By Katy Grimes

The Senate Health and Human Services Subcommittee No. 3 conducted a hearing last week and discussed the current status of the the Department of Developmental Services and its controversial developmental centers.

At the hearing, the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended the Legislature create an independent Office of Inspector General to strengthen the oversight of the Sonoma Development Center. And the LAO recommended the cost of $500,000 to $1 million to do this come out of the DDS budget.

A report last year found the Sonoma Developmental Center was rife with licensing violations, including sexual assault, stun gun injuries, overall abusive treatment of the developmentally disabled residents, failure to provide appropriate medical treatment, and an unsafe environment. “Individual freedoms have been denied or restricted without justification,” the report read.

Past hearings have covered the horrific nature of abuses on some residents living in the developmental centers, but changes are so slow in coming, and ongoing allegations of abuse continue.

Following the discovery, the Legislature held hearings last year and demanded corrective action. But little has actually changed, according to lengthy testimony at an October hearing.

At a hearing in November, DDS Director Terri Delgadillo said “corrective action is ongoing.” She added that the agency is paying consultants to advise on corrective actions.

But lobbyists for the developmentally disabled told me that 10 years ago the agency did the same thing and hired consultants, but never implemented the recommended corrective actions.

What are the issues?

One important issue is that many developmentally disabled people living in state institutions are older and do not have family members who oversee the quality of their care or advocate for them.  When the state closed several developmental centers decades ago, some older parents were against the closings.

Most of these parents and their disabled children were older and were afraid of the unknown, and how the emerging community “group homes” located in residential neighborhoods would work for them. Their children were born at a different time, and had not been allowed to attend regular school, as now is the common practice.

“People were cruel to them and life was difficult,” one mother recently told me.

Shielded from the cruel public, ostensibly living with “well-trained and caring  staff,” the developmental centers seemed like the best option at the time. Unfortunately, most of the institutions have historically lacked oversight.

The Sonoma Developmental Center, located in the town of Glen Ellen, has more than 500 residents with developmental disabilities. Recently, four of the center’s 10 Intermediate Care Facility units lost their federal certification based on the multiple incidences of abuse, neglect and poor caregiving.

What is the DDS?

Despite cases of abuse, sexual assault, injuries and even death, California’s state run institutions for the developmentally disabled are continually defended by DDS officials.

The DDS is a massive state agency which claims to have historically inadequate budgets. But many experts in the state say the agency could cut $500 million from its annual budget just by getting rid of the antiquated institutions that many developmentally disabled have lived in for decades.

The DDS employs 6,000 people and maintains a budget of $4.7 billion, of which $550 million funds five state-run residential care developmental centers.

Institutions not needed

According to experts who care for the developmentally disabled, the institutions are not needed because there are plenty of licensed care homes in the communities that take care of a smaller number of people more efficiently.  These homes are usually located near the residents’ families, allowing family members to visit on a regular basis. Residents of these facilities attend local day programs, sporting and entertainment events, and have easy access to community health care.

Living in the smaller licensed care homes, they are seen by more people in the community so there is less chance that issues of abuse will go unnoticed.

Many of the experts say the DDS is unwilling to give up the developmental centers because it doesn’t want to lose such a large part of the agency budget. This may be a serious enough issue. The Legislature will need to step in and force the closures. The loss of federal certification and funds should be an indicator enough that this antiquated system needs a long-overdue overhaul.

By Katy Grimes

The Department of Developmental  Services is a massive state agency that could immediately cut $500 million from its annual budget, according to lobbyists and experts, by getting rid of the antiquated institutions that the developmentally disabled have lived in for decades.

The DDS employs 6,000 people and maintains a budget of $4.7 billion, of which $550 million funds five state-run residential care developmental centers.

Yet strangely, state lawmakers introduced legislation last year to increase the number of employees at this agency.

During a July inspection by the Department of Public Health at the Sonoma Developmental Center, licensing officials found many violations, including sexual assault, stun gun injuries, generally abusive treatment of the developmentally disabled residents, failure to provide appropriate medical treatment, and an unsafe environment.

“Individual freedoms have been denied or restricted without justification,” the report read.

Following the discovery, the Legislature held hearings and demanded corrective action. But little has actually changed, according to lengthy testimony at an October hearing.

Terri Delgadillo, the director of the Department of Developmental Services, said that “corrective action is ongoing.” She added that the agency is paying consultants to advise on corrective actions.

Carl London, a lobbyist for the California Disability Services Association, said that 10 years ago the agency did the same thing and hired consultants, but never implemented the recommended corrective actions.  “It’s time to close the developmental centers as efficiently as possible,” London said. “It costs $500 million to service 1,500 to 1,600 individuals in institutions. There are programs that take care of people coming out of institutions.”

That pencils out to more than $300,000 per year for each person in the institution.

Bad history at agency

Similar stories of abuse ran 10 years ago.  State officials debated whether to overhaul the agency’s police force or dismantle it. In the end they did nothing.

Shortly after the most recent allegations of abuse surfaced, lawmakers in the state Senate Human Services Committee demanded immediate changes to the investigative procedures at the state institutions. Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed legislation requiring the institutions to notify outside police when a death occurs, as well as allegations of abuse and injury.

The Office of Protective Services, the police investigative arm of the development centers for the disabled, has made egregious mistakes and bungled investigations, including investigations of abuse, mystery injuries and patient deaths.

Families want institutions closed

London said that most families of the developmentally disabled prefer to keep their loved ones in their own homes, or in community centers.

I interviewed a couple, both 70, with a developmentally disabled adult son in his mid-30s. They also have two other adult children with no disabilities. They have successfully kept their son at home for all of his life. He has a job and goes to work every day, goes to the movies with friends, and has his own rock band. He is able to live a rich, happy life, which they say is the result of never institutionalizing him.

This family echoed the sentiment that the state’s developmental institutions should be shut down.  “They are hell holes where all kinds of abuses occur and are tolerated,” the mother said. “The developmentally disabled people in these institutions are afraid to report violations because of the fear of reprisal.  Many have accepted these abuses as part of life, as they have been occurring for so long.  There is a strong code of silence and abusers think that no one will believe what a developmentally disabled person has to say.”

At the October hearing, there was testimony from former employees and medical professionals about the abuse and the employee code of silence.

The other issue is that many of the developmentally disabled living in these institutions are older and do not have family members who oversee the quality of their care or advocate for them.  When the state closed several developmental centers years ago, some older parents were against the closings.  “Most of these parents and their disabled children were older and were afraid of the unknown, and how the community homes would work for them,” the mother said. “Their children were born at a different time.  They had not been allowed to attend regular school, people were cruel to them and life was difficult.”

Shielded from the cruel public, ostensibly living with “well-trained and caring  staff,” the developmental centers seemed like the best option at the time.

Unfortunately, most of the institutions have historically lacked oversight.

But there are also amazing personal stories of the people who have come out of these institutions and successfully integrated into the community. There were several developmentally disabled people who testified at the October hearing how they had to sue the state for the right to be released from the institutions. They won their lawsuits and once out, living in the community, they told stories of getting jobs, making friends and living well. One man holds a regular job and works as Santa Claus every Christmas.

Institutions not needed

The institutions are not needed, according to London and other experts, because there are plenty of licensed care homes in the communities that take care of a smaller number of people more efficiently.  These homes are usually located near the resident’s families. Family members can visit, even unannounced, on a regular basis.   Residents of these facilities attend local day programs, sporting and entertainment events, and have easy access to community health care.

Living in the smaller licensed care homes, they are seen by more people in the community so there is less chance that issues of abuse will go unnoticed.  “They are not perfect, but are a much better option and more economical that the larger facilities,” the woman said.

Bureaucracy trumps quality of care

Aside from the outrageous stories of abuse within the institutions, there are larger management issues:

* 80 percent of the employees in one facility are always out on some type of medical leave. This suggests that there are morale problems, as well as many employees abusing the state’s lenient leave system.

* Patient abuse cases take at least three years before any citation is issued. One psychologist testified at the October hearing that, at one developmental center in which he worked, there was a code of silence with the staff involving abuse cases, which greatly slowed the investigations.

* Delgadillo ordered the rates paid to the community centers be cut by 10 percent, as part of the overall state budget cuts. The community centers are far more efficient, and provide better quality of life and care, according to parents and experts. And the state institutions are only partially full, yet maintain a full staff, including a police force at each facility. The institutions are like small cities, with every conceivable service available.

What needs to happen?

“Someone needs to go to the regional centers and ask how quickly they can handle the people from the institutions,” said one industry expert who asked to remain anonymous. He reported that the regional and community centers can adjust quickly, and with more flexibility, based on the needs of the people they serve. “They could close the institutions tomorrow, and still keep half of the money in the system,” he said.

It is obvious that this state agency does not want to give up any of the $550 million used to fund the institutions. At the October hearing, Delgadillo seem more concerned about the state employees working at the institutions, than of the disabled people they serve.

There is a strange silence coming from the Brown administration about requiring cuts, consolidations or closures of the antiquated, unhealthy institutions. “The future is not in ongoing, crappy institutions,” the expert said. “The future is in nonprofit community care centers, doing the mission intended.”

By Katy Grimes

The most vulnerable people in California are caught in a bureaucratic nightmare with the state’s Department of Developmental Services.

A Joint Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and Human Services held yet another hearing Tuesday to cover the latest abuse allegations and facility closures. But little action was taken, other than a few mea culpas.

The nearly six-hour hearing was mired in history, procedure and bureaucracy about how the department is run, where the funding comes from, and the use of the developmental centers.

The Department of Developmental Services has 6,000 employees and a total budget of $4.7 billion, of which $550 million funds five state-run residential care developmental centers. Yet state lawmakers have introduced legislation to increase the number of employees at this agency.

Aside from the stories of abuse, some of the developmental centers have widespread overtime abuse, and 80 percent of the employees in one facility are always out on some kind of medical leave.

It was also reported that patient abuse cases take at least three years before any citation is issued. A psychologist testified that he worked in a developmental center for more than 10 years and found that, in cases of abuse, there was a code of silence with the staff, greatly slowing down investigations.

Once a citation is finally issued to the perpetrator, often years later, the citation is almost totally redacted, preventing the public from knowing who the abuser was, and what happened.

The “transparency” that state employees and legislators are so fond of citing is largely a tall tale in this agency, despite the “transparency” link on the agency website.

Reason for hearing

During a July inspection by the Department of Public Health at the Sonoma Developmental Center, licensing officials found many violations, including sexual assault, stun gun injuries, generally abusive treatment of the residents, failure to provide appropriate medical treatment and an unsafe environment.

“Individual freedoms have been denied or restricted without justification,” the report read.

Terri Delgadillo, the director of the Department of Developmental  Services and Schwarzenegger appointee, said that “corrective action is ongoing.” She added that the agency is paying consultants to advise on corrective actions.

Carl London, a lobbyist for the California Disability Services Association, said that 10 years ago the agency did the same thing and hired consultants, but never implemented the corrective actions recommended by the consultants.  “It’s time to close the developmental centers as efficiently as possible,” London said. “It costs $500 million to service 1,500 to 1,600 individuals in institutions. There are programs that take care of people coming out of institutions.”

Ten years ago

The most recent reports of abuse are a déjà vu. “Ten years ago, news stories about mishandled abuse cases led state officials to debate whether to overhaul a police force at California institutions for the severely developmentally disabled or dismantle it. The state did neither,” California Watch reported in March.

Shortly after the recent allegations of abuse surfaced, state lawmakers in the Senate Human Services Committee held a hearing, then demanded immediate changes to the investigative procedures at the state institutions.

But the Office of Protective Services, the police investigative arm of the development centers for the disabled, has made made egregious mistakes and bungled investigations, including the investigations of abuse, mystery injuries and patient deaths.

Lanterman Act

The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that, in 1969, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act was passed. It gave people with developmental disabilities the right to necessary support services, allowing them to live a more independent and normal life.  This is done through community regional centers, where more than 250,000 developmentally disabled people receive services, including diagnosis and treatment.

The five remaining developmental centers are more than 50 years old, and most are in need of structural updating.

The 2010 state budget passed by the Legislature required the closure of the Lanterman Developmental Center. When the closure was initially proposed, there were only 400 residents and 1,300 staff.  As of October 2012, there are 238 remaining residents and 936 staff members. Also, 132 former Lanterman residents have transitioned into the community.

Delgadillo said that if Proposition 30 does not pass, the department will face more cuts.

Prop. 30 is being billed as a tax increase measure for school funding. But the majority of Prop. 30 revenue would be funneled into the general fund.

State employees

Despite the sensitive and often difficult testimony at the hearing, much of the discussion surrounded the concerns of the staff and where the state employees will land after the developmental center closures.

With the revelations that staff has been abusing overtime and 80 percent of the staff is on medical leave at one facility, the Senate committee should have been talking about gross mismanagement along with the physical abuse at the centers.

The psychologist who briefly testified during the public comment period of the hearing reiterated that the needs of the individual patients must be placed above the staff needs. “My license requires it,” he said. “I am appalled at what is going on at Sonoma. We must protect these individuals.”