Meanwhile, the state has built or rehabilitated at least three houses in three different towns, which could be used as group homes for at least some of those waiting people.
But those houses are standing empty. Why? Because the state has entered into expensive 20-year leases with developers to operate those homes for former residents of the Fernald Developmental Center.
But the Fernald residents don't want to go there. They want to stay where they are. So the administration is going to court to force them to leave.
In the meantime, the finished houses, on which the state is presumably already paying as much as $100,000 per year in rent, are likely to remain empty for months as the administration's appeal drags on.
Okay, so maybe one day, if the administration wins the appeal, a number of former Fernald residents will be moved into these houses. How many people will the houses accomodate? Maybe 30?
There are 180 residents remaining at Fernald. Obviously, most of them will have to be moved, at least initially, to other state facilities if and when Fernald is closed. Yet, Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bigby has told the State House News Service that at this time, the administration doesn't have a plan regarding the future of those other remaining facilities. They may ultimately be shut down as well, or they may not.
Are you with me? Let's go on. As the administraton makes plans to kick the current residents with mental retardation out of Fernald (while at the same time insisting they are continuing to follow U.S. District Judge Tauro's order to keep the facility open while they appeal it), they are starting to move homeless families into an unoccupied building on the Fernald campus.
Yet, DMR Commissioner Howe says there's currently no plan as to whether Fernald will remain a permanent site for the homeless. So there's no plan even for what will be done with Fernald. It appears that Fernald may yet remain open as a center for the homeless. Wait a minute. I'm confused. I thought the plan was to close Fernald because it was too expensive to continue to operate.
Nevermind, let's just review the logic so far:
1) The state is dealing with a waiting list of thousands of people with mental retardation in Massachusetts who need placements in the community.
2) Without developing a comprehensive plan for all the state facilities, the administration has decided to shut down one of those facilities, which will require the need for placements for an additional 180 people.
3) The state has built 3 houses so far for those 180 people from Fernald. Those houses are going to remain empty, perhaps for months if not years.
4)The state may or may not keep Fernald open as a center for the homeless. There's apparently no plan developed yet on that.
Are you with me?
…the state of Massachusetts is paying a developer US$100k/year to lease buildings that, presumably, the state could have owned. Can anyone tell me why the state does not own the buildings? Why is it leasing them?
<
p>
Here in Wellesley, there is, across Oakland street from Mass Bay Community College, a group home for (I believe) mentally retarded people that has been operating happily for a number of years. I presume that the state owns the property (it owns the land on which the group home is situated) and more of a few of the residents are productive members of the community.
<
p>
This discrimination against the mentally retarded is a Wahnsinn–it makes no sense. Some may be incapable of contributing and will be in need of continual care. But a lot of them can contribute. But warehousing all of them in perpetuity prevents any of them from contributing. And that is just not right.
I agree the state should own buildings that it operates. It will cost the state as much or more than $2 million per house over the 20-year lease period.
<
p>
I’m not sure about the situation in Wellesley. If the house is on state-owned land, it’s probably owned by the state. But most group homes are privately owned and operated in Massachusetts.
<
p>
I wish everyone who uses the term “warehousing” to describe Fernald would visit the facility to see the true situation there. This place provides state-of-the-art care to some of the most severely and profoundly retarded residents of the state. If you were to go and visit Fernald (which you are free to do–it’s a public facility), you would see that for most of the residents, any other type of care or setting is simply not an option.
Observations in no particular order, and with no common theme
<
p>
It will cost the state as much or more than $2 million per house over the 20-year lease period.
<
p>
It probably would (almost to a certainty) to operate the respective house, but from the post it appeared that that amount was merely to lease the physical structure. If it was intended to include operating costs, I’ll give that a pass.
<
p>
I’m going to address your last paragraph without quoting it, because you have a number of themes there, many of which I agree with.
<
p>
Regarding “warehousing,” I use that as a pejorative for people who insist on keeping patients in a major institution when they could be re-integrated into the community. My spouse worked at Cushing Hospital in the 1980s, which provided very good care to elderly, especially Alzheimers sufferors. They couldn’t be efficiently cared for in a community setting, but they got very good care (until the state closed the hospital down). (BTW, I visited Cushing a number of times.)
<
p>
After Cushing closed, he worked at Mass. Hospital School, for kids with physical disabilities (wheelchair-bound, etc.) I don’t know the criteria by which kids with disabilities, sending them to wheelchairs, were admitted to MHS, but I will point out something that might be of interest. (Other countries other practices) I have seen, in our little town outside of Munich, many more people in wheelchairs, kids included, that I have in the US. Is there something in the US that causes discrimination against wheelchair-bound people, that makes them go into hiding?
<
p>
I don’t know what the conditions are of the patients at Fernald (and I’m not a mental health professional), so I can’t really opine as to who might be able to be integrated into the community and who can’t. Two things, though. One, as I mentioned, at least some of the residents at the group home here in Wellesley have been re-integrated into the community. That doesn’t mean to imply that all can be.
<
p>
Two, when people suggest closing an institution on a campus the size of Fernald, I am always suspicious. Follow the money. Why now? And who is going to profit from the re-development of the land?
that the $2 million in total costs per house that I'm referring to includes charges only for rent and maintenance. It doesn't count what the state will pay for care and services in the homes. If you look at Finding 8 of the COFAR April 2006 report on the procurement process for these houses, you'll see that the amount also doesn't take into account other charges the state will have to pay, such as water and sewer and utilities, which would presumably be the same whether the state built these new houses on the Fernald site or in the community.
(By way of disclosure, I wrote this report, which COFAR provided to Judge Tauro and U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan. I'd also just note that this report is based on a preliminary round of proposals for these homes, some of which were reportedly rejected by the Division of Capital Asset Management after our report, which had numerous criticisms of the procurement process, was issued. DCAM subsequently issued new RFPs for the houses in July 2006. COFAR then sought to see the second round of proposals submitted for these houses, but DCAM declined to release them. See the May 2007 COFAR Voice, p. 3. The Fernald League is preparing to submit a renewed request for those proposals.)
…I am not trying to debate you. I am trying to cross-examine you so that I can become informed. There is a difference. In lawyerese, it is by cross-examination that the truth comes out.
<
p>
Please don’t presume that everyone is familiar with all of the issues here.
Find out who the vendors are who provide the “community homes” and the staffing. If the fees appear exhorbitant per house they probably are. Then find out who is lining their pockets with the residual monies over and above the actual operating expense of these houses.
<
p>
Just by chance when I was a recent volunteer I stunbled upon another scam that was operating below the radar screen. The state threw 26 million bucks down the rathole and then the entire program evaporated.
The debate about Fernald should be over. Thank you to the Governor and his administration for having the political will to do THE RIGHT THING for individuals with disabilites in the Commonwealth. I am not with you…. So you are complaining that beautiful new homes have been built and are waiting for occupancy? Everyone wants the high quality of care to be maintained for these individuals. That has never been the issue. We have learned a lot in the past few decades. Why not give these individuals an opportunity for a well supported life outside of an outdated environment.
could you justify them living in a segregated environment? People with mental retardation deserve the right to live in the community just like everyone else.
If you are thinking cute kids with Down’s – they’ve been moved out long ago. Most of the remaining residents require nursing home level care, and some constant hospitalization. Many were brought there as toddlers, and have never lived anywhere else. I cannot understand the resistance to allowing the profoundly disabled residents to remain there in familair surroundings, rather than endure the trauma of a move to a community setting, and allow the smaller campus to close through attrition.
As you may already know, the average person has no idea of the level of care necessary for an individual who is profoundly retarded. Neither are they aware that those so afflicted engage in self injury and other unsafe behavior.
<
p>
It is interesting to note that the individuals who have the legal authority to make legal decisions for residents at Fernald, wish to have the residents remain there.
<
p>
I am sensing a tug of war here (AKA political struggle), between the “homeless advocates”, who apparently wish to immediately occupy the grounds of Fernald and the families of the retarded who have resided at Fernald many years.
I work in the communities surrounding Fernald. I serve people who left Fernald. I have probably been on the campus more than anyone else on BMG with the exception of David from Harvard so please do not lecture me about who lives there
<
p>
Firstly, because they have ‘the right’ to live outside of a ‘segregated’ community does not mean they are required to do so. Nor have I heard of anybody, legally able to decide for themselves, who are being kept at Fernald against their will…
<
p>
Secondly, and more importantly, they are not ‘any other minority’ nor are they confined strictly and solely because of minority status, as has historically been the case with past ‘segregated environtments’. In fact, minority status derives from their condition… not as you are trying to compare.
<
p>
Thirdly, the issue of governmental and/or administrative incompetence and/or malfeasance is decidedly different from the issue of ‘warehousing’ and efficacy of social programs. I think many decisions were made (or defaulted to) by the previous administration. I think the present administration has a radar screen too cluttered to differentiate this issue from the others… As I read this thread, a general distaste at both the decisions and the follow-through is felt, which is quite distinct from the issue of housing the disabled.
Until the Comprehensive Mental Health and Retardation Services Act of 1966, many with mental and neurological conditions were banned from public schools and other public institutions. Of course, legal discrimination continued until the ADA went into effect in 1992, only 15 years ago.
<
p>
So really, “they [were] confined strictly and solely because of minority status, as has historically been the case with past ‘segregated environtments’. In fact, minority status derives from their condition… not as you are trying to compare.” I would submit that the disability was as much a condition of segregation as was skin color, and certainly sexual orientation.
over minority status. I would just urge that people refrain from using loaded terms like “segregated” to describe Fernald and the other state facilities. In fact, these facilities are closely integrated into their surrounding communities. They open not only their clinical and recreational facilities for use by DMR clients and others in the surrounding community, but in many cases for use by the general public as well.
<
p>
Before people rush in to debate my claim here, I urge them to read accounts of this community involvement by facilities in a two-part series that ran in the COFAR Voice in January 2005 and March 2005.
I am trying to explain why so many Fernald families are so ‘married’ to the campus. Not so long ago, there WERE no other options. And it WAS segregation in that many were sent to places like Monson and Fernald not because they wanted to but because they were denied access anywhere else. I anm NOT saying this was a good thing.
<
p>
They are integrated outward now, but that is a relatively recent development.
There was true segregation in the facilities prior to Judge Tauro’s involvement, which began in the 1970s. The upgrades in living conditions at the facilities and their greater integration with the community began in the 70s and has continued right through to today.
<
p>
My comments were really directed at many of the Fernald closure advocates who frequently continue to use the term “segregated” to describe Fernald as it exists today.
Their neighbors are other people with MR. Often they go to day programs on the campus. Maye they go for the occasional dinner out.
<
p>
I work with a guy who lived in Fernald until about five years ago. People had suggested that he could leave years ago, but his mother didn’t feel comfortable with him leaving. She said that was the only home he ever knew and that it would be too dangerous for him to live in the community. When she died he moved out. He lives in a regular neighborhood. He has a job. He has thrived.
<
p>
I know some of the folks still there are medically very involved. I’m not sure what the answer is for them. I have some ideas but not ready to post them.However I also know there are folks like the guy I described above. Their families have never known anything different so they think Fernald is the only answer.
Just to address the question of how the residents of Fernald are integrated with the community. My brother who lives at Fernald goes out to dinner in a restaurant and/or goes out for coffee and snacks in the community at least once per week. Those trips and the frequency are rights guaranteed in his Individual Support Plan. While some of his 5 roommates are in church every Sunday, John goes for another van ride(he doesn’t like sitting for that long in church.) In July and August he went to both the Special Olympics and the Handi-Games as did his roommates and many of his peers. He went to Salem Willows Park, Essex River Cruise and several other summer day trips. He goes to the IMAX theatre and/or MOM at Jordan’s Furniture twice a year which provide a lot of sensory stimulation that he and his roommates love. They are guys who like my brother don’t speak and it’s difficult to maintain eye contact with them. They also go to the Big Apple Circus every year. Autumn means that they are getting ready for the Topsfield Fair and the annual Hayride in October. During the Christmas season they go to Edaville Railroad to see the Christmas lights. My point is that John and his peers go to the community a lot. The rec therapists at Fernald work very hard to plan and coordinate trips with these folks, most of whom are not very mobile. They do a tremendous job!
<
p>
The community also comes to Fernald. There are people in my brother’s work program who come by van from the community. In fact many people from the community travel to Fernald every Monday – Friday to attend day and work programs held on the grounds. Many community residents also come to Fernald to use the pool and the gymnasium.
<
p>
On a point made earlier by Dave about the empty homes, my friend from childhood has a sister, Carol, with MR/DD who is very high functioning. She lived at home for most of her life. She was on a waiting list for a group home for years. She finally got into one about a year ago but she had many problems. My friend tried to get DMR to address some of the problems with the provider but they pretty much told her to stop complaining or Carol would have to leave the home. Carol refused to go back to the home one day and when back with live with her mom who is 80 years old and in frail health. My friend called DMR again and said that Carol has a lot of needs and the family, which is scattered all over the country, cannot take care of Carol when mom dies. My friend asked if Carol could please be moved up on the list for another placement. The DMR person said, “Sorry, that’s what families are for.” I agree with Dave, it is incomprehensible to think that DMR is coercing Fernald guardians to move their family member to one of these homes when there are many people in the same situation as Carol’s mom – just waiting for a home for her daughter and hoping that she can will finds one before she dies.