Mass. organization fights state on developmental center closures

Mass. organization fights state on developmental center closures
(June 2009 Issue)

By Jennifer Chase Esposito

Last September, the Patrick administration unveiled its "Community First" agenda that along with the state's first Olmstead Plan, would be a roadmap toward providing access to community-living opportunities and support services for the individual needs of the Bay State's elderly and people with disabilities.

But opponents say that assimilating people into their own homes and in the community means removing them from their otherwise well-adjusted living situations within the state's mental health institutions, causing undue stress and displacement for people who are comfortable and at peace with their lifestyle and the services provided within.

Under Community First, Massachusetts would close four to six of its institutions over the next 18 months that currently provide services to people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Those to close are the Fernald Developmental Center in Waltham, Irving R. Glavin Regional Center in Shrewsbury, Monson Developmental Center in Palmer and Templeton Development Center in Baldwinville.

But the Mass. Coalition of Families and Advocates (COFAR) is against Community First. And in mid-May, COFAR - the only statewide advocacy organization representing family members across the continuum of care - won a small battle in its fight. Following a Mass. House of Representatives floor amendment demanding a feasibility study before any closures, the legislature's Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities and the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, scheduled an "informational hearing" on May 12 where COFAR representatives were invited to explain the perspective of potentially displaced residents of the developmental centers, approximately 500 of whom would be evicted under the governor's plan.

The hearing and subsequent feasibility study could prove Community First's credence as a plan that's either fiscally responsible or morally reprehensible as it appears to its objectors.

"We didn't request this hearing, but we welcome the opportunity to be heard," said COFAR President David Hart in a statement. "The legislature providing this opportunity for open debate is in contrast to the governor's shutdown announcement Dec. 12, late on a Friday afternoon, at the onset of a blizzard that knocked out power, with a few hours' warning to advocates and none to local officials."

At a Statehouse rally in April, along with nurses, family members and professionals from the community, four legislators - Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury-Westborough), Rep. Angelo Scaccia (D-Hyde Park-Milton), Sen. Michael O. Moore (D-Second Worcester), and Rep. Todd Smola (R-Palmer) - spoke against Community First. Behind COFAR's opposition is that developmental centers are the safety net and service centers for all DMR clients, of which more than one-third use facility-based services each year, including the Tufts Dental Facilities program, adaptive technology workshops, pools, chapel, day programs, and respite beds. Additionally, the most experienced and highly trained direct care workers in the state are at developmental centers, they say.

"Luckily, legislators are open minded," says Colleen M. Lutkevitch, executive director of COFAR.

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) cites several reasons for promoting Community First: to help individuals transition from institutional care; expand their access to community-based long-term supports and accessible housing; improve the capacity and quality of long-term community supports; promote employment of people with disabilities and elders; and promote the awareness of long-term supports, in general.

The EOHHS also states that less-restrictive settings may also be less expensive for the some 1,640,000 elders and people with disabilities in the state. But there's no proof, says COFAR, that any money will be saved.

"Depending on how the study comes back, the state might not close facilities because it won't save any money," says Mark Zanger, communications director for COFAR. In order to close Fernald, he says, the state submitted a request for proposals (RFP) for 23 new group homes that would supply between 120-150 beds for displaced clients.

Some say that purchasing new properties when residential facilities already exist is unnecessary. "This is a minority population with a number of people needing care," says Lutkevitch. "And in the context of this economy, to be thinking of closing facilities ... it's not just the question of the facilities, but the whole system is backward. DMR is not in charge, the providers are. And if this doesn't fix itself, this is another lawsuit waiting to happen."

According to Massachusetts' EOHHS, in 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v. L.C. that the Americans with Disabilities Act required states to assure that individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to live in the community, not only in institutional settings. The court also determined that each state should develop a plan consistent with the ruling. Although community advocates issued an informal People's Olmstead Plan in 2002, the Patrick administration was the first to prioritize the establishment of an official state plan.

But Olmstead or not, COFAR believes that some clients just won't want to be moved.

"We're trying to get [the state] to see that what is the least restrictive setting for people is one where they can walk around and do what they want, and not have to cross a street to get where they need to go." Because, agrees Zanger, this is a population that on its own, won't look both ways.