Category Archives: Olmstead Decision

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!

Entitlement?

We hear over and over that the Intermediate Care Facility for those with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/ID) is an entitlement – but what does this mean in real life?

One would think that if something is an entitlement that it would be there for you when you needed those services   Not so with the ICF/ID and in the state of Washington, the ICF/ID is not available to you if you are 21 or under.

Recently I had a conversation with an executive director of an adult family home which is licensed for adults with developmental disabilities.  In talking about the experience that our family  went through in order to have our son admitted to the ICF/ID for lifesaving care,  this person was horrified.

She had heard that the ICF/ID was an entitlement and was very confused by our story.  She had no idea of the struggles and crises that most families and individuals have survived in order to be lucky enough to utilize this “entitlement.”  She then stated that she needed to hear these stories because she had believed that the ICF/ID was an entitlement not realizing that it is really far from that in real life stories.

Listen to the stories of families who are the survivors.  Of the many, many families that I have had contact with and of the stories I have heard, not one has had the ICF/ID offered to them as an entitlement.

In fact, after a long meeting with my son’s case-manager and the Children’s manager for the Division of Developmental Disabilities to discuss discharge planning from one of his many prolonged hospitalizations, I overheard the DDD manager say “Don’t offer them anything!” as I left the meeting.

What they did offer was for us to call 911 for his next crisis since the Regional Service Network Administrator had indicated that he would not approve another admission for our son since “he was not improving with treatment.” Doesn’t that mean that he needs more help and maybe ought to be able to take advantage of his “entitlement?” DDD didn’t think so.

Obviously with respect to the ICF/ID, the definition of “entitlement” is different and does not mean a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights. It seems to mean fight until you are almost dead, endure abuse, be jailed, or many other horrible scenarios before you may be “entitled” to access appropriate care in the ICF/ID.

People need to know the stories of our survivors.  Please share yours.

 

Social Circles, Segregation and Disabilities

The social life of a person with intellectual disabilities is often studied and looked at only from one variable—that of interacting with  others who have or do not have  an intellectual disabilities.  From this model, the  social life is often seen as segregated and isolated with few contacts other than family or paid providers.  There have been some recent postings on various sites about people with disabilities and friends (My Child’s Dream to Have Friends , 51 People) and it made me think more about social circles and who is in them.

This is the reality of the situation when a person needs the assistance of another person to interact with others, to take turns in a game, need verbal or physical cues to manage life skills, to  go out to events or attend groups, go to the store , go to the doctor or any other outing which entails leaving the home and no amount of social engineering will change this.

Rather than focusing on the one variable of disability and looking at all contacts as having a disability or not, try looking at social contacts from various angles—what type of people does one interact with?

When looking at social circles from this perspective I think that one may find that the person with intellectual disabilities is much more integrated with a variety of people from various cultures and walks of life than those of us without disabilities.

How many adult women have equal men and women friends?  How many adults have daily contact with people from many different countries and cultures?  How many adults have daily contact with people from all walks of life—from highly paid professionals (doctors and health care providers) to some of the lowest paid workers in our community  – the  caregivers who  work so hard caring for our loved ones? How many have daily contact with people of all ages from college students to the elderly?

I know that my son  learns about many countries and cultures—he knows and experiences various foods from different countries and knows they may have a different religions.    He notices differences and asks about them but he does not make judgments and discriminate—he accepts things as they are.

All people are equal in his eyes—gay people, straight people, poor people, rich people, Black people, Asian People, White people, people who “talk funny” (have an accent because English is their second language) handicapped people in wheelchairs or needing walkers,  people with multiple tattoos and piercings (people who may look scary to me),  yet my son accepts all people equally.  He does not discriminate.

Yes, my son does notice differences and comments on them—sometimes this is difficult in public because in our culture this is taboo.  He is just observant and wants to know about people.    He has opened my world to meeting people from all over the world who I never would have met except for the fact that he asks everyone “What country are you from?”  If I stayed in my own little world and social circle and didn’t travel with him I would have missed out on these opportunities.

Yes, my son does live in a supportive community with others who have intellectual disabilities but his life is far from segregated—it’s completely the opposite and if one examined their own social circle from variables other than if one is disabled or not, we would see very different connections and realize that those who we may think are the most isolated and segregated are actually quite the opposite.

 

 

Cultivating Dreams

The Power of a Mom’s Love  is an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times about a mom who has been tireless in her efforts to provide for her son.  She has started a program called “Cultivating Dreams” which will offer people with special needs a community of their own.  This will be much like an “assisted living” community for the elderly.  The community residents will live freely but also work in the community – in a bakery, in the garden  or other jobs which suit the residents.

I love this idea but I’m concerned about it too.  Concerned because we already have many  supportive communities (state operated) which are being shut down, one by one, across this nation, with the Department of Justice and “so-called” advocates such as The Arc and all it’s subsidiaries  saying these supportive communities are isolating, segregated and expensive.  None of these adjectives describe the supportive community which my son lives in but the “so-called” advocates do not listen to the families of the people who call these communities their homes.

Historically, it has been the changing philosophies of professionals and state agencies which have influenced  decisions on how best to serve individuals with disabilities.  Despite reports by professionals, program planners and “advocate” groups which embrace the  increasingly accepted goal of deinstitutionalization, the families and caregivers of the individuals involved have different opinions.  Yet despite the move towards self-advocacy, the parents and caregivers of this population are not heard.

The person who can not speak up for themselves as a self advocate needs people who know them well to help advocate for them.  These family members and caregivers are ignored though – which means the population which can not speak or advocate for themselves is ignored.  Who listens to the people who know this population best, who care for them, who know  best how to support them?  Apparently no one does and this population is left at the mercy of professionals, program planners and “so-called advocates” – to make decisions.  This is WRONG!

One can see an example of this in a recent assessment (2010) done by the Division of Developmental Disabilities of all residents in the Intermediate Care Facility for those with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/ID) in Washington State.  This assessment was the same assessment which was done for all DDD clients on the Home and Community Based Service waivers.  The findings were utilized in determining the closure of one of the communities  surveyed.  Evidently, the choices of the families involved did not matter.

 

Resident's choice

In addition to the assessment above, every year the family/guardian needs to sign a consent and is asked specifically about desires to move.  It is clearly indicated that residence is strictly voluntary and the guardian could chose at any time to remove the resident from the ICF/ID which would not jeopardize the resident for eligibility with services from DDD.

From this, it is very clear that these families are choosing this supportive community – maybe it would be wise to listen to them and find out why they prefer it.  Maybe the professionals, program planners, and advocates would learn something.

So, getting back to “Cultivating Dreams” – I’m very glad to see this concept heralded as a good choice for our children.  I hope the dream is realized.

 

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.

 

 

White House Petition regarding Olmstead

We must work together across this great country to protect our most vulnerable citizens.  This petition, started by the Murray Parents Association in Illinois, is part of the plan to stop the injustice that is spreading.  Please sign and circulate.

Link to We the People – Your Voice in our Government – Petition to The White House

 

www.MurrayParentsAssociation.com  ( From Laurie Stengler)

I have submitted a petition to the White House to request enforcement of Olmstead to include the right of the disabled to choose institutional over community based living. We have until 12/20/2012 to accumulate 25,000 signatures. After reaching this threshold the White House agrees to review the information and send a response to all signing the petition. I am really hoping we can a strong show of support for this and any help you can provide is much appreciated.

Please consider signing the petition and forwarding this information to others. We need to let the Obama administration know that enforcement of this decision has gone too far compelling states to close vital centers and putting the most severely disabled at risk for abuse and neglect.

 

Thank you – please forward to people so we can gather signatures!

DD Service System Task Farce

So far I have learned that the task farce is not interested in facts – they refuse to look at real data or question the same recycled and inaccurate data which has been used over and over again for years - the very same data which has escalated the care crisis for our citizens with developmental disabilities.  Below are some of my observations:

  • There is no concern for escalating costs for programs which are new and untested which will serve less than 6 clients a year.
  • There is no awareness that the cost for high support needs clients in the community is much higher than the cost for a similar person in the Residential Habilitation Center (RHC).  Yes, we all know that there are many which very high support needs who live successfully in the community – but their costs are also high.  Lance Morehouse, Outreach and Advocacy Coordinator for King County Parent Coalition stated during one Task Farce meeting that his son lived at home for 17 years with the help of 19 hours a day of licensed nursing care without blinking an eye with regards to stating how he cares about all those without any services.   Am I missing something here?  How can one proudly state that they used that many service dollars (certainly much more than the daily cost for a client in the RHC) and then complain that the clients in the RHC (who gladly share services) are taking more than their fair share – doesn’t make sense to me.
  • There is no awareness that sharing services saves money
  • There is no awareness that people have a choice as to what the least restrictive environment for them is
  • There is no adherence to Olmstead with regards to choice, least restrictive environment or cost to the state.
  • It is not a concern that there is a huge lack of oversight in community residential settings
  • Even though our state has space and capability to provide services on the RHC campuses for those in community settings, the fact that it may take some” work to figure out an accounting system” seems daunting – yet on the other hand DDD has worked on building a program from the ground up with many unseen problems with a seemingly  limitless budget to service just a handful of clients.  This program will be experimental.  Is this a less costly and less labor intensive project than figuring out an accounting system?
  • Senator Adam Kline pushed his bill through the legislature based on inaccurate data and prematurely closed off services to our youth – yet he states he cares?   How can that be?

 

I realize that those in the driving seat will do whatever they want with little regard for facts or human lives at stake.  I find these actions negligent and inhumane.  Do they even care about the harm they are doing?

In order to change the name from DD Task Farce to DD Task Force, this group will have to look at accurate data.  I wonder if that will happen?

As many of you know we are in the midst of our DD Service System Task Force (or should I say Farce?)

Were you forced into an Institution?

 

If you know anyone who has a family member, ward or a person themselves who felt forced into an institution – I am looking to interview them regarding their experience.  I am most interested in those who felt this occurred to them or their family member/ward within the past 10 years.  I am well aware of this experience in years past.  I am most interested in current experiences.

What I hear from advocates is people are being forced into institution but I have not met anyone who has actually experienced this in occurring in the past 10 years.  I would like to gain insight into this issue.

Another group which I would like to hear from are those who were in an institution and desired to leave but were not able to for various reasons.

Thank you so much,

Cheryl

ddadvocacy@gmail.com

DD Task Force – Updates and Concerns

The Developmental Disabilities Task Force met and had a very informative meeting.  It appears there is a consensus supporting a continuum of care and a consensus that we are all concerned with those who do not have access to any paid services.  I want to thank the participants for their willingness to look thoroughly at these issues and issues and willingness to think of innovative approaches to the problem.

Link to audio of meeting  The slides and written information may not be up on the DD Task Force Website for a week or so.

Below is my letter to the task force regarding the presentations and comments:

September 7, 2012

Dear Task Force Members,

Thank you for the very informative discussion from the September 6, 2012 meeting. I have listened to it and look forward to seeing the slides that were presented once they are posted on the website. I do have some comments to make regarding the presentation and public testimonies which were heard.

 

Regarding 1:1 care

 

There is a huge difference between 24 hour 1:1 care in the RHC and in the community. Mark Eliason used this number in comparing acuities but what needs to be considered is that there are many in the RHC who do not need 1:1 due to the fact of living in an RHC. They do not need 1:1 in the RHC because there is available staff to keep them within eye sight or to respond to needs.

 
This would not be the case if this very same client with the very same support needs lived in a community setting. My son is one of these very people. While he was living at home we had to have a lock on his bedroom door to keep him safe. We were reported to and investigated by CPS for this. The response from DDD was that we would need to install an alarm system on his bedroom door. All an alarm would do would keep waking us up every time he left the room to wander the house or neighborhood or destroy things. An alarm would only add more crises to a situation which was well controlled by the lock we used.

 
I know that many, many families use methods such as this to keep their children safe but are afraid to say anything for fear of CPS taking their child away. I can tell you that my husband and I had many conversations regarding telling people what we had to do in our home to keep our son safe. My belief is that people need to know and I never had a problem telling people because I knew that the way in which we used the lock was for safety only. Our son never even used his room or went in there except to sleep – he much preferred to interact with people. This was never punitive or restrictive for him but a safety feature which allowed our family to sleep and allowed him to stay in a safe place for the night and sleep when he would sleep.

 
The CPS charges were “unfounded” and the issue they were most concerned about was if Thomas could get out of the house if there was a fire. I explained that if there was a fire and every door of the house was open, Thomas would still need help getting out of the house. In fact, this lock ensured that we would know where he was and could actually save time by going were we knew he would be and getting him to safety.

 
I think a much better way to look at comparing costs, and this was also suggested to me by Don Clintsman in correspondence which we had, is to look at the direct/indirect care costs. These figures are available and I have already sent in data which reflects these costs. Please ask Don Clintsman or Mark Eliason to gather the data on the most costly community clients and you will see the high cost of these clients in the community. When they retrieve this data though, it is important to remember that this is only the DDD cost and not a comprehensive cost which you will see with regards to the daily cost of a resident in the RHC.

 

 

Denial of Admission to RHC by the Admissions Review Team

 

Don Clintsman presented information on this and I believe he stated that there were only 2 people who were denied and these may have been cases in which other residents would have been at risk.
As a parent of a child who was denied services and as an advocate for others, I must agree with Julianne Moore’s testimony. I, too, have witnessed and know of many instances in which the families were denied services by the case manager or regional director. In these instances the process never even got to the Admission Review Team because a Request for Admission was never done. The denial for admission was done long before a request would have reached the team and the team does not even know about these many, many families.

 

I can also say that in our son’s case and with a family who I am working with at this time, both of our sons were already in the RHC prior to the Request for Admission was ever sent to the Admissions Review Team.
Julianne is very correct in her testimony and one cannot look at the Admissions Review Team data for accurate information regarding how many people are denied these services and how many families’ choices and requests for services were not considered.

 

Crisis Care

 

While the concept of the crisis team is good, why not use the facilities and services we already have in place to run this program out of? We have the space and expertise to do this already and it seems ridiculous to start a whole new program for something that we have which already works very well.

 
I believe this was also part of Julianne’s testimony and she is 100% correct in her assessments of the situation.

 
As a parent who has survived crisis after crisis, I can also tell you that you should look to the hospital emergency room data on how many people are taken there for crisis. I believe you will find a lot more information regarding where folks with developmental disabilities go when they have a crisis. I also know this is the case from working with other families and hearing their stories. Talk to the ER nurses at Seattle Children’s and ask them how many families bring their kids with DD (particularly autism) there for crisis intervention. Talk to the Inpatient Psychiatric Unit doctors, nurses, and staff and Seattle Children’s. I believe you will find staggering numbers. You will see a much different picture than one you may hear from DDD. DDD is not aware of many of these crisis admissions to the hospitals because they are not notified.

 
What about connecting the crisis care team with the local hospitals and emergency medical response systems? What about connecting with the Crisis Line? I know that not only in our family’s case but in many, many others, these are the systems which we accessed in times of crisis. These are the places in which we will be able to realize the extent of the crisis situation with people with DD.

 

 

Statewide Crisis Care Team

 

Again, while this seems like a great concept, as a parent I do not understand how this would work. When a team is sent to a home, where will the team stay while the child is being stabilized? Are hotel costs and travel costs all added in with the operational costs of this program?

 
Why, when we already have two facilities in Eastern Washington which have experts at working with DD clients in crisis, would a family opt to send their child across the mountains to Lakewood for care? This is not only an issue for those on the east side of the mountains but also on the west side. Doesn’t this only add to the crisis? Where is the family going to stay to be close to their child? Families are already at financial breaking points and the cost of travel and lodging could just add to the crisis – not to mention loss of employment and other issues that may come into this scenario such as child care for other children.

 
Crisis care needs to be in one’s community – we need to utilize the services we have and enhance them rather than reinventing the wheel with a program which is untested and unknown.

 

Choice of care and community

 

I hear over and over again that people have more choice in community settings – what they want to eat, who their roommates are, where they want to go and where they want to work as if those in the RHC do not have these choices.

 
Those in residential settings run by vendors and the state do not have choices of roommates. When looking at community residential homes, families are only given choices of homes in which there are vacancies. I have heard (please correct me if I’m wrong about this) but that the department cannot certify more homes or beds in the community until the vacancies in the current homes are filled.

 
If this is true and the current vacancies do not meet the needs of people needing residential services, how will their needs be met?

 

 
Emily Roberts testimony was wonderful and she gives a very different picture of people with developmental disabilities than the people who currently reside in the RHCs. Emily is very articulate and capable. She and others in SAIL are people who can be self advocates and I applaud them for that. They, though, do not speak for people like my son and many others who cannot make their voices heard. Emily talks about people who are able to work and go out in the community independently and she and others are great examples of why we need a continuum of care service model.

 

Waiver and allowable services

 

Don Clintsman reviewed the waiver services and referred to allowable services under each waiver. It also needs to be noted that there is a huge difference between “allowable” and “approved.” What is missing is that for the “allowable” services to be provided, they must be “approved” by a team. They also must be delivered by a contracted provider. These two conditions make these “allowable” services unattainable for many who may need them.
Trying to have the “allowable” services provided for our son was one of the issues which added to the crisis. Even with prescriptions from medical doctors and physical therapists, DDD would deny these services and say they were not necessary. With one thing in particular, the DDD Children’s manager told us to restrict fluids for our son so he would not need a specialty diaper – fluid restriction was not the problem – his neurology was the problem and he needed these specialty diapers. So, even though they were an “allowed” service, they were not “approved” and we therefore needed to purchase them ourselves. This is just one example but I have many which I could give.

 

Those without Services

 

I think it was made perfectly clear that we are all concerned about those not on a paid service. It is also clear there is a consensus that we do need a continuum of care to best meet the needs of ALL people with developmental disabilities. We also need to support the families in caring for their loved ones. They are the backbone of support and when we run them into the ground we not only send the person with DD into crisis but destroy the family.
I, too, am the face of crisis and survival, as Diane Larsen testified to you. It’s amazing what families will endure to take care of their loved one at home. The self-sacrifice is incredible and we need to support these families to enable them to care for their loved ones.
Moving our son to the RHC was not our first choice but it was the choice we had to make to keep him safe and healthy. It was the choice we had to make to save my life. It was the choice we had to make to enable our other children to heal. It was the choice we had to make to have our family together. It was the choice we had to make which would provide our son with the supports he needs to be a productive and contributing member of our community.
I miss our son. I still cry over this choice knowing that I, as his mother, am not able to care for him as I had planned. But that’s about me.

 

When I see him excited to return home to Fircrest after a “home visit”, when I see him jumping up and down with joy at Fircrest because he’s home and has to run around telling all the staff that is there “hi” without caring about telling me “bye”, when I hear a housemate of his say “Tommy’s home. Tommy is a happy boy”, when he can go into the kitchen and get a drink independently, when he can ask for a snack and his staff tells me it’s his new favorite thing, when staff tell me things that Thomas loves to do or what he has accomplished, when I walk around campus and he says “hi” to everyone he sees and calls them all by name and they return with “Hi Thomas”, I have to remember, this is about him. He is safe, healthy, and happy in his community.

Thank you,

Cheryl Felak, RN, BSN
Seattle, WA

DDD forces families to make “Sophie’s Choice”

We are uniting and you will hear more of our stories of survival.  The Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) does not want our families to meet and build a community or allow our vulnerable children to  live in safe, stable and sustainable community.  Sounds strange saying that about a department which claims to value community and families and strives to keep citizens in their communities, doesn’t it?  It’s unfortunate but true that DDD, the agency which we need to work with to get services for our vulnerable family members with intellectual disabilities seems to do all it can to create crisis and chaos.

 

We are not survivors because of the help and assistance which DDD provided but because we fought unbearable struggles for our children and family members.  We fought DDD so that our family members could receive the “allowable” services on the Home and Community Based Waivers they were on.  We fought against DDD telling us to call the police for crisis care.  We fought against DDD telling us to restrict fluids so that our kids would not need extra absorbent diapers (for a neurological problem) .  We fought against CPS reports about the methods that we, as families, needed to do in order to keep our children safe from harm (putting special locks on doors for instance) .  We fought for allowable “home modifications” so our families could be safe.

You do not hear from those who are still struggling and in crisis.  I believe DDD wants to keep it that way.  Those families probably can only muster enough strength to barely make it through the day and survive – they have no energy or time left over to make their stories heard.  They barely manage (if you can even call it that) in isolation.  That’s the way DDD wants to keep it.  I know, I was there.

 

This is why we, as survivors, must tell the story for them in hopes that they, too, may become survivors, succeeding at stable, sustainable care for their loved ones.

 

Examples:

#1 – teen grew up in Seattle.  Family and healthcare team requested out of home placement at Fircrest Residential Habilitation Center (6 miles from the family home).  DDD DENIED.

After continued crisis and multiple hospitalizations and total family breakdown with the child at age 15 in his own crisis, DDD did say that child could possibly be admitted to Yakima Valley School ( YVS) (144 miles away from the family home) or Frances Haddon Morgan Center (FHMC)  (24 miles from home via hour long expensive ferry ride or 70 miles via highway).  DDD continued to deny admission to Fircrest (even short term or respite) to Fircrest which was in this child’s home community.

Family chose to admit son to FHMC (2009)  then petitioned the Division to move him to Fircrest due to continued health problems of parents and siblings which made it extremely difficult to visit son at FHMC.  Request to move this child back home to the community in which he grew up was granted after one year.  He currently lives at Fircrest, is stable, healthy and active in his home community.

#2  Family lives in Bremerton ( a mile or two from FHMC) yet DDD placed this teen at Fircrest (2008) prior to the closing of FHMC and they were still admitting teens here (see #1 who was admitted in 2009).  Family had been denied placement and was told the child would have to go to YVS (194 miles from family home.)  Child was able to be admitted to Fircrest (40 miles from family home where he currently lives in his community at Fircrest).

#3 DDD palce child at FHMC (90 miles from home) when Fircrest is 18 miles from the family home.  Child now lives at Fircrest due to FHMC closure.

#4  DDD place child at FHMC (again 90 miles from home) when Fircrest is 18 miles from the family home.  Child now lives at Fircrest due to FHMC closure.

 

Again, these are just 4 examples yet do they exemplify DDD attempting to keep our youth in their home communities?  This is not due to not having available resources and services in the home community.  As you can see, there were alternatives for each of these families which would have allowed their child to remain much closer to home than the placement that DDD finally agreed to.  We are gathering more so that people can hear the true stories of these families in crisis.

 

Currently, we are facing an issue with an 18 year old who is at Fircrest on a short term stay.  There are no safe alternatives in the community yet DDD is denying the requested admission to Fircrest.  In just the short time that this boy has been at Fircrest he has stabilized and has started to sleep through the night.  He is feeling safe and at home due to the support needs that he requires being available.  The family has requested that he be admitted.  This boy has been on the CIIBS Waiver, a federal HCBS waiver which states the family has the choice of in=home or institutional care.  The family has chosen institutional care after in=home care failed miserably and put this boy and his family at great risk of injury.  DDD is denying admission – based on age.  This is discrimination.  There are no other safe alternatives for this boy yet DDD is planning a discharge.  To where?  We will find out what their plan is this week.

 

Stay tuned.