Update January 7, 2016 regarding inaccurate data used in the DD Audit by Washington State Auditor – see red notes below
Corrections and clarifications are needed by Susannah Frame from King 5 News regarding her “investigative” series “The Last of the Institutions.”
Ms. Frame and Russ Walker, Executive Producer King 5 Investigators, have both been notified of these issues and have been given more accurate and objective data and research. Our hope is that they review the information and research they have been provided and produce a more accurate portrayal of the very complex issues involved with the care of our citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
- DDA Case Load and Costs Oct 2015 with Explanation – the reporters failed to mention that the costs attributed to the RHCs actually include costs for an average of 65 “community” clients who utilize the RHCs for short term stays, respite care, crisis care and other services. This link has the explanations as provided by the Communications and Performance Unit Manager at DDA.
- These 65 clients are a non-duplicated number each month so in reality there could be 780 community clients who have their care and services billed to the RHC. When looking at it this way it is clear that the RHC serves those in the community just as much as it serves the permanent residents.
- The DD Performance Audit is riddled with inaccurate data and has failed to capture much of the critical information needed to run a real performance audit. Information about some of the issues can be found on this website under DD Audit.
- The DD Audit also uses resources that non-existent. For instance, the DD Audit states they used the National Core Indicators Consumer Survey for Washington State 2009 -2010. Washington State did not participate in the Consumer Survey by the National Core Indicators for the years 2009-2010. Still trying to locate the data and the report the DD Audit team used for their information.
- In addition to questionable resources being used, the National Core Indicators are biased in their ability to capture the voice of those with more profound levels IDD and/or pronounced communication impairments. This population is excluded from the survey
- The NCI data is not a “national average” as reported by the DD Audit report. The survey is only an average of the 16 states that voluntarily use the survey.
Response from the Human Services Research Institute in answer to my questions about our State Auditor DD Performance Audit which incorrectly referenced the NCI data for their audit.
In the past, WA collected the Adult Consumer Survey data during a time period that crossed over two separate NCI collection years – between Jan 2007 and Dec 2008. (see below email from Lisa Weber, PhD)
Because of this, the data could not be included in the national averages for the year 2009-10. WA was issued a separate state report on these data (see attached.).
However, these data were included in the chart generator for the 09-10, but are NOT included in the NCI average on the chart generator for that year. When you look at the data on the chart generator from 09-10 for Washington, please keep in mind the circumstances described above (especially if when comparing to the NCI average.)
Your question brought to my attention that this information should be noted in the chart generator for WA for that year. I will work on getting that info added.
Referenced email from Lisa Weber, PhD (Washington State):
The attached file contains our data from the NCI Consumer Interviews. There were 545 adults who participated in a Consumer Interview. The interview responses and feedback forms are store in separate Access databases.
We have a two year data collection cycle, so this data was gathered between Jan 2007 -Dec 2008. It was all gathered using the old version of the interview form. We modified the data entry forms a bit to cover our additional questions and to make the data entry easier for our quality assurance staff, but the numbering of the NCI items in the tables has been left intact.
Please write to Susannah Frame at email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org to express concerns regarding the lack of objective reporting in this investigative series.