Preserve and build Respite and Crisis Stabilization

Time is running out – we need a YES Vote on SB 5243

 

save respite part 4 Please read and understand why a YES vote is critical to our families who need support. This bill helps to maintain and build respite and crisis stabilization services – how can an advocate be against this bill?

According to the Action Alert sent out by The Arc – Washington State they oppose this effort to preserve respite and crisis stabilization.  This bill is only aimed at preserving and building – not shutting down and limiting the few choices that our families have for respite and crisis stabilization.

It is time to question the motives of The Arc – Washington State and ask why they want to tear apart services.  Tearing down will only hurt those we are trying to help.

Please call the toll-free hotline at 1-800-562-6000 and ask your Senator to vote YES on SB 5243 – it is for the sake of our families!

Read the bill here and decide for yourself what is in the best interest of our families and community members in need of services.

(1)(a) The Yakima Valley School shall continue to operate as a residential habilitation

The Yakima Valley School must operate crisis stabilization beds and respite service beds as the capacity of the school allows and as the needs of the community require, subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose.
(b) As of the effective date of this section, no new long-term admissions are permitted.
(2) The department, within available funds:
(a) Shall establish state-operated living alternatives, within funds specifically provided in the omnibus appropriations act, to provide community residential services to residential habilitation center residents transitioning to the community under chapter 30, Laws of 2011 1st sp. sess. who prefer a state-operated living alternative. The department shall offer residential habilitation center employees opportunities to work in state-operated living alternatives as they are established;
(b) May use existing supported living program capacity in the community for former residential habilitation center residents who prefer and choose a supported living program;
(c) Shall establish up to eight state-staffed crisis stabilization beds and up to eight state-staffed respite beds based upon funding provided in the omnibus appropriations act and the geographic areas with the greatest need for those services;
(d) Shall establish regional or mobile specialty services evenly distributed throughout the state, such as dental care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and specialized nursing care, which can be made available to former residents of residential habilitation centers and, within available funds, other individuals with developmental disabilities residing in the community; and
(e) Shall continue to provide respite services in residential habilitation centers and continue to develop respite care in the community.”

This is how 2SSB 5243 currently reads. Please read and understand why a YES vote is critical to our families who need support. This bill helps to maintain and build respite and crisis stabilization services – how can an advocate be against this bill?
(1)(a) The Yakima Valley School shall continue to operate as a residential habilitation

The Yakima Valley School must operate crisis stabilization beds and respite service beds as the capacity of the school allows and as the needs of the community require, subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose.
(b) As of the effective date of this section, no new long-term admissions are permitted.
(2) The department, within available funds:
(a) Shall establish state-operated living alternatives, within funds specifically provided in the omnibus appropriations act, to provide community residential services to residential habilitation center residents transitioning to the community under chapter 30, Laws of 2011 1st sp. sess. who prefer a state-operated living alternative. The department shall offer residential habilitation center employees opportunities to work in state-operated living alternatives as they are established;
(b) May use existing supported living program capacity in the community for former residential habilitation center residents who prefer and choose a supported living program;
(c) Shall establish up to eight state-staffed crisis stabilization beds and up to eight state-staffed respite beds based upon funding provided in the omnibus appropriations act and the geographic areas with the greatest need for those services;
(d) Shall establish regional or mobile specialty services evenly distributed throughout the state, such as dental care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and specialized nursing care, which can be made available to former residents of residential habilitation centers and, within available funds, other individuals with developmental disabilities residing in the community; and
(e) Shall continue to provide respite services in residential habilitation centers and continue to develop respite care in the community.”

This is how 2SSB 5243 currently reads. Please read and understand why a YES vote is critical to our families who need support. This bill helps to maintain and build respite and crisis stabilization services – how can an advocate be against this bill?
(1)(a) The Yakima Valley School shall continue to operate as a residential habilitation

The Yakima Valley School must operate crisis stabilization beds and respite service beds as the capacity of the school allows and as the needs of the community require, subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose.
(b) As of the effective date of this section, no new long-term admissions are permitted.
(2) The department, within available funds:
(a) Shall establish state-operated living alternatives, within funds specifically provided in the omnibus appropriations act, to provide community residential services to residential habilitation center residents transitioning to the community under chapter 30, Laws of 2011 1st sp. sess. who prefer a state-operated living alternative. The department shall offer residential habilitation center employees opportunities to work in state-operated living alternatives as they are established;
(b) May use existing supported living program capacity in the community for former residential habilitation center residents who prefer and choose a supported living program;
(c) Shall establish up to eight state-staffed crisis stabilization beds and up to eight state-staffed respite beds based upon funding provided in the omnibus appropriations act and the geographic areas with the greatest need for those services;
(d) Shall establish regional or mobile specialty services evenly distributed throughout the state, such as dental care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and specialized nursing care, which can be made available to former residents of residential habilitation centers and, within available funds, other individuals with developmental disabilities residing in the community; and
(e) Shall continue to provide respite services in residential habilitation centers and continue to develop respite care in the community.”

Why the confusion, King 5?

We often hear varying opinions about what the cost of care for people with intellectual disabilities really is.  This  should not be so difficult to figure out given that there are resources upon resources to use.  For some reason though, several of the resources which could give us the best information are not used.  This makes no sense to me unless the goal is to keep the public and legislators confused and to keep pretending that there is no real way to make a comparison of cost for community and institutional care.

In the most recent airing of “Last of the Institutions” by investigative reporter Susannah Frame of King 5 News, she did refer to the cost of care for one young man with high support needs.  He lives in a home supported by Alpha Supported Living.  Ms. Frame also interviewed Scott Livengood, CEO of Alpha Supported Living and referenced the “average” cost of care for those in dispersed community housing.  This young man’s daily care cost is $370.00 – far higher than the “average” cost reported to legislators and the public.

Using this “average” cost is a tactic that is used to hide the truth of the issue.  Those in DDA and the agencies know full well what the cost of care of each individual in a community setting is.  Each agency has negotiated with DDA the exact number of hours and supports that each of their clients will need.  It is no mystery.  Pretending that those with high support needs can be cared for at the “average” cost is nothing but a lie.

For instance, a couple of years ago I was given the daily rates for the cost of care of the 30 residents with the highest support needs and cost.  The daily range was $497 to $969 with an average direct care cost of $598.  If there was an “average” to use for the cost of care for residents in the shared community if they were to move to dispersed housing, this would be the average to use.  See this link for the chart with the costs and the support needs assessments of these clients. Highest 30 Residential Clients by Cost and acuity

I spoke with Russ Walker, Executive Producer for King 5 Investigators.  I brought up the issue of the dispersed community costs not including medical, dental, nursing care, prescription medications, and food – just to highlight a few cost centers.  Mr. Walker assured me that the costs did include these and they knew since Mr. Livengood had showed them the accounting for Alpha Supported Living. It’s interesting to note that the Certified Cost Report for Alpha Supported Living does not include these costs.  Certified Cost Report for Alpha Supported Living 2014

When looking at the actual data,  the calculations and cost accounts are very different than what is provided to our legislators and public.  When I have presented these differences to some legislators, Disability Rights Washington, the Developmental Disabilities Council and The Arc Chapters – the common response is refusal to communicate.    They have not been able to prove me wrong even when given the opportunity to do so.  I believe this means they are not able to prove me wrong.

Take a look for yourself and decide – what costs are missing from the community support side of the equation?  Do the costs add up as equal in your judgement and calculations?   Click the link for a table of the daily cost per resident.

Shared Community RHC and Alpha Supported Living Cost Comparison

I am using Alpha Supported Living as the example since this is the agency that Susannah Frame used in her investigation.  Alpha Supported Living is one of the better agencies yet the reimbursement from the state barely covers the cost.  Alpha has major fundraising campaigns to raise money to provide quality services to their residents.

Alpha Supported Living 990 2014

DDA Account Descriptions

It’s not Scientific Research – part 2

The Policy Report that Susanna Frame refers to as “scientific research” is not scientific research but a literature review looking at one aspect of life. The Policy Brief she shares is not a scientific research and the authors note that for those with severe intellectual disabilities with complex support needs there has been a huge gap in the research.

Promoting choice and person centered supports comes with an added responsibility to ensure that individuals and families are given the opportunity to have accurate information about the many complexities involved with their care.

While the deinstitutionalization movement started with great intentions – this movement has gotten out of hand without a grip on the reality of the situation.

Wolf Wolfensberger (1934-2011) was instrumental in the formulation of the concept of personal value and meaningful integration and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities.

“Wolfensberger (2003) has indicated that the advent of the ideologies of radical individualism coupled with radical self-determination and the derivative constructs of ‘choice’, self-advocacy and empowerment has resulted in many people with ID being turned loose without any, or without sufficient, supports, guidance, tutelage or outright controls.  Wolfensberger singles out for particular criticism the kind of assertiveness training promoted by People First and other collective advocacy groups. “(Jackson, 2011)

There are several groups that are supported by public funds that partake in this radical advocacy movement.  They refuse to collaborate with others who are more holistic, take a strident tone and alienate those who may question their tactics or ideology.   The Arc, SAW (Self-Advocates Washington), SAIL (Self Advocates in Leadership), Parent to Parent, Washington State Parent Coalitions for Developmental Disabilities are several of these organizations which have become wedded to this radical agenda of black/white choices.

These groups are working with for-profit vendors to polarize advocates to “community” or “institutionalization” to the complete exclusion of true choice and alternatives.  The politicization of the research agenda which is dictated by external bodies is doing our citizens a great disservice.

This so-called “investigation” by Susannah Frame from King 5 plays right into this agenda.  It has been clear from the start of the biases and lack of research and facts.  The complexities of the issues have not been addressed nor has there been any information given as to why advocates may not agree with the “choice” that they are told is the “right” choice.   Many question the credibility and ethics of the authors of the reports and the so-called “scientific” research.

While it seems that community cost is less by the limited data that is provided, it is not really about cost – nor is it really about choice – it is about something else – it’s about an ideology that is going to lead to disaster if no one is allowed to question it.

Paradoxically, instead of being genuinely enabling, empowering and liberalizing, ideology is being deployed to support policies which benefit the for-profit vendors.  This is big business and many community vendors are making a large profit from the care of vulnerable people.

Scott Livengood, CEO of Alpha Supported Living, would be able to tell you that his company cannot accommodate many residents with the high support needs of Yusuf – the young man portrayed in the recent segment.

Alpha Supported Living does a great job of supporting Yusef and others but some of these agencies are not so well staffed or managed well.   Records indicate that Yusef’s daily personal care comes to about $370.00 a day – yes that is less expensive than the daily care rate at the RHC but what is missing from this information is the cost of all the other aspects of care – food, shelter, health care, transportation – just to highlight a few costs that can add up rather quickly.

Any Supported Living Provider will say that they cannot afford to care for people with this level of care with the low rate of reimbursement that they receive from our state.  The funding for this care comes from the Home and Community Based Service Waiver (HCBS) and each state has a different program for funding.

While it has been stated that Washington is decades behind – the facts show otherwise.  There are 12 states that do not have any large State-Operated ICFs but that does not mean that they do no not have private ICFs or nursing homes or utilize those services from an ICF in another state.  In order to move people from the ICF to a dispersed community setting, it would be critical to know what the resources are in the community and if there is funding available to provide the specialized services and to sustain them.

The chart below has data taken from The State of the States (the same resource that Susannah Frame used for her information).  One can see that every state has some residents in an ICF/ID or nursing home.  It is also important to note the HCBS per capita spending for those who live in dispersed community settings.  The states with fewer people in larger facilities spend much more per capita on the HCBS waivers.

Washington, with a HCBS cost of $87.00 is below the national average of $129.00.  Those states with no large state-operated facilities spend an average of $175.00 per capita on HCBS waivers.  This care also comes with a cost. It needs to be noted that the HCBS costs do not include cost of living expenses such as rent, food, medical care which are all included in the ICF/ID costs.

If this was all about cost we would not be having these discussions.

Data taken from “The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities” Fiscal Year 2013 and Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Home and Community Based Spending FY 2013

Graph sorted by percent of ID residents in /ID and Nursing Facilities

HCBS spending per capita and ID residents 2013

 

Graph sorted by State spending on HCBS waivers FY 2013

HCBS spending with ID Residents

 

King 5 “Last of the Institutions” Part 4

 

Resources used:

 

Ailey, Sarah H., et al. “Factors related to complications among adult patients with intellectual disabilities hospitalized at an academic medical center.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 2 (April 2015): 114-119.

Arnold, Samuel R. C., Vivienne C. Riches, and Roger J. Stancliffe. 2014. “I-CAN: The Classification and Prediction of Support Needs.” Journal Of Applied Research In Intellectual Disabilities 27, no. 2: 97.

Bershadsky, Julie, Sarah Taub, Joshua Engler, Charles R. Moseley, K. Charlie Lakin, Roger J. Stancliffe, Sheryl Larson, Renata Ticha, Caitlin Bailey, and Valerie Bradley. 2012. “Place of Residence and Preventive Health Care for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Services Recipients in 20 States.” Public Health Reports 127, no. 5: 475-485

Bigby, Christine. “Known well by no-one: Trends in the informal social networks of middle-aged and older people with intellectual disability five years after moving to the community.” Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 33, no. 2 (June 2008): 148-157.

Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, 2015. Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) in FY 2013: Home and Community-Based Services were a Majority of LTSS Spending June 30, 2015, s.l.: Centers for Medicaid and Medicare.

Cooper, Sally-Ann, et al. “Multiple physical and mental health comorbidity in adults with intellectual disabilities: population-based cross-sectional analysis.” BMC Family Practice 16, no. 1 (August 2015): 1.

Erickson S, LeRoy B. Health literacy and medication administration performance by caregivers of adults with developmental disabilities. Journal Of The American Pharmacists Association: Japha [serial online]. March 2015;55(2):169

Felce, David. “Costs, Quality And Staffing In Services For People With Severe Learning Disabilities.” Journal Of Mental Health 3.4 (1994): 495-506.

Friedman, Carli, Amie Lulinski, and Mary C. Rizzolo. “Mental/behavioral health services: Medicaid home and community-based services 1915(c) waiver allocation for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 4 (August 2015): 257-270.

Hamden, AnnNewton, RichardMcCauley-Elsom, KayCross, Wendy. “Is Deinstitutionalization Working In Our Community?.” International Journal Of Mental Health Nursing 20.4 (2011): 274-283.

Hamelin, Jeffery P., et al. “Meta-Analysis Of Deinstitutionalisation Adaptive Behaviour Outcomes: Research And Clinical Implications.” Journal Of Intellectual And Developmental Disability 36.1 (2011): 61-72.

Hewitt, Amy. “Presidential Address, 2014—Embracing complexity: Community inclusion, participation, and citizenship.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 52, no. 6 (December 2014): 475-495.

Jackson, R. “Invited review: Challenges of residential and community care: ‘the times they are a‐changin’.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 55, no. 9 (September 2011): 933-944.

Kelly, Susan, and Yani Su. “Psychotropic and anticonvulsant medication: Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who transitioned to the community from an institution.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 4 (August 2015): 289-300.

Lakin K, Prouty R, Polister B, Coucouvanis K. Data Briefs: Change in Residential Placements for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the USA in the Last Two Decades. Journal Of Intellectual And Developmental Disability [serial online]. June 1, 2003;28(2):205-10.

Larson S, Lakin C, Hill S. Behavioral Outcomes of Moving From Institutional to Community Living for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: U.S. Studies From 1977 to 2010. Research & Practice For Persons With Severe Disabilities [serial online]. Winter2012 2012;37(4):235-246.

Luckasson, Ruth, and Robert L. Schalock. “Standards to guide the use of clinical judgment in the field of intellectual disability.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 3 (June 2015): 240-251.PsycINFO, EBSCOhost (accessed November 28, 2015).

Mansell, Jim, and Julie Beadle-Brown. “Deinstitutionalisation and community living: Position statement of the Comparative Policy and Practice Special Interest Research Group of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 54, no. 2 (February 2010): 104-112

Martinez-Leal, R., et al. “The Impact Of Living Arrangements And Deinstitutionalisation In The Health Status Of Persons With Intellectual Disability In Europe.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 55.9 (2011): 858-872

Nøttestad, Jim Aa., and O. M. Linaker. “Psychotropic Drug Use Among People With Intellectual Disability Before And After Deinstitutionalization.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 47.6 (2003): 464-471.  2015.

Snell, Martha E., et al. “Characteristics and needs of people with intellectual disability who have higher IQs.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 47, no. 3 (June 2009): 220-233.

Stancliffe, Roger J, Eric Emerson, and K Charlie Lakin. “Community living and people with intellectual disability: Introduction to Part I.” Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 25, no. 4 (December 2000): 1-4.

Stancliffe, Roger J, and Sian Keane. “Outcomes And Costs Of Community Living: A Matched Comparison Of Group Homes And Semi-Independent Living.” Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability25.4 (2000): 281-305.

Swenson S, Lakin C. A wicked problem: Can governments be fair to families living with disabilities?. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal Of Applied Family Studies [serial online]. February 2014;63(1):185-191

Ticha R, Hewitt A, Nord D, Larson S. System and Individual Outcomes and Their Predictors in Services and Support for People With IDD. Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities [serial on the Internet]. (2013), [cited November 27, 2015]; 51(5): 298-315.

Seattle Children’s Autism Blog

A very timely blog posting by Lynn Vigo, MSW, LICSW from Seattle Children’s “The Autism Blog.”

I can’t help but think that this is in connection to the King 5 Investigation series by Susannah Frame – if it wasn’t ment to be, it sure hits the nail on the head.    Thank you, Lynn!

I’m so confused

The Arc National Convention

This year The Arc is having their national convention close to my home and I will be able to attend.  I am hoping to learn much and network with many to help support a continuum of care service model.  I realize I will be in the minority but my hope is to spread the word about supportive communities and the benefits these communities provide to not only the residents but our society as a whole.

Unfortunately, the cost of registration is way beyond my budget and I have only registered for one day and the research luncheon.  This alone is $200.00.  My hope is to have some help from others – every dollar helps – no donation is too small – to bring the registration fee into a more manageable zone.

If you would like to help with my cause to donate to my registration fee, you can go to this link and donate there.  Every donation is so much appreciated!

Donation Page at Go Fund Me for The Arc National Convention in Bellevue, WA

Is The Arc crossing the line? Where does the Antitrust law come into play?

The time has come for people to be aware of the monopolistic power which The Arc organization wields regarding control over information dissemination, public policy, social media and advocacy with regards to issues concerning our citizens with intellectual disabilities.

1.  The Arc frequently misinterprets the U.S. Supreme Court Decision Olmstead:   (From Legal Information Institute – Cornell University Law School )

”  This case concerns the proper construction of the anti-discrimination provision contained in the public services portion (Title II) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 337, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Specifically, we confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes. Such action is in order when the State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. In so ruling, we affirm the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in substantial part. We remand the case, however, for further consideration of the appropriate relief, given the range of facilities the State maintains for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and its obligation to administer services with an even hand.”

And more:

“We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings”.

” Consistent with these provisions, the State generally may rely on the reasonable assessments of its own professionals in determining whether an individual “meets the essential eligibility requirements” for habilitation in a community-based program. Absent such qualification, it would be inappropriate to remove a patient from the more restrictive setting.”

“Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.”

“There may be times [when] a patient can be treated in the community, and others whe[n] an institutional placement is necessary For other individuals, no placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate. See Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 22—23 (“Some individuals, whether mentally retarded or mentally ill, are not prepared at particular times–perhaps in the short run, perhaps in the long run–for the risks and exposure of the less protective environment of community settings”; for these persons, “institutional settings are needed and must remain available.”); Brief for Voice of the Retarded et al. as Amici Curiae 11 (“Each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person–recognizing that, on a case-by-case basis, that setting may be in an institution.”); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 327 (1982) (Blackmun, J., concurring) (“For many mentally retarded people, the difference between the capacity to do things for themselves within an institution and total dependence on the institution for all of their needs is as much liberty as they ever will know.”

2.  By misinterpreting “Olmstead The Arc incorrectly informs the public that “Olmstead” does not support Intermediate Care Facilities for People with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/ID) or congregate care.

3.  Many chapters of The Arc censor and block postings which point out the inaccuracies of this misinterpretation.

These behaviors from The Arc Chapters are bordering on violating the U.S. Antitrust Laws by possessing a monopoly of power in a relevant arena and willfully acquiring and maintaining that power by censorship of information to the very population they state they are advocating for.  If The Arc did not run a monopoly I believe they would welcome the sharing of information to better inform people of their choices with regards to person centered planning.

The Arc does not support a continuum of care system and by this decision is practicing discrimination against some of the very people they state they advocate for.  How can this be?

The Community Advocacy Coalition requires members to sign a contract which states they oppose congregate care.  How many of these organizations understand by signing this contract they are violating the rights of many who they say they advocate for?  By requiring members to sign this contract, The Arc of Washington State is denying membership to many who advocate for a continuum of care, a system which upholds the Olmstead Decision and person centered care based on the individual’s support and care needs.

This decision of The Arc to perpetuate misinformation and block others from discussions is unfortunate.  There is much good that The Arc has to share but by this practice of censorship they are doing a great disservice to our communities.  I urge The Arc chapters to take a look at their policies regarding this information.

One may wonder why there is not alot of information regarding this topic on other sites.  The reason is that if one attempts to post something that does not align with what The Arc states, the post will most likely be removed and the author will be blocked.

Here is one letter that I received from the policy director of The Arc of Washington after several requests of mine to be unblocked:

 

Cheryl – Sue Elliott and I discussed allowing you to post on The Arc’s social media sites again with the understanding you will abide by the rules of not posting derogatory comments about The Arc and other community advocacy organizations. In order for this to happen, I need you to unblock me from seeing your Facebook posts. Please notify me when you have done so. Thank you  (Written November 3, 2011)

1.  I have never blocked any of the members of The Arc

2.  The term “derogatory” means “not in agreement with” to them

3.  I am still blocked from their sites even though I responded to the above note.

 

Support HB 2150

Please support HB 2150

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington State Constitution

Article 13

 

 

ARTICLE XIII
STATE INSTITUTIONS

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

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

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