|
|
|
Executive Summary: Abuse of DD Act Programs' Powers & Resources |
|
|
FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF ENTITIES FUNDED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE & BILL OF RIGHTS (“DD ACT”) “ABUSE OF DD ACT PROGRAMS’ POWERS & RESOURCES” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VOR’s DD Act Reauthorization Position. VOR urges Congress to amend the DD Act to incorporate the changes recommended by VOR to assure that the DD Act programs are meeting the needs of people with severe and profound mental retardation and developmental disabilities (MR/DD).
VOR is a national grassroots advocacy organization speaking out for persons with MR/DD. This Executive Summary and the related report (see, http://vor.net/DDActReport.htm) were prepared by the VOR DD Act Task Force, an ad hoc committee authorized by the VOR Board of Directors in June 2007. VOR receives no public funding.
There are 3 primary DD Act Programs. The three primary programs authorized by the DD Act are the state Developmental Disabilities Councils (DD Councils), state Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems, and state University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD) (see, 42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq. (2000)).
The DD Act will be reauthorized in 2009, the first time in more than 8 years. Although the DD Act authorization expired in 2007 after a 7-year authorization in 2000, it is not anticipated that it will be reauthorized until 2009.
The DD Act requires the provision of services to be based on choice and need. Choice: The DD Act recognizes individuals and their families as the “primary decisionmakers” regarding services supports and policies (DD Act, 42 U.S.C. 15001(c)(3)(2000)). Need: The DD Act recognizes the right of individuals with developmental disabilities to receive publicly-supported treatment, services and habilitation that are appropriate to needs of the individuals (42 U.S.C. §15009(a)(3)(A)(2000)).
Congress intends for the DD Act to support service choice. In 1993, the Energy and Commerce Committee was crystal clear in its expectations for DD Act programs: “[T]he Committee would caution that goals expressed in this Act to promote the greatest possible integration and independence for some individuals with developmental disabilities not be read as a Federal policy supporting the closure of residential institutions. It would be contrary to Federal intent to use the language or resources of this Act to support such actions, whether in the judicial or legislative system.” (House Commerce Committee, Report No. 103-378, Nov. 18, 1993, pages 7-8).
Some DD Act programs have abused their powers and federal resources by pursuing activities that are counter to the DD Act’s statutory policy and congressional intent. Without consequence, some DD Act-funded activities have resulted in the loss of facility-based care for persons with MR/DD, to the documented detriment of many former residents with MR/DD. In its report, the DD Act Task Force documents 93 examples from 14 states of DD Act programs’ obvious anti-facility bias, despite the clarity of the DD Act and congressional support for residential choice (see, http://vor.net/DDActReport.htm).
Here’s just a sampling:
State DD Councils In September 2007, the Missouri DD Council published a full page, full color ad in the St. Louis Post Dispatch implying that specialized facility-based services for people with MR/DD are like prisons by indicating that residents “who have committed no crime [are] locked away from society.”
The Wisconsin DD Council adopted a public position in 2007 supporting the downsizing and eventual closure of Southern Wisconsin Center, a state operated facility, and granted “People First Wisconsin” at least $61,000 over 4 years, despite this organization’s express priority to “not rest until all state centers in WI are closed.” DD Act programs in Maryland, Washington, and other states also funded self-advocacy groups and activities, which supported ICF/MR closures.
“It is the position of the [Washington State] Developmental Disabilities Council that: 1) the Legislature should pursue a policy on downsizing IMR/RHCs [MR/DD facilities] with the goal of eventually closing institutions contingent upon development of adequate and appropriate programs and facilities.” (Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs), Policy No. 103).
State Protection & Advocacy agencies In California, nearly 2,500 people were transferred from public ICFs/MR following a P&A class action lawsuit. The result, as documented by peer-reviewed studies and media exposes, was an alarming increase in mortality among those individuals transferred. Not only did P&A fail to “protect and advocate” for those who were suffering in community programs, but in 2005 it filed another lawsuit to close more ICFs/MR.
The Ohio P&A proposed, as part of a legal settlement with the state, to eliminate entirely facility-based care in the state.
The Florida P&A told one mother of a facility resident in a letter that large facilities are a “despicable way for government and society to
treat people who happen to have a developmental disability.”
In response to consumer complaints regarding requests to access individual records, a Hawaii state bill was introduced in 2008 that, if passed, will require the state auditor to perform a financial and management audit of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center, the state’s P&A.
One Member of Congress has sought to address the concerns of facility residents and their legal guardians by filing a bill that, if passed, will require P&As to notify individuals and their legal guardians before a class action suit is filed and provide them with the right to opt out of the suit (see, H.R. 3995).
State University Programs (UCEDDs) The Texas UCEDD joined with other organizations to lobby the Texas Legislature to adopt budget policies which would cause “the immediate re-direction / re-allocation of resources from State Institutions (including. . . [public and private] ICFs/MR . . .) to community living programs (http://www.dpctexas.org, November 2007).
For more detailed information about DD Act program abuses see, http://vor.net/DDActReport.htm.
Many fragile Americans with severe and profound MR/DD have been harmed due to DD Act program activities.
“Community for all” is a position forcefully pursued by many disability advocates, including many DD Act programs. Far from utopia, systemic problems with community services are well-documented in more than half the states (see generally, http://vor.net/abuse_neglect.htm).
In some situations, DD Act programs have denied or ignored these problems and continued to pursue the transition of medically fragile, multiply disabled, profoundly MR/DD individuals to ill-prepared, under-funded community living situations. For example, in California, much higher mortality has been reported in peer-reviewed studies among the more than 2,500 who left facility care following a P&A lawsuit. In New Mexico, the Governor authorized a private investigator to find former Los Lunas facility residents – a facility closed due to a P&A lawsuit – who had “slipped through the cracks.” In Maryland, where the DD Council and P&A express strong anti-facility biases in testimony, priorities, and policy, there have been extensive media reports regarding the state’s group home failings. In Pennsylvania, families of former Western Center residents, closed due to a P&A lawsuit, have filed a lawsuit alleging injuries among the residents transferred. In Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Utah, California and other states, families and other advocates have delivered public testimony/comments regarding DD Act program activities, including these programs’ anti-facility choice bias and disregard for individual and family/guardian input. VOR’s Recommended Reforms
VOR urges Congress to amend the DD Act to adopt the following reforms aimed at ensuring that DD Act program recipients carry out the Act’s mandate to respect choice in residential settings and family decisionmaking:
A. *Freeze (level fund) DD Act program funding to give Congress time to review the programs and consider reforms.
B. *Pass H.R. 3995 to require that federally-funded organizations, including P&A, notify residents of Medicaid-funded and certified Intermediate Care Facilities for Persons with Mental Retardation (ICFs/MR) before a class action is filed, and provide a time-limited opportunity for residents or, where one has been appointed, their legal guardians, to opt out of the lawsuit.
C. *Secure an HHS audit of how DD Act programs are working and whether they are respecting family choice and the Olmstead Supreme Court decision, to be submitted to relevant House and Senate committees within one year.
D. *Approve a three year reauthorization so that Congress can more closely monitor the effectiveness of DD Act policy and activity and how HHS is overseeing it.
For More Information
See the VOR web site at: http://vor.net/DDAct2007.html
Contact: Tamie Hopp Director, Government Relations & Advocacy 605-399-1624 direct
|
|
VOR * 836 S. Arlington Heights Rd., #351 * Elk Grove Village, Illinois * 60007 877-399-4VOR ph. * 847-258-5273 fax * tamie327@hotmail.com |
