Blue Mass Group is often inundated with the loud and vocal perspective of a small group that opposes the closing of state developmental centers for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, such as Fernald Developmental Center in Waltham. The overwhelming majority of the disability community is in support of closing state institutions in favor of community and in home supports. Fernald Developmental Center was scheduled to close in July of 2010. A small group of opponents have fought that effort. 14 individuals remain at Fernald, costing the state $750,000 per individual annually, while simultaneously 11,000 people with developmental disabilities have been cut from Family, Respite and In-Home Supports. I wrote the following article for the Boston Herald to show the other side of this issue. I know these issues from my own experiences as the brother of a person in a state DD institution for over 30 years, as a former Kansas state legislator, and as a disability advocate for the last 30 years.
Community care a win for all
My brother, Steve, was moved into a state-run hospital when he was 9 years old, beginning a stretch of more than 30 years living behind the doors of an institution where the individuals were isolated from family, friends and community.
When my mom was widowed with five school-age kids, including one with developmental disabilities whom the school system refused to serve, she felt she had no other option. She agonized for years over this decision, but was comforted because she was told by “the experts” that this was the best option for Steve.
That was in the 1960s — before America learned of the wretched care, physical atrocities and heartless treatment of individuals living in these institutions.
It was before America had a well-established community system for people living with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Litigation cleaned up the institutions and helped establish community opportunities. Now the community system is in its fifth decade.
It is widely held that people living with disabilities are far better served living in the community, working in the community and spending quality free time with friends and family in the community. In short, everyone is better served when they are a part of the community instead of apart from the community.
Despite overwhelming evidence and 40-plus years of proof, there is still a debate and struggle with a shrinking but vocal minority that is reluctant to let go of the old model that serves very few people at a tremendous cost while the same services are available in community settings at substantially lower costs.
A group of these activists — backed by a very small number of families and their attorneys — are using every procedural objection to stop the closure of outdated and extremely expensive institutions of the past, such as Fernald Developmental Center in Waltham. They have suggested Fernald remain open for the lifetime of its 14 remaining residents, proclaiming Massachusetts is obligated and “owes them” for all of the past hardships families have gone through.
Such thinking is outdated and harmful to the cause of all others who look to the state for assistance. People living with developmental disabilities who receive support and services are very conscious of the difficult fiscal conditions. As guardians of the social service system, they know they have an iron-clad responsibility to use every dollar wisely.
And it is patently unwise to keep operating these nearly empty institutions. The Herald last year revealed Fernald still costs the state more than $10 million a year to operate. The per-person cost is approaching $750,000 — shocking in any scenario, but mind-boggling when you realize the state recently cut low-cost family support services for 11,000 people because it doesn’t have sufficient funds. The per-person cost for an individual living in a community-based setting is a fraction of that cost. The Patrick administration has rightly announced that four of the six institutions in Massachusetts will be closing over the next several years, thereby leaving two for families who want to choose to keep their loved ones in an institution. This is a fair first step.
It is understandably stressful for family members and guardians to help pack up and move an individual living with disabilities into a new setting when all they have known is one way of life for decades.
I know this because as a legislator in Kansas I proposed the closure of state institutions, despite my own brother residing in one at that time.
Steve was de-institutionalized 17 years ago, and he is thriving. He enjoys interacting with his friends, seeing his family on a regular basis and playing with his nephews when they visit or when he comes to Boston for a vacation.
As more and more families leave institutions for a setting in a community, I wish and expect that they will have as fulfilling an experience as Steve.
with the loud and vocal perspective of the “small group” that opposes the closure of four developmental centers, I have a few comemnts about dcjayhawk’s (aka Gary Blumenthal’s) post:
1. The procedural objections over closures of the developmental centers thus far have been filed only in the case of Fernald. The 14 guardians are exercising their right under state law to argue that the transfers of their wards from the center would not result in improved care or services. In three cases, administrative judges in the Patrick administration itself ruled in favor of the guardians.
2. Fernald and the other developmental centers in Massachusetts are no longer outdated. As a result of more than 20 years of federal litigation that began in the 1970s, the care and conditions at these centers have been upgraded to state-of-the-art status.
3. COFAR, which is a statewide organization, by the way, strongly supports the community system as the most appropriate setting for most clients of the Department of Developmental Services. But there is a small segment of that population for which institutional care remains the most appropriate type of care, as the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Olmstead v. LC.
4. Blumenthal’s charge that developmental centers such as Fernald are “extremely expensive” is misleading. These facilities provide a higher-than-average level of care because of the higher-than-average disability levels of their residents. That level of care costs more money than care for a less disabled client no matter where those clients live.
Moreover, the state has blocked new admissions to the developmental centers for decades, largely due to lobbying by the Arc and ADDP. As a result, the per-resident cost of operating a facility such as Fernald is higher than it would otherwise be because fixed facility costs have been spread over a steadily shrinking base of residents.
5. In their annual budget-time rant against Fernald and the other developmental centers, what Blumenthal and the vendors always fail to mention is that they want new state contracts to operate group homes that they hope will result from the closure of the centers. In other words, their critiques of the centers and the families and guardians that support them should be taken with a grain of salt.
The DDS closure plan will not benefit the private provider system. The plan is to move all of the residents into state owned programs or the two remaining developmental centers. The movement to close state institutions is a genuine desire to use very limited and declining dollars wisely. Furthermore, David says Fernald provides “state of the art” care. This is simply not true; it only continues the segregation and isolation of the past. The resistance to closure is a battle being fought by a very few people that is costing the state millions of dollars that could be spent more effectively and perhaps help the 11,000 others who have lost service while still providing quality services for the remaining 14 at Fernald. It is time to close Fernald.
who said the developmental centers had been improved from “snake pits” to world class facilities that were “second to none.” Your use of the loaded term “segregated” is inaccurate and outdated. You’re talking about the situation 30 or more years ago. Give the families and guardians at these centers some respect for their choices they make.
Also, I think you should take another look at the state plan for closing the facilities. It provides that developmental center residents will be transferred to vendor residences as well as state-operated group homes and other state facilities.
one of the loud and vocal “small group” too!
I have read just about all of ADDPs redundant misinformation and misrepresentations about Fernald. My very first thought was they forgot to drag out the picture of the old rundown building that no one has lived in for 35 years. I am usually outraged. Not this time–I had to laugh.
$10 million dollars (the proverbial drop in the bucket) compared to the hundreds of millions, even BILLIONS the non-profit service providers get from the budget. The same service providers that pay dcjayhawk (aka Mr. Blumenthal) to lobby for their budgetary interests. I guess they have to have it all!
I guess what hit me as ironic this time around was that the piece appeared in the Herald at the same time stories that detail wide spread corruption in the probation department, complete with federal indictments, were published. Who knows how much taxpayer money is going down that black hole to unqualified hacks with no show jobs. How many millions do you think are spent on those people in the way of payroll, pensions, health insurance, sick pay, vacation pay, and whatever other perks go along with it. I’d guess easily in the millions, at least.
It also comes on the heals of another scandal regarding a non-profit organization that provides services to the developmentally disabled, funded largely by the taxpayer, whose executive director, and his employee wife, were using the organization’s credit card at Disney World and the New Hampshire liquor store.
It also comes on the heals of another scandal where politically connected individuals were given no show jobs at another non-profit (Merrimack Educational Collaborative) so they could steal taxpayer money intended for education of special needs children and get a pension for doing that.
But forget about all of that, $10M for Fernald residents (you forgot to mention the 1600 community people that visit and use Fernald’s pool on a monthly basis) is devastating the entire disabled community–you really have to be kidding!
At least I know exactly where $10 million dollars of the budget is going. The rest of the billions is anyones guess.
Just a few more comments. Fantastic that Steve is having a good result from his move. I hope that continues and he has a long and happy life.
But to state that everyone will have the same positive result from the move is not reality. It was recently reported that two residents died shortly after leaving Fernald and Templeton. In the case of the man from Templeton, he died within a day or two of leaving. It demonstrates that not everyone can withstand the trauma of a move–doesn’t matter where they are moving to, its the move that does them in.
The residents of Fernald are receiving services from DDS and I can guarantee you that they are not “conscious of the difficult fiscal condition”. 99% of them don’t know or even comprehend what money is. They aren’t capable of being guardian’s of themselves let alone the guardians of the social services system. As for being “owed”, its the resident’s that are owed, not their families.
The guardians of these residents are doing nothing more than trying to protect people who cannot protect themselves and to keep them from harm all within the rules, regulations and laws that were specifically designed, established and enacted to protect them. Their motivation is quite clear–why else would anyone put themselves through it? Shame on you for trying to portray it as anything other than what it is.
Perhaps when dcjayhawk starts advocating for the Community Care System FOR FREE, I’ll stop wondering about is motivations.