have all the other diseases, illnesses and conditions that everyone else has?  I know this seems like common sense but at times I do not think that the Division of Developmental Disabilities  (DDD) understands this.  When it comes to the dual diagnosis of Intellectual Disability/Developmental Disability (ID/DD), as a cost saving measure for the DD Silo, DDD is booting out clients with DD who happen to have a mental illness.  DDD states that the problems are caused by the mental illness and not DD!

There are problems with service delivery within the DD system but from what I read and see these problems are not nearly as bad as in the mental health system.  So, rather than caring for these extremely vulnerable citizens in at least one system, they are being sent to a system which is much worse, where they will surely die.  Where is the humanity in this?

Right now there is a gentleman who is fighting for services.  He is 30 years old and has a history of developmental disability, he has been served all his life through DD and had a HCBS waiver to move into a supported living arrangement.  We all know that transitions are difficult and this transition caused a crisis.  This man is currently in the state mental hospital in the wing for people with DD.

Can you believe that our state made him ineligible for DD services stating he has a mental illness?  This man had an assessment done in March 2012.  One week the family received a notice, based on this assessment, that he was eligible for the CORE Waiver and listed all the services he would be getting.  The next week DDD sent them a notice (based on the very same assessment which qualified him!) terminating all services.  Is this how our state treats those in crisis?  They take away the services?

This is just one example.  I am contacting many families and we will be putting together our own report on our experiences.  It will be shocking.

Guns and Mental Illness written by New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Joe Nocera, spells out some critical information.

“”Ultimately, the article I wrote was about how the “deinstitutionalization movement” of the 1960s and early 1970s — a movement prompted by the same liberal impulses that gave us civil rights and women’s rights — had become a national disgrace.”

and

“The state and federal rules around mental illness are built upon a delusion: that the sickest among us should always be in control of their own treatment, and that deinstitutionalization is the more humane route. That is not always the case.”

The risks of deinstitutionalization (in both the DD and the Mental Health systems) greatly outweigh the benefits – it’s time the program planners and policymakers realized this truth.

The Good, The Bad, The Economy

(Used with permission from author)

When ‘De-institutionalization’ Goes Overboard

Forcing the lowest functioning “into the community” is inexcusable
Published on October 29, 2012 by Louis Putterman, Ph.D in The Good, The Bad, The Economy

                My adult daughter suffered profound brain damage at birth due to a bungled delivery.  Had someone been on the ball and decided to deliver her by Caesarian section three hours earlier, she’d have had the prospect of a normal life.  Instead, she survived her birth trauma with cognitive abilities permanently akin to that of an infant, and with a panoply of medical complications that require her to be fed through a tube, have excess stomach fluids drained through another tube, wear devices to keep deformation of her spine and wrists in check, and receive numerous medications to control seizures and other problems.  I thought that I would never encounter anyone less worthy of respect than the obstetrician responsible for this negligence.

                But after decades of seeing to it that my daughter received the best care available, I encountered, a few years ago, a far worse evil: a threat to the lives of my daughter and others like her that is premeditated and makes no apology.  I discovered that a coalition of real estate developers, professional litigators, and advocates for higher-functioning cognitively impaired individuals had judicially kidnapped my daughter into a legal class composed of individuals they claimed to represent without their guardians’ consent.  And I learned that they had gotten a federal judge and the state of Massachusetts to sign on to a program of moving the individuals in this class into residential group homes providing far lower levels of medical attention, staffing redundancy, and programming than the specialized nursing home that provides for my daughter’s every need since she is incapable of performing even the simplest functions for herself.  I learned, finally, that what’s happening on institutional care in Massachusetts is part of a broad national trend.

When I and other family members of the patients in my daughter’s nursing home learned what was happening and told friends and members of our extended families, they were disbelieving.  How could anyone assert that moving such fragile and cognitively impaired individuals into smaller houses with less staff would improve their quality of life?  We all assumed that a mistake had been made and would be corrected once we brought it to the attention of the authorities.  That didn’t happen.  Our governor and secretary of state never answered our letters and phone calls.  The judge lectured us in his courtroom, telling us that we were ignorant and giving us no opportunity to respond.  The Department of Disability Services told us to wait our turns, that they would decide each of our children’s fates in their superior wisdom.  A state official hinted that if we offered too much resistance she would look into revoking our facility’s license.  I was personally told to mind my business because they had put my daughter on a list of those less likely to be moved, with no explanation as to why others like her were on the likely moving list.

 

My daughter lives in what is undoubtedly one of the top facilities of its kind in the world.  Licensed as a pediatric nursing home, residents who arrive before adulthood are never turned away as adults because there are no comparable facilities for adults like them.  They have in-house daytime activities every day, are attended to by certified nursing assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and doctors, are regularly visited by a variety of musical performers, and are taken on frequent trips to local outdoor and indoor sites in a fleet of wheelchair-adapted vans.  Most costs are covered by Medicare and Medicaid, and the non-profit organization owning the home raises additional funds to cover any gaps. 

Residents of this facility do not know, as you or I might, where in particular they live.  At best, they can sense that they are being cared for by individuals whose voices and touch they are familiar with.  There is a high level of continuity of staffing, as well as much redundancy, so that if one caregiver who knows my daughter well is ill or leaves the facility, others who know her equally well can fill in and help to train successors.  These nurses and nurse’s aides are walking, breathing angels who get profound satisfaction from caring for disabled individuals whom others would find it difficult to be among.  Amazingly, they can tell when new trainees are capable of the same caring attitude towards the residents, and they make sure that those who aren’t don’t stay.

A group home can afford only a small staff, often with high turnover and little redundancy.  Medical crises invariably mean a trip to a hospital, with attendant dangers.  Several patients transferred to small group homes under initiatives similar to the one facing our nursing home have died due to inadequate monitoring in the last few years in our state alone.  In one case, a patient with a well-known tendency to put dangerous objects in his mouth died predictably from choking not long after being moved to a group home.  The staff at his old institution had successfully protected him from this danger for many years.

 

What motivates the “de-institutionalizers” to inflict a hell offear and uncertainty on my fellowparents, insisting that they know better and that our children would be better cared for elsewhere?  Some are apparently imbued with an ideology which says that only “mainstreaming” and living “in the community” is acceptable.  It seems that if an individual could not live but could only die in a more “normal” community setting, such a death comes closer to their ideals.  But the explanation in most cases is less strange.  Developers and group home operators earn millions building and operating the homes mandated by the de-institutionalization legal settlements, and the lawyers concerned make a handsome living in the process.  It’s a business like anything else. 

The most disappointing part of the mix is the role played by organizations that offer programming to higher-functioning retarded individuals.  They’ve supported suits like the one that threatened my daughter and her fellow patients because they believe that taking government support away from residents of specialized nursing homes and institutions is the best way to increase the budget for their own programs.  They would sacrifice the most helpless to expand services to their preferred constituents.  Since my daughter cannot speak for herself, I have to do my best to make their stand better known.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-the-bad-the-economy/201210/when-de-institutionalization-goes-overboard

 

LTO Ventures – Live/Work/Play Communties

Today I was introduced to an organization which supports a continuum of care model which upholds the US DD Act and the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead. 

What a breath of fresh air to hear some sensible arguments coming from other DD Advocates.

Please visit their site, read the attached letter and comment.  This group is in Nevada but their message is one that we all need to listen too.  Hopefully CMS will reconsider and provide choice to individuals and their families as stated in Olmstead.

LTO Ventures Website

LTO Ventures

LTO Ventures Comments to CMS dated June 28, 2012

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.

 

Sheltered Workshops or Supported Employment – Different Roads for Different Folks

Today there was an article published in Disability Scoop regarding Sheltered Workshops.   This information in this is hardly new yet I do find some interesting concepts that have come out of this.  I have also finally realized what one of the issues may be – is a sheltered workshop considered a route to supported employment with a competitive wage or is the sheltered workshop looked at as a day program which has benefits of it’s own?

If a sheltered workshop is only seen as a learning ground for other employment, of course it is a failure in that light.  On the other hand, a sheltered workshop does serve a critical role in the care of some of our more complex and high needs citizens.

When looking at supported employment, many people are needing to choose between a few hours of supported employment a week with no other resources for the remaining hours or a sheltered workshop – a program that has structure for 30+ hours a week.  This is a horrilbe choice for many to have to make.  Why can’t there be supported employment for the hours that one is able to do that and also a day program – why does it have to be one or the other?

When a sheltered workshop is looked at as a day program it serves many purposes – engagement with others, time management, skill development, activity, community involvement – all critical issues. My son is one of those who greatly benefits from a sheltered employment.  I’m not saying these things to limit his growth – I’m speaking from the perspective of reality.  When a person requires constant 1:1 interaction to maintain focus and stay on task, has the emotional maturity of a two year old and does not have a desire to work, understand the concept of money or how to manage any life skills on their own – what type of supported employment would there be?  It is much more beneficial for him to be in a program that is consistent and has several hours every day in which he can participate.  He also does get paid for the work that he is able to accomplish but he is not even aware of that – he just loves being with people.

When people have to choose between a sheltered workshop or supported employment which really may not lead to a job at all, we are just adding to the ranks of the unemployed case load.

Getting back to the study though, the authors are making assumptions about why the outcomes are less than desirable thinking people need to “unlearn” what they learned in the sheltered workshop.  These studies are missing huge areas  - what about the support needs of the individuals?  Yes, they all have autism but we all know that there is a huge variation in how people are affected by autism.  The authors do state that the severity of a person’s behavior may play a role though.  That should have been at the very top of the study - without that information everything else is a moot point.

 

“Participating in sheltered workshops diminished the future outcomes achieved once individuals became competitively employed, perhaps because the skills and behaviors individuals learned in sheltered workshops had to be ‘unlearned’ in order for the workers to be successful in the community,” according to the research team that assessed the group with autism.

Other factors like the severity of an individual’s behavior challenges might also play a role, they said.

VOR slams Department of Justice for Dangerous Decision

What is VOR?

 

VOR is the only national organization which advocates to protect the rights of individuals who cannot speak for themselves. VOR, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) has been advocating for over 25 years in support of family decision-making rights and continuum of care options for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities., including their own home, family home, community based options and facility-based care.

 

VOR is the only national advocacy organization that expressly opposes efforts to eliminate the facility option while also supporting expansion of quality community programs. VOR advocates that the final determination of what is appropriate depends on the unique abilities, needs and desires of each individual, with the input of family and guardians where necessary and appropriate.

 

VOR really cares about the individual and is not bound by ideology which limits choice, person-centered planning or self-advocacy.

 

VOR has the voice that we need to hear more of – Please support VOR and their work.

Please see this link for Department of Justice Decision to learn about this most dangerous settlement

http://www.vor.net/news/25/260-vor-slams-justice-department-plan-to-close-virginia-centers-for-disabled