The ADDP is also calling for group home survey “standards and goals that take resource limitations (i.e., available funding) into account.” In other words, don't measure anything that costs money, such as maintaining adequate staffing levels.
The ADDP is closely associated with the Arc of Massachusetts and DMR. The ADDP email states that its “reform recommendations” have been submitted to a joint ADDP/DMR Coordinating Council committee.
The ADDP/DMR committee is co-chaired by Amanda Chalmers, the same DMR official who threatened to close down a Medford group home when parents complained about unsafe conditions there.
As a result, we have little doubt that these “reforms” will ultimately be adopted by the Patrick administration.
It's becoming increasingly clear what this administration is racing to achieve–a vastly expanded, privatized DMR system with little oversight and minimal levels of direct-care staffing. They like to refer to it as “Community First,” but it seems their first interest lies in serving the vendors and their already well-compensated executives.
WHO IS RUNNING THIS SYSTEM ANYWAY? Is it the government or the vendors/ARC/ADDP etc, etc.? I know the answer. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house. When is John Q Public going to wake up? Its TAXPAYER MONEY (both federal and state) that is footing the bill to these organizations SO OF COURSE IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO PUT THE PAYEE IN CHARGE RATHER THAN THE PAYOR. IT ALSO MAKES PERFECT SENSE THAT YOU LET THEM DICTATE THEIR OWN STANDARDS. Its a national trend–free money with no accountability.
<
p>These organizations who can’t bring themselves to say a good word about the states development centers and can’t wait to evict the residents, are on the record as stating there are NO SAVINGS associated with closing the centers, are constantly stating they are understaffed and underfunded, there is a huge backlog of complaint investigations (800), constantly stating they have a huge waiting list, and are on the record as saying that private competent medical care for the mentally retarded is scarce. So it follows these same organizations would support closing existing facilities forcing the most severely mentally retarded and physically disabled into an environment where, by their own admission, is overloaded and inadequately equipped to deal with their needs. Some advocates–with advocates like these who needs enemies.
<
p>It also follows they would support reducing their standards and oversight at the very time that it should be increased to ensure that these fragile people are receiving adequate care. After all, it costs money to care for these people and if the care is “equal or better” then the development center (thats a laugh) there is less money to line their pockets. With less oversight who would know.
<
p>The ARC has been bad mouthing these facilities for years (Fernald in particular) stating they are antiquated, too segregated, too costly– but has the UNBELIEVABLE NERVE to attend a Fernald Land Reuse Committee asking for a piece of Fernald for the local chapter! YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.
<
p>AS YOU NO DOUBT CAN TELL, I AM SO ANGRY I CAN’T SEE STRAIGHT.
…that is certainly true in housecleaning. When we moved our son’s computer desk for the first time in…umn, well, years…there was a desiccated dead mouse.
<
p>The ONLY way to keep private vendors honest and their venues safe and clean is good over sight – you know, regulation.
<
p>After all, look what deregulation did for banks, hedge funds, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac….
<
p>The more vulnerable the client, the greater the over sight should be. PERIOD.
The saying goes
In this case it is going to read
The oversite in the community is bad right now…so what is going to happen in the near future? It is a sad state of affairs when our government can turn their backs on the most vulnerable people in this country and not care what happens to them or what kind of services they are receiving!
<
p>Govoner Patrick…. Don’t take a 30 minute tour of one building and then leave. Take a slow walk around Fernald Development Center and meet some of the residents and then tell us you care!!!!!
Well put AmberPaw. Your are absolutely right.
A quote from Candidate Patrick in October 2006:
<
p>
<
p>If this is the case…then the status quo, vendor-driven culture at the DMR is taking their cue from….the guy at the top?
<
p>You know – we were promised change, yet the facility families are getting the “same old, same old.” Dave, you have accurately displayed the vendor-DMR relationship; the tail is indeed, wagging the dog.
<
p>
<
p>Limiting fairness? yeah – that would be this Governor is limiting fairness by not providing a true cost analysis and feasability study. Nope – he and the vendors want to keep the legislature in the dark, while he feeds them BS about the costs. The Fernald budget is so entertwined with community and regional costs, making it artificially heavy.
<
p>Hope defeats fear? Not so much in Massachusetts. Money trumps everything in this state. Money is exactly what the vendors have in their well-paid lobbyists and executive directors. Money is what the facility families don’t have.
<
p>All the families at Fernald, Wrentham, Monson, Templeton, Glavin, and Hogan want is for their loved ones to be safe and well-cared for. Many of the vendors homes simply can’t give them what they need, it’s just a reality. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the facilties while the Governor, who promised so much is delivering so little for these fragile people.
That is the true motto of this administration, which is deliberately using fear to drive its DMR privatization policy. To the families of facility residents, the administration is coercing them to move out quickly by instilling the fear that all the good placements will be gone if they don’t. To the general public, the administration is promoting the unfounded fear that the facilities are going to break the state’s budget.
<
p>To the DMR community, the administration is imparting the fear that the facilities are robbing the community system of needed resources, and that the community and the facilities must be pitted against each other.
<
p>The vendors themselves are driven by the fear that substandard care in their own system will be found out–hence the call for less oversight.
I’m wondering where the individual “LynnB” who usually post comments regarding this subject is?
<
p>As a vendor she, “LynnB”, continually praises the community system and her 20 years of experience. Whats her take on vendors lobbying for reducing oversight and care standards because of monetary issues not what is best for their clients? I haven’t seen her make a comment on the last couple of discussions on this topic.
<
p>
You folks have made up your minds. I remain convinced and have seen from my own experience that the quality of life for the people I serve is better than the quality of life of the people in state institutions.
<
p>ADDP doesn’t want less oversight. ADDP and the vendor community want to change the way oversight happens. As someone who has gone through numerous inspections I can tell you that they are very complete. However there are problems and modifications are needed. If you haven’t been through one of these inspections it is hard to understand. I don’t have time now to describe what they are like but I will later if any one is interested.
You say we’ve made up our minds, but we have offered to negotiate over the size of the facilities. It is DMR and the Arc and the ADDP that have made up their minds and want no part of any dialogue.
<
p>As to the issue of oversight, I would be very interested to know how ADDP and the vendor community don’t want less oversight, yet they want less and shorter visits by licensing surveyors to group homes. Right now, 20 percent or less of those homes are surveyed as part of the licensing process.
<
p>ADDP also complains in its email that the current system has a “potential for over-regulation and micromanagement.” The email doesn’t say how this might be the case. But it sure sounds to me as though this is a call for less oversight.
<
p>So, please go ahead, when you have the time, and let us know what is so hard about these surveys. What do the surveyors do that is so burdensome? We’d like to hear it from you, and from ADDP as well.
<
p>Might I just interject a literary term here that might be useful in the future. The term is tone and is defined, fairly succinctly, as the attitude of the author towards the subject or the listener.
<
p>Sounds like when LynPB says this:
<
p>
<
p>s/he’s might be right.
I guess it’s irritating to be told my mind is made up about this issue. To me, that is getting getting beyond facts and into personal motivations. We believe in full choice in care settings and have offered to negotiate the size of the facilities. The vendor community and DMR are against facilities period. Who’s mind is made up here?
There is a lot of tone in the comments, I’m not sure if I am sorry about it, but I get a little tired of talking to myself too.
<
p>I asked for LynBP’s point of view on this because she is the only one that identifies herself as a professional in the vendor’s world and could shed some light on the details. If I wasn’t interested in what she had to say I wouldn’t have asked. I, like Dave, am very interested in why this oversight is to much of a burden for the vendor community. Lets face it, we are all subject to oversight and scrutiny in our work and most of us aren’t dealing with peoples lives.
<
p>I am for the availability of a full array of options in care settings. The community is great for some and I am so very glad that option is available to those that have the ability to cope with the setting. However, I do not believe the community is the right fit for everyone and NO ONE should be FORCED into an inadequate setting because a politician makes an arbitrary decision.
<
p>I am tired of neverending statements about “in their best interest” or “many and most” do well….to justify their actions. What about those that don’t do well. You never hear about those individuals. I’ve never heard anyone say ALL do well and more than likely never will because one size does not fit all.
<
p>I truly don’t understand people. I don’t get it. I haven’t been able to figure out how we (those fighting for maximum choices in care settings) became mean-spirited villans because we want what is best for each individual. Moving fragile people around like they are checkers for no reason is cruel, inhumane and just plain wrong. What is so hard to understand about that.
<
p>Even the policitians have stated this “plan” (I use the term losely) is “budget neutral” which probably means it costs money so they don’t even have that as their fallback position to justify their cruelty.
<
p>DMR and the vendor community want ICF/MRs closed regardless of the consequences PERIOD. CASE CLOSED. NO DISCUSSIONS. Whose mind is made up here?
<
p>Frankly, I can’t believe more people aren’t appauled by the uncaring actions of their government toward these fragile, defensless, disabled people.
<
p>