Public funds used to discriminate – The Arc of King County

There has been a long-standing issue with regards to advocacy by The Arc of King County.  The Arc of King County has a contract with King County Department of Community and Human Services, Developmental Disabilities Division, which provides thousands of public dollars, both county and Washington State funds, to The Arc of King County to fulfill advocacy, outreach and support to people with developmental disabilities and their families.

The Arc of King County discriminates against people and their families who may need the full continuum of care support needs provided in our state operated residential habilitation centers.  These supportive communities provide an intense level of support in the most cost effective and safe way to some of our states most vulnerable citizens.  The Arc of King County does not support any form of congregate care and therefore uses their personal and corporate biases in violating the contract they hold with King County.  In essence, they are using our public funds to mislead and misinform people.

It is perfectly fine for The Arc of King County to not support congregate care but they need to be upfront and honest with that bias and allow others to share information and education regarding these supports.  Censorship is regularly used by The Arc of King County to prevent families from sharing information regarding the needs of people who may desire the community supports at the residential habilitation center.

The Arc of King County denies access to Facebook pages, Websites and public blogs to people who may support a full continuum of care.  This is violates the contract they hold with King County.

Please write to your King County Councilmember informing them of these violations and inappropriate use of our county funds.

The Arc of King County Contract with King County 2012

The Arc and King County Contract with highlighted boxes

The Arc of King County and Social Media

king county funds to The Arc of King County

 

 

 

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?

 

Incapacitated person

courtsb

My son has been found to be an incapacitated person according to law in the Superior court of the State of Washington.  This was recommended by a court appointed guardian ad litem.

By definition of his disability and his functional abilities, my son is not able to make safe choices and by court order is unable to make those choices.  He is unable to vote.

Why, when the court recognizes that my son, and many with similar issues, is incapacitated  are there “advocates” saying that he has the right to choose?  In my opinion they are telling me that my son is worthless and not important.  The are advocating for negligence.   They have no clue what his functional level is and their total disregard for his quality of life, his worth as a person are ignored.  My son and others deserve human dignity and respect just like everyone else.  He deserves safe, quality care.  He deserves the right to be free from harm.  The Superior Court has recognized this fact and the fact that he is unable to make these choices himself and to keep himself safe.   These are the choices that I make for him because he is unable to make those choices himself.  Certainly, those who have no idea what his experience is can make these decisions better than I can or better than those who know him can.

The court realized that my son and others 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, have a less developed capacity for abstract thinking and less developed level of verbal and linguistic capabilities.  This makes them dependent on their parents/guardians to represent them.(Anna Barelds, 2009)

To assume he is suddenly able to make choices which may affect his safety is negligence.

My goal is to keep my son safe and healthy.  My son has no clue about how to keep healthy and if he did he doses not have the functional ability to manage his basic safety.  Why are there people telling me and policy makers that people like my son are now miraculously able to make their own choices and to live independently?  My son and many others live in supportive communities – communities which are safe and offer stable, quality and sustainable care.

“It is the intent of the legislature to protect the liberty and autonomy of all people of this state and to enable them to exercise their rights under the law to the maximum extent, consistent with the capacity of each person. The legislature recognizes that people with incapacities have unique abilities and needs, and that some people with incapacities cannot exercise their rights or provide for their basic needs without the help of a guardian. However, their liberty and autonomy should be restricted through the guardianship process only to the minimum extent necessary to adequately provide for their own health or safety, or to adequately manage their financial affairs.” RCW 11.88.005. (Washington State Superior Court Guardianship Forms)

NOTICE OF LOSS OF VOTING RIGHTS
(Proposed SCOMIS Code: NTLVR)

“On _____________________, this matter came before the court. Pursuant to Laws of
Washington RCW 11.88.010, it has been determined that the individual named in this
notice lacks the capacity to understand the nature and effect of voting such that she or
he cannot make an individual choice and should not retain the right to vote.
Accordingly, the court has appointed a guardian and has revoked the right to vote.”

(Washington State Superior Court Guardianship Forms)

Anna Barelds, I. v. (2009). Quality of care and service trajectories for people with intellecftual disabilities: defining the aspects of quality from the client’s perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24, 164-174.

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.

 

 

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

 

Washington State Developmental Disabilities Council is out of compliance with Federal Regulations

According to the US DD Act , the state Developmental Disabilities Council membership must include at least ONE immediate relative or guardian of an individual with a developmental  disability who resides or previously resided in an institution or shall be an individual with a developmental disability who resides or previously resided in in an institution.   This is quite clear.

Washington State does not have a representative and I cannot find out when our state’s Developmental Disability Council had such a representative.  I have tried communication with Ed Holen, Executive Director of the DDC regarding this for over one year.  He cannot tell me who this person is.  Last year he told me it was a person who had already retired from the council and she was only a temporary and was not an immediate relative.  Since that time Mr. Holen has not answered emails or has evaded the question.  How hard would it be for him to give me the name of the person who holds this position?  All the names of the council members are public and are appointed by the Governor.

Now Mr, Holen wants to waste our taxpayers money and waste time by driving from Olympia to Seattle to meet with me to discuss this.  He will not communicate via email for such a simple request.

I am particularly disturbed by this lack of adherence to Federal Law due to the extreme bias against the population which needs the services and supports of the institutions.  Without representation at the table which is making policy decisions, how are these people’s voices going to be heard.

These actions (and lack of actions) on the part of the Developmental Disabilities Council is discrimination against our most vulnerable.  When will this end?

Where will you turn for services?

Hi All, I would like to impress upon all of us that we need to support the safety net and improve it. The cuts to our services have been devastating – not necessarily for the reasons that many advocates claim though. For those with high support needs, the institutions (Fircrest, Rainier, Lakeland Village and Yakima Valley School) are not only the safest and least restrictive environments but also the most comprehensive and cost effective.

These facilities are not only life sustaining but life saving and for all of you with younger kids, it is critical that we support these facilities. As a parent of a child who needs these services, I would hate for anyone else to have to go through the trauma which our family did in order to have safe care for our son. Many advocates for community are not telling the whole truth – they do not know what it takes to support a child with extremely high support care needs – there are not supports in the community and it all falls to the family which then disintegrates and then what?

This is a total shame that our state does not support the care for those – and particularly for those under 21. The new state law will be going into effect and no one under 21 will be able to be admitted to the RHC. That may be fine if there was someplace else but there’s not. All those crisis beds and stabilization plans that DDD promised have not materialized.

I can tell you that at age 14 when we were told that no more hospitalizations would be approved for him our only option given to us by DDD was to call the police – that would mean that our son would be taken to jail – all because the DDD system failed him.

Our son is a huge success story and that is due to the RHC. We cannot afford to allow these facilities to continue to be dismantled. What will happen when your child has a crisis? You will want these services and we need these services for our community.

 

We need to support a continuum of care to have services for ALL  - whatever their support needs.

Rejoice in the gifts you have

I’m writing this letter for many reasons – I know that we all understand that our kids are individuals but what I think we need to be reminded of is that even if our kids all need the services of special ed, they all need the services which are individual to them.

This is difficult to manage and takes parents/guardians/families of the child to know what is best and to advocate for that child. Teachers may or may not be of assistance – hopefully they are but sometimes that is not the case. We are continually advocating with the school district for services but also other governmental agencies. It’s especially hard when one hears militant parents and advocates telling you what is best for your child when they do not have a clue about who my child even is.

As a parent of a child with very high support needs (although if one saw him you would never be able to know what his support needs are - looks are VERY deceiving) I have wrestled against the popular mainstream agenda since he was born. I have had discussions and arguments with many about self-contained versus inclusion and not one person who has known our son has ever suggested that an inclusion situation would be appropriate for him and for that I am grateful. We have known that he would thrive, learn and grow best in a self-contained classroom setting.

This by no means makes him isolated or cut off from community. He is able to fully participate in events that he chooses and from which he finds enjoyment. Forcing him to contain his enthusiasm about life to “fit” into a regular classroom would have killed his spirit.

I want parents to know that the self-contained classroom can be one of the best things there is if that is the right choice for your child. It certainly is not for many but for some, it is. Just because your child is enrolled in an inclusion classroom setting in no way means that that child is “included”. Many of these kids are put into situations without the needed support and this causes much anguish not only for that child but for other kids in the class and for the teachers.

Many may not be able to understand this position – maybe their kids are still young or maybe they don’t need constant support and 1:1 engagement to stay focused or on task or maybe they are in denial of the disability. Sometimes, I think the denial part is a driving force from some to prove that their child will fit in and be “normal.”

My son cannot be cured and our hopes for him are to live a happy life filled with joy. We are not trying to fit him into a mold that he will never be able to form to but rejoice in the mold that he came with. Working within the framework of what abilities and skills he has and what he can do, we give him as many opportunities to grow, learn and live with as few frustrations as possible.

With that I can truly say that our son is one of the most joyous, happiest of young men that you may ever meet.