Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania League of Concerned Families of Retarded Citizens (2006)

Testimonial from Pennsylvania
by Bert springstead, President
Pennsylvania League of Concerned families of retarded citizens
VOR Board Member

May 15, 2006
Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy (PP&A) is required to protect and advocate the rights of people with mental retardation.  However, as the father of a son with mental retardation and statewide advocate for VOR’s position regarding choice, I am well aware of the hundreds of families of people with mental retardation within Pennsylvania who are extremely concerned about PP&A’s calculated selection of rights it will and will not protect.  More specifically, families are troubled by PP&A’s callus disregard for people with mental retardation and their families when, as primary decision makers, they seek to exercise their right to choose services provided by an ICF/MR instead of a community-based setting.  The string of consistent examples over the course of more than fifteen years that contributed to that conviction include:

Olmstead Plan
June 2004, a committee, chaired by the Executive Director of PP&A, was formed to write an Olmstead Plan, which was subsequently titled “Community Integration Plan for People with Mental Retardation.”  Of the seventeen committee members, thirteen are declared advocates for the closure of all ICFs/MR, be they state run or privately operated.  Only one member openly supports choice from a complete continuum of ICF/MR and community-based options.

March 23, 2005, a draft plan was completed.  While committee members provided input, the principal authors were employees of PP&A and the Disabilities Law Project, which is a PP&A affiliate.  The draft is based on an implicit assumption that no matter what, in order for a placement to be the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of a person, it must be community-based.  Accordingly, among others, the draft plan includes the following two recommendations: 1) within the next two years, the Office for Mental Retardation will “select two state centers for closure or merger” and 2) “within the next five years, the Commonwealth should cease to directly provide services in public ICFs/MR.”

March 16, 2006, the Deputy Secretary for MR directed the committee to revise the draft plan to comply with a recent Third Circuit Court decision (Frederick L, et al v. DPW, which is another PP&A/Disabilities Law Project class action lawsuit albeit a mental health case.)  The committee is scheduled to reconvene on May 16, 2006.

Western Center, a state operated ICF/MR
In 1989, without consulting with or notifying parents or guardians of residents, on behalf of those same residents, the Disabilities Law Project (a PP&A affiliate) two Arc chapters, and four former Western Center residents filed a class action lawsuit seeking a court order to close the Center.

September 19, 1992, again without family consultation, a settlement agreement was reached that led to a Department of Public Welfare (DPW) decision to close the Center.  When they became aware of the settlement’s content, as individuals and as an organized group, family members expressed their objections and grave concerns over potential consequences of a mass relocation of Center residents into an unprepared community, all of which was ignored by PP&A and the Disabilities Law Project.  Outplacements into the community over the objection of families and guardians ensued while PP&A and the Disabilities Law Project sought to thwart the right to reject community-based services.

January 1998, it was announced that Western Center would be closed as the culmination of the 1989 class action lawsuit.

March 25, 2000, DPW received an advance copy of the performance audit conducted by Pennsylvania’s Auditor General that reviewed DPW’s oversight of eight community group homes located in the same region as Western Center.  The audit found serious deficiencies threatening the health and safety of group home residents, which gave credence to the concerns expressed previously by Center families.

April 11, 2000, families received letters informing them that, despite their objections, the transfer of Center residents would commence the next day.  They were also informed that they would be denied access to their loved ones during the process.

April 12, 2000, separated from appalled family members by 20 or 30 state police, forty-four residents were loaded into vans and transported to places unknown to them or their families.

An agitated resident, broke through the police line in an effort to be with her on-looking sister.  The resident was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car, and the attempted visit was denied.

The remaining eleven or twelve residents were relocated during the following few weeks (accounts of the number of residents differ).

Although required by the settlement agreement and with PP&A’s knowledge, people were moved without benefit of individual evaluations.

May 22, 2000, the then Executive Director of PP&A announced verbally that the relocation was conducted in a professional manner.  [The day before (May 21) a copy of a Fax to the Deputy Secretary for Mental Retardation that listed 30 complaints reported by family members was sent to PP&A.]

October 29, 2001, twenty-six families filed a lawsuit with the US District Court seeking injunctive relief and damages relating to the Western Center transfers. Resolution of the suit is still pending.

Steven B., resident of Selinsgrove Center, a state operated ICF/MR
July 27, 1999, Dauphin County filed a petition in Pennsylvania’s Court of Common Pleas for Steven’s involuntary transfer from Selinsgrove Center, a state operated ICF/MR, to a community-based placement.  His parents and guardians, Mr. and Mrs. B., opposed the commitment, but the County contested their legal standing.  Mr. and Mrs. B. prevailed, however; and they were allowed to participate in the Court proceedings as intervenors.

October 19, 1999, in defiance of Steven’s parents/guardians, PP&A filed an amicus curiae brief in support of transfer to the community.

December2, 1999, the Court ruled in favor of Mr. and Mrs. B.  The judge concluded that Selinsgrove Center was an appropriate placement for their son; Steven was not required to move.

Altoona Center, a state operated ICF/MR
January 6, 2005, Secretary of Public Welfare disclosed plans to close Altoona Center.  According to the plan, approximately one-half of the ninety residents would be transferred to the community and the other half would move initially to another State Center.

November 4, 2005, fifty-nine family members initiated legal action to prevent closure.

January 25 – 27, 2006, a US District Court hearing addressed a motion to bar the transfer of any resident out of Altoona Center without the consent of his/her family or guardian until litigation regarding the planned closure is concluded.

January 30, 2006, the Court denied the motion and found that DPW has statutory authority to close the Center.  However, the judge’s implementing order included a requirement for written consent of the person’s legal guardian before a community placement could be made.

On or about March 8, 2006, PP&A and seven other organizations filed a motion to intervene and asked the Court to vacate its decision granting family members/guardians “veto power” over community placements and to prohibit them from admitting or transferring any person to a state center.

March 9, 2006, in response to a DPW motion to reconsider his decision of January 30, the judge reiterated his finding and ordered that the choice of placement of every Altoona Center resident remains solely with state or federal court-appointed guardians.  Subsequently, DPW announced it would file an appeal with the Third Circuit Court.

In sum, it has become painfully obvious to many disturbed families that PP&A seeks to curb choice by reducing options and to curtail the legislated role of people with mental retardation and their families or guardians as primary decision makers by filing class action suits without the consent of the class members.