Attendees heard testimonials from a number of special guests who illustrated the importance and needs of our safety net sector, including:
- Sanford who is able to work and know that his parent his healthy thanks to the services at Bay Cove’s Kit Clark Senior Services
- Rose who found emergency shelter through Pine Street Inn and is learning skills that will help her find employment through PSI’s social enterprise, Abundant Table
- Melanie who loves her job as a direct support professional at Work, Inc. and shared the struggles she and her peers face due to underfunded contracts that don’t provide adequate compensation
- Ricardo Quiroga, executive director of Casa Esperanza, who shared the challenges and tough choices that he, his employees, and countless other providers face due to skyrocketing health insurance premiums
Providers’ Council President/CEO Michael Weekes and Public Policy Chair John Larivee highlighted solutions that legislators can take to ensure these critical services continue to serve the most vulnerable residents in Massachusetts, including:
- enabling providers to direct more funding toward programs and services through creative affordable health insurance solutions
- professionalizing and retaining a skilled workforce through expanded educational opportunities
- diversifying revenue and reducing dependence on state contracts by fostering innovation and social enterprise
- rewarding and retaining low-paid caregivers through the Salary Reserve
Speaking about the importance of the Salary Reserve, Weekes said, "We don’t want them [direct care professionals] to be one paycheck away from being the folks they serve."
Regarding the Council’s no-cost proposals to address soaring health insurance costs, Weekes said, "helping providers save money, you also save money for the state. It’s a win-win-win situation [and] it allows us to do what you want us to do, which is provide more services instead of paying more premiums."
Attendees also heard from their legislators (click the links for videos of their remarks), including Representatives Angelo Scaccia, Liz Malia, Carlos Henriquez, Ed Coppinger, and Tackey Chan. We appreciate that Speaker of the House Robert Deleo, Senators John Hart and Sonia Chang-Diaz, and Representatives Marty Walsh and Gloria Fox sent staff to represent their offices.
Each official sent the same message to attendees loud and clear: providers must get more engaged in advocating for themselves and their clients and be a constant presence on Beacon Hill.
"Twenty-five percent of the legislature this year is brand new; 40 percent is less than two years. Those are the people you have to go after. Those are the people who if you can instill your knowledge and your work ethic, they’ll respond. … We have to change the priorities in this state," Rep. Angelo Scaccia said.
"You’ve got to come up and you’ve got to tell us about what you’re doing and what you need. … It’s some of those folks in the outside world who don’t understand the benefits of what you provide for society. … We have to see your faces; we have to hear your voices; the time for silence is over. You’re nice people, and that’s your problem, you’re nice people and you don’t speak loud enough, ok? You have to do that." Rep. Scaccia continued.
"We need your help to talk about what alternatives there are. If we can’t do something like an alcohol tax, if we can’t increase tobacco taxes, if we can’t increse the income tax, what solution do we have? … Stay in touch. We’re going to have a couple of tough months ahead, but let us know what you’re hearing and what kind of affects your clients are facing" Rep. Malia said.
"You have Charlton, you have Uxbridge, you have Newburyport, you have all those other state reps who might not understand disabilities and your stories … What we’re asking is that you have to come to the Hill. You’re preaching to the choir; you need to reach the congregation because that’s where it is. We need your voices in all the other offices that don’t understand your stories," said Mary-dith Tuitt on behalf of Rep. Gloria Fox.
Rep. Carlos Henriquez drew on his own experience as a a teen youth worker and expressed his support for our legislative efforts saying, "I wanted to let you know that you don’t need to come looking for me because I’m on board. I spent the last two years before becoming elected as a teen youth worker … I know what it means to be in love with the work that you do and know that it means peanut butter and jelly sandwiches every night."
Henrquiez also echoed other calls for providers to share their stories with elected officials as well as the public, saying "As far as your stories, I cannot jump on that enough. As a community organizer, it’s not only important to tell your stories to your elected officials … tell those stories to people in your community and have them echo those stories to your elected officials as well."
Rep. Ed Coppinger shared his own anecdote of coming to realize just how critical and taken for granted human services are based on his own life and the people he knows who have been touched by the sector.
Rep. Tackey Chan, a board member of Work, Inc. and someone who has founded, worked for, and volunteered with numerous nonprofit organizations also shared his thoughts on the challenges and opportunities facing the human service sector.
MA State Rep. Liz Malia on the importance of discussing funding solutions
MA State Rep. Liz Malia’s concluding remarks
MA State Rep. Angelo Scaccia
MA State Rep. Carlos Henriquez
MA State Rep. Ed Coppinger
Mary-dith Tuitt on behalf of MA State Rep. Gloria Fox
MA State Rep. Tackey Chan
Providers’ Council Public Policy Chair & CRJ President/CEO John Larivee
Photo Gallery
Talking about taxes. She was very straight forward about the one solution to lesson the cuts to the wide range of proposed cuts in human service programs — namely new revenues.
<
p>I hope the Provider Council will join the wide range of community based and state wide groups who are supporting An Act to Invest in our Communities.
You’ve got to love the bosses of human service contractors begging for more money from the state. They have refused during the budget crisis to do furloughs for managers or to reign in ceo pay. Look at these salaries:
<
p>http://www.seiu509.org/admin/A…
<
p>I agree we should raise taxes to protect services. But the public will not support it until there is reform and sacrifice from the high paid managers paid by state government. Isn’t it true that managers who work for the state have endured a few years of furloughs, yet the even higher paid managers of state vendors: bird, stearn, jordan, have refused to follow the lead?
<
p>There will be no revenue, before these guys reform
<
p>
The people listed on the attack piece you linked to manage multi-million dollar organizations, their pay makes up a small percentage of those organizations’ budgets, and the state already caps what percent of contracts can go to admin and executive comp.
<
p>Furthermore, voluntary boards of directors determine appropriate executive salaries, and organizations are reviewed by the federal government, monitored by state purchasing agencies, and further examined by the IRS, state comptroller, and attorney general.
<
p>You could divvy up their salaries to the hundreds or thousands of staff they employ so that everyone might get a couple extra dollars per year. But then you would strip those organizations of the leaders who have helped create strong agencies that deliver quality care to the most vulnerable citizens in Massachusetts.
<
p>I’ve had the privilege of meeting and working with many nonprofit executives, and I can tell you firsthand that they did not get into the nonprofit sector to get rich, and they could easily move into the for-profit sector and add an extra digit to their salaries. But that’s not the point.
<
p>The thing that COFAR and other union-backed attackers of private providers gloss over is that these agencies are larger and more complex than many businesses out there, and it takes skilled leadership to run them.
<
p>Everyone in the sector would like to direct more funding to direct care staff, but the funds are not in the contracts. In fact, most contracts have not been adjusted for nearly twenty years – no cost of living adjustments, nothing.
<
p>I know it’s easy to attack executives, especially when you want to promote unionizing in private providers and still resent the fact that these services are no longer provided (under very troubling conditions) by state workers as they were decades ago.
<
p>But if you want to help strengthen services and lift workers up, you need to urge your legislators to stop cutting budgets (which has been done consistently over the last four years) and adequately fund contracts that actually provide for quality services and livable wages for caregivers.
<
p>I realize executive compensation is a great topic for riling people up – especially when you see what’s going on with the meds and eds – but these leaders have helped pioneer a strong safety net system for the Commonwealth, their compensation is tightly regulated and monitored, and the real solution will be found in our government – and our society – adequately investing in the contracts for these services.
All those CEOs you defend pay your salary.
<
p>Here’s the simple reality: These CEOs make hundreds of thousands of dollars and have employee sponsored health care they can afford. Their workers make a little over minimum wage and are on MassHealth.
<
p>You say it’s OK because it’s a small part of the budget.
<
p>That’s what BCBS and Wall Street banks say too.
<
p>They’re wrong and you’re wrong.
that generally speaking I liked your original post. High quality and exposed a lot of folks to what legislators are saying.
I appreciate both of your comments and am glad you found the recap and legislator testimony interesting.
<
p>My point isn’t that the compensation is justifiable because it’s a small percent of the budgets. My point is that in order to attract the leadership, strategic vision, and management skills necessary to run a large, complex organization, we do need to compensate executives.
<
p>My point is also that there between state limits on overhead, oversight from voluntary boards, the IRS, and numerous state agencies, there is already significant accountability when it comes to what levels executives are compensated.
<
p>And my most important point, which has been drowned out by the focus on executive compensation, is that we as a Commonwealth need to invest more in this system – not for executives, but for the direct care workers who deserve more and the clients/consumers they serve.
<
p>Inside and outside the nonprofit sector there are diverging views on what an appropriate percent of revenue or fixed figure would be for attracting the talent needed to run effective organizations. But whether you agree with the salaries (which are subject to all of the oversight mentioned above), capping them and driving leaders away from the sector still won’t provide the level of funding needed to lift up the 185,000 caregivers who provide services.
<
p>The Council, our members, and their boards, staff, clients/consumers, and volunteers, are united in urging legislators to address the fact that the Commonwealth has not allocated any additional funds for inflation adjustments in more than twenty years.
<
p>We have fought for and secured a Salary Reserve which has provided $212 million in state investment in low-paid human service workers between from FY ’97 to ’09. This is a stopgap that still barely helps them make ends meet and stay in the sector, and we as a Commonwealth need to do more to reward and retain these workers.
<
p>We have also gathered in unity to advocate for new revenues, such as the alcohol tax, which passed one day after providers organized a massive rally at the State House and brought attention to the dire need for this funding to every major network and media outlet.
<
p>As a former ACORN and Working Families Party organizer there is nothing I’d rather see than every human service sector employee earning a living wage, and I know it’s easy to point out the disparity between their pay and those of the leaders who help keep these agencies afloat. But the answer isn’t in vilifying or tearing down those leaders, it is in investing in helping lift up the rest of the sector.
Sorry about forgetting the foreclosure. I know I’ve mentioned my work with the Council before but should have mentioned it explicitly again in this post or in the comments.
<
p>Also, while the content of the original post comes from providers.org, please know that the opinions expressed in my comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.
Where is the strong safety net that these “leaders” have helped provide? Like the one this poor fellow should have had and didn’t get when he was abused:
<
p>http://cofarblog.wordpress.com…
<
p>The reality is that there is no safety net because there’s very little oversight over vendors in the DDS. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong if you’re willing to identify where the safety net is.
It’s an appalling tragedy any time that someone abuses a person with a disability, and that type of conduct is not tolerated. As your post noted:
<
p>”Fortunately, Paquette said, the management of the group home did take the situation seriously. Both the house manager and his supervisor questioned Burns’ roommate on separate occasions about what he saw, and were convinced his description of the event was consistent and credible. Burns’ roommate is intellectually disabled, but is able to communicate. CHD fired Saunders immediately, based on the assault allegation.”
<
p>It’s terrible that justice was so delayed, and I’d like to see organizations like DPPC adequately funded to ensure that all persons with disabilities are protected. But that they exist, and that EOHHS departments and independent accrediting organizations to inspect providers and respond to complaints, and that private providers do hold themselves and their staff accountable is sadly more than other systems are offering.
<
p>Justice should never be so delayed, but I am glad that CHD was able to terminate that employee, unlike the unspeakable conditions found in state run group homes like those uncovered in New York: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03…
<
p>”A New York Times investigation over the past year has found widespread problems in the more than 2,000 state-run homes. In hundreds of cases reviewed by The Times, employees who sexually abused, beat or taunted residents were rarely fired, even after repeated offenses, and in many cases, were simply transferred to other group homes run by the state.”
<
p>Regardless of the funding and staffing system, I think we can all agree that we as a society must do more to protect vulnerable people. But for every tragic story like John Burns’, there are hundreds of thousands of stories of people who are well-served by Massachusetts’ safety net that are never told – and there is far less of a safety net when the state is asked to look after itself.
My perspective is that the vendors sold a false bill of goods to the state years ago, by claiming that they could provide services “better, faster, smarter, cheaper” than the state could in all state ops, in order to get this service system privatized, when the reality is, they can’t. Economies of scale were lost, and the people being evicted from the developmental centers were labor and services intensive.
<
p>That said – here’s just a few of the “situations” we’ve witnessed in Massachusetts, some of them absolutely horrific.
<
p>In 1997, the House of Horrors in Raynham inspired an initiative to protect people with developmental disabilities….they may have been inspired, but it had no teeth. There is still no oversight:
<
p>http://www.buildingpartnership…
<
p>
<
p>By the Patriot Ledger in 2004
Blame Game – State hard pressed to keep up with abuse complaints.
http://www.southofboston.net/s…
<
p>And by the Attorney General’s office in 2007:
<
p>U.S. Attorney’s Report in Ricci Class Action Concludes Mentally Retarded Residents of Community Based Homes Run by DMR Contractors Face Increased Risk of Abuse and Neglect
<
p>http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr…
<
p>And this is a Vinfen group home in Somerville:
<
p>http://www.wickedlocal.com/som…
<
p>
<
p>And another “situation” in 2009:
<
p>http://waltham.ma.us/fernald/F…
<
p>DB was found with bruises all over his body, black eyes and broken bones….in a home run by Mental Health Association of Greater Lowell and licensed by the DDS.
<
p>I know you are paid by the providers to put a happy face on this reality – but the fact of the matter is these providers negotiated these contracts, no one else. The state bought their “bill of goods” and moved from a state operated, union system that provided decent benefits to the current system, where the wage and benefits are dwarfed by CEO and senior management wage and benefits, and the providers are asking for state benefits for private employees, under the guise of enhancing the system. The only thing now is to make sure we have the oversight to manage a splintered incoherent system to keep people with disabilities safe.
<
p>
I worked with the Providers Council myself a hundred or so years ago when they first got organized, and I completely agree that their jobs are equivalent to the high level executives running multimillion $$ corporations in the private sector.
<
p>And I agree that they do do a terrific job caring for the disabled children and adults among us.
<
p>And I agree that the Administration has NEVER asked for and the Legislature has NEVER appropriated enough money to adequately fund our community based human service system.
<
p>Finally I agree that the Secretaries of Human Services through the ages (since the middle 70s ) have NEVER offered a contract to a provider that included a line item limiting the pay to management, and/or enough money to provide a living wage to the direct line workers.
<
p>Finally finally I suspect that there are no providers that ever turned down a contract because there was not a designated line item and enough money to provide a living wage to the direct care workers. (Alright, alright there are some indignant souls who have turned back a contract, knowing full well a competitor would pick it up.)
<
p>Here is the bottom line I think and I quote from lalitha down stream,
<
p>
<
p>Now Jim Rooney’s $25,000 pay cut (from $275,000)may, or may not, be enough to sooth the savage souls of those who think our government can do just fine without the services of accomplished experienced public managers, I dunno. Look like “they” may still go after his bonus.
I’ve reread this line over and over again….
<
p>
<
p>What exactly is an underfunded contract? The Providers have a contract – and it gets paid. Are you suggesting that the state isn’t paying its bills? Or is it that the Providers have a contract that they negotiated and now consider to be “not enough money” and want a “do-over?”
Take a look at the globe today. Jim Rooney from the convention center, releases that times are tough, and has had to trim back his hefty pay. There needs to be shared sacrifice. I dont know what unions or cofar have to do with this. If the public does not see high paid ceos making even a symbolic cut, they are are not going to be willing to support tax increases. The political tin ear of provider ceos are is astounding. They are entirely dependent on state contracts, yet act like they free market business men.