|
|
|
|
|
|
REMINDERS: Tamie Hopp’s new email
address is Tamie327@hotmail.com. vor@compuserve.com is no longer
valid. See
http://www.vor.net/staff for additional VOR addresses and
contact information. VOR is the only national
organization advocating for a full range of residential and
support options for people with mental retardation, including
Medicaid-certified Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally
Retarded (ICFs/MR) and home and community-based care. VOR
supports choice. ---------------------------------- VOR Weekly E-Mail
Update ---------------------------------- ======================================================= Table of Contents
FOCUS ON CALIFORNIA
1. California’s Governor Schwarzenegger vetos bill to establish consumer abuse registry
2. California Couple spends $30,000 in fight to keep brother at Lanterman Developmental Center; Jim and Ann Grivich call for improved IPPs, community safety
3. Nurses strike for higher wages - Citing prison healthcare wage increases, workers at California Developmental Centers want more for a job that can be dangerous
=======================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. California’s Governor Schwarzenegger vetos bill to establish consumer abuse registry -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 1192, introduced by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, was vetoed recently by the Governor.
AB 1192 would have required “regional centers and community care facilities to report evidence of abuse of persons with developmental disabilities by a provider of services.” Such reports would be collected in a public registry to ensure these individuals were not re-employed in another capacity working with vulnerable persons.
In his veto address, Governor Schwarzenegger cited alleged “flaws” in the bill, as well as the financials costs of an abuse registry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. California Couple spends $30,000 in fight to keep brother at Lanterman Developmental Center; Jim and Ann Grivich call for improved IPPs, community safety -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California
Association of Psychiatric Technicians
When Jim and Ann Grivich inspected the community facility that was scheduled to start housing Jim’s brother Bobby, the couple couldn’t believe what they saw and heard.
The home that was supposed to be a safe place for Bobby to live was anything but.
So the Griviches stood up and fought to keep their brother at Lanterman: a battle that cost them $30,000 and untold amounts of heartache and headaches as they battled state bureaucracy and policy agendas that called for community placement-- no matter what the human cost.
ABOUT BOBBY
Bobby has lived at Lanterman for nearly 40 years. He is considered profoundly disabled, with numerous medical and psychological concerns, including severe osteoporosis, walking problems, choking and a tendency to wander.
Bobby and Jim’s mother placed Bobby in Lanterman after it became clear that the family just wasn’t able to care for him at home anymore, most especially with the danger presented by the busy street out front.
“It was clear he was going to either kill himself or someone else,” said Jim Grivich. Jim Grivich believes that, with its specialized staff and singular purpose, Lanterman was the right choice for Bobby.
“Community placement is appropriate for the category of people who need less help, such as some people who have Down’s Syndrome,” said Jim. “But there has been a push towards community placement for everyone by people who have no idea that there are others much more disabled -- people like my brother.
“LDC provides a certain level of services for the profoundly disabled, with professionals who are knowledgable about medical services, psychological services and medications. And my brother isn’t alone.”
BATTLING FOR A BROTHER’S SAFETY
Although Bobby continued to do well at Lanterman, others began taking it upon themselves to place him in the community.
As Bobby’s legal conservators, the Griviches were shocked when -- in September 2005 -- the annual HOP hearing was held without anyone even telling them about it. Although the hearing held that Bobby was “appropriately placed” as a Lanterman resident, the public defender took the ball and ran with it, insisting on an additional “barriers to community placement” hearing.
Next came a “special meeting” with a regional project staffer who oversees clients’ community placements. The staffer said Bobby didn’t have enough barriers to placement, so he would be placed in a preselected community home.
And the couple soon discovered that the staffer would be passing off this “no barriers” report to a court as an Individual Program Plan, which is an official document outlining client care. At this suspicious meeting, there were only a few people present -- far from the dozen or more usually required. Nor was Bobby present, as required by law.
“We were just told, ‘He’ll be placed,’” said Ann Grivich. “So we called for our own, real IPP meeting with all of the required stakeholders. We went over his needs as outlined in the official document and our desire he stay at LDC with the professional staff, only to be told by the regional project manager, ‘Those requirements aren’t a problem; we’ll just change the IPP to fit community placement.’ We couldn’t believe it.”
The Griviches finally helped create a very detailed IPP outlining everything Bobby required, including licensed staff 24/7 and care equal to or better than what’s provided at Lanterman.
But even this wasn’t enough to keep community advocates from trying to place him.
“The public defender made the regional center search the entire state for a home meeting Bobby’s needs, even though the IPP requirement is that the home must be within 10 miles of ours so that we can easily visit and be able to supervise Bobby’s care,” said Jim. “The search turned up nothing, but it cost us thousands of dollars in legal fees. They appear to want to bankrupt families who dare to stand up and fight. Luckily, my mother left me the money to fight for Bobby.”
RED FLAGS
The chosen community home was further than the 10-mile radius required in Bobby’s final IPP, but in the Griviches’ general area. Not only did the home not meet Bobby’s many IPP requirements, but dangers also lurked around every corner.
Upon visiting the home, Jim and Ann were stunned by what they found out. Numerous issues presented an immediate danger to Bobby and other clients who were scheduled to move in that very day, including major electrical work in progress done by an unlicensed employee (without a permit) that resulted in an exposed electrical panel, as well as live wires dangling from a wall in a bedroom (also built without a permit); an illegally constructed bedroom for Bobby that had no outside exits, as required by fire code; and a nighttime employee who would sleep in an additional illegal bedroom in the garage, far away from clients in need of help.
And with the house offering a “home-like” atmosphere, clients were free to come and go as they chose and to help themselves to food in the kitchen. With Bobby’s choking and wandering issues, this “home-like” facility put him directly at risk.
“Just the bowl of fruit on the kitchen counter could kill him,” said Ann.
And as for the employees and owner, “They didn’t even understand what we were talking about when we mentioned Bobby’s IPP,” said Jim.
When they asked if employees were licensed, they found out that those caring for Bobby and his many physical and psychological needs would be high-school graduates with just two weeks of training.
“You need to be educated to state standards and licensed by the state to paint fingernails or trim hair, but I guess you don’t even need that to take care of Bobby,” Ann said bitterly.
“They told us, ‘Well, the facility’s got a license, so it must be OK, right?’” said Jim.
RED TAPE
Even with all of these problems, the facility indeed had a license. But how did it get and maintain one? That’s what the Griviches want to find out, but have yet to hear a clear answer from anyone.
The couple contacted the licensing office, the city building department and the fire marshall. Their complaints were substantiated, and the city even found many more deficiencies.
Although the judge in the Griviches’ case eventually refused to allow Bobby to be placed in the prospective home because of the many safety concerns and the needs reflected in his IPP, the home has remained licensed to this day. Despite the safety hazards -- many of which still exist more than a year later -- three other clients have been placed in the home and the license remains intact. What’s more, construction work continues with clients still in the home.
With Bobby still safe (for now) at Lanterman, the couple’s concern for these other clients has led them to continue their fight against unsafe conditions, which various agencies say have “been taken care of,” although many haven’t been.
“In spite of our substantiated complaints, the licensing office refused to suspend the license until the necessary corrective work was completed,” said Jim Grivich. “These clients are in danger.”
URGENT CHANGES NEEDED
To help clients and families in situations like theirs, the Griviches are pushing to improve IPPs and ensure that licensed community homes are safe.
On IPPs, they recommend making sure that they are accurate, detailed and correct. For instance, Bobby’s initial IPP included very broad statements, such as “all supports must be in place.” But this vague language provides lots of wiggle room for those insisting on types of care that may not be in the client’s best interests.
“These statements can let people get away with no supports for clients,” said Ann. “The judges -- like our judge -- pay attention to the IPPs. When documents come out of Lanterman, they have to be right.”
And on community home licensure, the couple is calling on the Department of Developmental Services, the regional centers and the licensing agencies to stop the finger-pointing and ball-dropping.
“Licensing must make sure these facilities are safe, period.” said Jim Grivich.
Can Psych Techs do to anything to help?
“Specifically, Psych Techs can insist that every IPP requires that every prospective home has passed fire, safety and code inspections to state standards by licensed inspectors, and has licensed Psych Techs and/or RNs 24/7 where appropriate (and other specific needs of the client) spelled out in the ‘preferred future section’ of the IPP,” said Ann Grivich.
“And in general, Psych Techs can help by watching out for our family members.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Nurses strike for higher wages - Citing prison healthcare wage increases, workers at California Developmental Centers want more for a job that can be dangerous ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Daniel Tedford October 15, 2007 The LA Times
Nurses and related health care employees like Lucero picketed
Monday to garner higher wages for those working in California
Developmental Centers. Nurses at five centers across the state,
including the Fairview Developmental Center in Costa Mesa,
protested for wage increases. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tamie
Hopp =======================================================
|
|
VOR * 836 S. Arlington Heights Rd., #351 * Elk Grove Village, Illinois * 60007 877-399-4VOR ph. * 847-258-5273 fax * tamie327@hotmail.com |
