(Cross-posted from the Cofar blog)
The Massachusetts human service vendors are at it again — blaming the families of Fernald Developmental Center residents for the state’s budget problems.
In an online email to members this week, Gary Blumenthal, president of the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers, once again resorts to misleading statements about Fernald’s operating cost in order to stick it to family members and guardians of the 14 remaining residents there.
Here’s what Blumenthal says about the Fernald families in his message, which discusses a $10.2 million supplemental bill filed by the Patrick administration to keep Fernald operating:
While the state is still intent on closing Fernald and three other state institutions, the final closure date is uncertain as the last 14 families attempt to hold out, hoping against reality that they can force the state to reverse it’s closure decision.
Despite the families being offered “equal to or better services” per federal Court Orders, the last Fernald families are using every available delay option available, urged on by anti-closure ideologues who still think they can force the state to leave Fernald open for the lifespan of the remaining 14 individuals.
First of all, through their own volition, these families are exercising their legal right to prevent what they see as the unjust eviction of their loved ones from their long-time home.
Moreover, in at least three of the 14 cases, administrative judges in the Patrick administration itself have ruled that the guardians demonstrated that care would not be better in the new locations proposed by the Department of Developmental Services for those residents.
That’s why these cases have dragged on. The administrative judicial decisions have been taken to state Superior court by both the administration and the 11 guardians who didn’t win their administrative appeals. That is their legal right. But Blumenthal and the ADDP have choosen to castigate the families and unidentified “anti-closure ideologues” for somehow bringing the state to its knees fiscally.
We suppose Blumenthal is referring to COFAR as an anti-closure ideologue. It’s true that we oppose the administration’s planned closures of Fernald and three other state developmental centers, which we believe provide critically needed care to some of the state’s most severely and profoundly intellectually disabled residents. But who are the real ideologues here?
We recognize the importance and need for community-based care for the majority of people with intellectual disabilities in Massachusetts. What we have long argued is that the developmental centers are a necessary part of the continuum of care. It is the ADDP and their state-funded vendor members who are the pro-closure ideologues. They argue that the state should abdicate its responsibility of caring for its most vulnerable citizens and hand the entire business over to them.
In furtherance of this aim, Blumenthal has to bend himself into a pretzel logic-wise, and, as we said, make misleading statements about Fernald’s operating cost. He implies in his message that if Fernald were closed immediately, the $10 million in supplemental funding would somehow be re-invested in the community system of care.
Yet, in the same message, Blumenthal admits what we’ve been saying for years — that the state has “reneged” (his word) on its longtime promise to re-invest funding from the developmental centers into the community system. Thus, Blumenthal knows full well that were Fernald to be closed tomorrow, that $10 million would not be invested in the community. The money, or a good portion of it, would follow the residents themselves to their new locations, wherever they might be. The community system as a whole would not benefit in any way.
Further, as they do every year at budget time, Blumenthal and the ADDP single out Fernald and discuss how the per-resident cost there has “skyrocketed.” It’s true that cost has skyrocketed. But what Blumenthal doesn’t say is that’s what happens when you drastically reduce the population of a care facility. The fixed costs get spread out over a smaller and smaller base of residents.
Despite the photo of an abandoned building at Fernald rising out of the weeds that runs atop his message, Blumenthal erroneously makes it sound as though the remaining residents are living the high life because the cost per resident there has risen. As one of the 14 guardians wrote in an email in response to Blumenthal’s message:
Based on what he (Blumenthal) has to say about the “evil 14”, you’d think we were having a blast, loads of fun and just a grand old time!
Also, just once I’d like to see a picture of one of Fernald “homes” like Malone Park or a cottage, or our beautiful chapel, not a building that hasn’t been occupied for 35 years!
You’d think I be use to this by now, but I guess not.
There is nothing misleading about it. From the same message you quote
How can you dispute those numbers? is the 10 million going to fernald or not? You suggest this is because of the drastically reduced head count at the facility. Of course it is, thats the point, its terribly inefficient to keep it open and has been for years.
Across the state 4 to 6 residents can live in community based homes and they manage to do so at dramatically lower cost…..and with a excellent quality of life…but you believe its better to keep 14 individuals at fernald at a cost of 10 million? How exactly can you justify that?
And nowhere in his message does he suggest any one is “evil”, or suggest anyone is living the “high life” as the letter you quote suggests.
He does point out that Families with loved ones at at fernald have been offered equal or better services per court order.
And that meanwhile there are waiting lists for individuals for whom there is no money in the budget to care for.
asked the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.
The state forced those costs to skyrocket by moving most residents out.
People with disabilities deserve legal protection.
There is one justification that is convenient or easy to forget–The states owes them. Just like any other legally binding settlement (usually monetary but in this case monetary was not possible) their right to equal or better is their reparations for past irreparable harm inflicted upon them by the state. These Fernald residents have already suffered at the hands of DDS/DMR. As young people (40, 50 in some cases 60+ years ago), they lived through years of neglect and abuse at the hands of DMR/DDS. It took a Federal Judge to put an end to it. These guardian’s have gladly watched the treatment, care and opportunities for all people with DD/MR dramatically improve as a result of their fight. They were satisfied that their loved one managed to somehow reach a stage of relative stability and good quality of life despite the irreparable harm done to them. They have every reason in the world to be skeptical and less than trusting.
I have to ask why its assumed that because ADDP says the residents have been offered equal or better services per court order it must be a fact? As Dave from hvad pointed out, three Administrative judges didn’t think the residents were offered equal or better and stopped the transfer. So is history repeating itself? Clearly DDS didn’t do their job but I don’t hear anyone squawking about that. After all, that is what the taxpayer pays them to do.
The other question I have to ask is why its assumed that ADDP even knows what’s going on here? ADDP has zero involvement with these particular cases or this DDS process (it is a DDS regulatory process). They have no personal knowledge of these particular Fernald people so they are not in any position to make any statement about what there needs are or if the organizations they lobby for can provide the level of services required. They have zero detailed knowledge about what has been offered these people as an alternative placement (equal, better or otherwise)so again are in no position to make any statements or judgments about it meeting standards established by a court order.
I guess your suggesting that the guardians of the people of Fernald just accepted whatever DDS throws at them (regardless of its suitability, their rights,or compliance with federal court orders) and be willing to sacrifice the life, health and safety of their sons, daughters, sisters or brothers for the greater good.
You know what, they have already “paid their dues” for the greater good.
Let the bureaucrats find some other place to come up with the $$$$. The possibilities are endless.
I don’t dispute the $10 million. Please read the post closely.
By the way, phi1, are you a member of ADDP? You appear to have set up an account only to criticize our posts so far. We had this issue with a commenter named dcjayhawk who turned out to be Gary Blumenthal, ADDP’s president.
No I’m a parent of disabled adult. Does that meet your approval?
One who is currently served by a non profit agency. Does that disqualify my opinion some how? Somehow i expect it does. I don’t have a side in your battle against addp, or whatever…
I came here from Daily Kos and noticed your post a few days ago. I didn’t come here to “criticize your posts”. I read it and commented on its inconsistency in claiming to support raising salaries for the direct care workers- but criticizing requests for a budget increase. seemed contradictory.
as someone who has an interest in funding and DDS etc…i notice posts about budget issues.
if you think i came here to argue with you are wrong. I did happen to disagree with the aspects of the first two of your posts i ever read though.
Not only did the administration force up the cost-per-resident by moving most residents out of Fernald, but it has steadfastly refused all offers to negotiate a compromise proposal to downsize the facility. Had such a compromise been reached, tens of millions of dollars per year could potentially have been saved. But the administration has always had an all-or-nothing approach.
More recently, the administration has refused to discuss ideas to save money at Fernald by moving the remaining residents into one location on the campus. Nevertheless, as ADDP sees it apparently, it is the families who are solely at fault for the costs of operating Fernald.
I hesitate to comment given you seem to think i’m a plant or something….
I really really really don’t care about the whole addp straw man…..putting that aside.
what i care about is appropriate funding and placement for folks in the care of the state. yes, there are two statements there. Appropriate placement and appropriate funding… placement is a gut wrenching issue even when one has multiple good options. I get that, and i really feel badly for the families who do not want to change from fernald.
The compromise you describe seems to make sense.
And it describes, i think, two group homes which would/should cost dramatically less to run. Freeing up money that could be budgeted to so many needs.
Your position is that cost does not matter only placement. I really wish that was the world we all lived in. but its not and until it is i cannot turn a blind eye to that.
Of course…the solution we should be arguing for, is adequate funding for all the various needs and placement options. Instead, given the real lack of funding we expend energy fighting over issues we are at the core in agreement on.
And thats really my interest. I get the feeling its not yours. You seem to want a fight with ADDP….so have a it.
though I think you have misconstrued my posts. I respect your choice of a nonprofit agency to provide services to your son. I hope you similarly respect the choice that the parents and guardians at Fernald have made.
phi1 we can agree on a couple of things. The fight should be about appropriate funding and appropriate placements. The anger should be directed at elected officials who are so fiscally irresponsible they have to stoop to cutting funding to the most disabled and truly needy to make up for their irresponsibility. And it doesn’t stop there, I heard just last week that meals for low-income seniors were being cut leaving a couple of hundred thousand senior citizens possibly without their only real meal of the day. What has happened to our moral compass??
I think you might also agree that kicking elderly severely mentally retarded/disabled people from their life long homes, forcing them into unsafe and inappropriate living arrangements and reneging on reparations owed them, because of fiscal irresponsibility is a bitter pill to have to swallow when this Governor is proposing building “assisted living facilities” so convicted felons can play shuffle board in their golden years! When they give out free cell phones, cash in the form of EBT cards that show cash withdrawals in Hawaii, and convicted public officials continue to collect a pension after stealing from the taxpayers. With all of this, the only thing the Governor seems to care about is subsidizing college tuition and drivers licenses for illegals. What the hell is wrong with this picture?
As a taxpayer guess who gets my vote for the scare dollars.
You also seem to agree that there is plenty of room for compromise to accommodate these elderly fragile people, meet the states obligation to them while remaining fiscally responsible. I think it called creative thinking and making the most of what you have when the dollars are scarce. Another concept that is foreign to our elected officials.
As for ADDP its nothing more than an association of organizations that provide services to the disabled. Mr. Blumenthal is employed by that group to lobby for their budgetary interests. Nothing wrong with lobbying to secure adequate funding for the individuals they serve.
But they definitely have crossed over the line when they stoop to continually blaming a particular group of guardians for all the woes of the budget. It almost like and annual or semi-annual event. Its February, dust off that old picture of Fernald. Not sure exactly how that qualifies as lobbying. Who knew that lobbying consisted of making uninformed statements, misrepresenting the facts and misrepresenting the motivations of guardians?
I think nothing would be better than to direct the hosility toward those who caused the budget shortfall–our elected officials rather than pitting one group of disabled against another. The ADDP is misdirecting the argument. What guardian wouldn’t go on the defensive after being bashed over and over, again and again for doing nothing more than trying protect someone who cannot protect themselves?
As for this small group of guardians, I admire their strength, conviction and dedication. Its not easy to stand-up for what is right and to protect the best interest of their family members against a political machine (a completely stacked deck) so stacked in fact they find other disabled people fighting them as well.
One sure thing, if they don’t try to protect their loved ones, no one will, and that the political machine will just roll right over them.