Cost Comparison Study

2003 peer-reviewed study of existing cost comparison literature on found that community settings for persons with developmental disabilities are not always less expensive than facilities, as some advocates claim. (Walsh, et al., "Cost Comparisons of Community and Institutional Residential Settings: Historical Review of Selected Research, Mental Retardation, Volume 41, Number 2: 103-122, April 2003; See Summary and 2009 Update). Cost savings at the macro level are relatively minor when institutional settings are closed, and if there are any at all, they are likely due to staffing costs when comparing state and private caregivers. For a single copy of the original cost study, or to purchase a quantity of original reprints, contact Tamie Hopp at 877-399-4VOR; or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

2009 Update

A 2009 update by lead researcher, Kevin Walsh, confirmed that the 2003 conclusions remain valid in 2009 and beyond.

 

Resource Links for Families and Advocates

Resources and links to organizations across the country.

 

Abuse and Neglect Document

Related News: March 4, 2013 - U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT) has called on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General to “undertake an immediate investigation into the alarming number of deaths and cases of abuse of developmentally disabled individuals” in small, privately-operated  group homes. Read the text of his letter here.
 
VOR's "Widespread Abuse, Neglect and Death in Small Settings Serving People with Intellectual Disabilities," document provides a bibliography of investigative media series, state audits and peer-reviewed research in more than half the states that detail systemic concerns with regard to quality of care in community-based settings for persons with developmental disabilities. Tragedies range from physical, emotional, and financial abuse, neglect and even death. Many of these outcomes are associated with a zest to move to a "community for all" vision people with developmental disabilities without adequately considering the ramifications of separating vulnerable people from specialized care and then doing away with a critical safety net (a/k/a deinstitutionalization). The lessons learned from more than 25 states should cause policymakers and lawmakers to take pause and recognize that a range of needs requires a range of service options.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abuse and Neglect in Missouri

Empty Promises:
Lack of Community Oversight Persists, People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
 
Remain at Risk
 
 
In this time of great need, don’t eliminate good care. Maintain the specialized, life-sustaining supports already available in Habilitation Centers and improve community care through enhanced and effective oversight.
This report considers what's at stake if Missouri's Habilitation Centers, licensed ICFs/MR, are closed for the people who will be displaced to unprepared community programs and for pepole desperately waiting for services.

 

 

 

Olmstead Resources

The Supreme Court, in its landmark Olmstead v. L.C. ruling, recognized the need for a range of services which respond to the varied and unique needs of the entire disability community: “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...Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.”  119 S. Ct. 2176, 2187 (1999).

VOR Olmstead Resources