The complaint, which was filed by the Disability and Abuse Project, alleges that Los Angeles Superior Court judges used literacy tests to deny voting rights to thousands of people with autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities. The group’s analysis of 61 conservatorship cases in Los Angeles County found that 90 percent of individuals were denied voting rights. With more than 40,000 conservatorships in California, the group extrapolates that thousands of Californians could be illegally deprived of their franchise.

“What is happening in Los Angeles is the tip of the iceberg,” Thomas F. Coleman, attorney and legal director for the project, said in a prepared statement. “The problem of voting rights violations of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is not isolated to Los Angeles. Such civil rights violations are occurring elsewhere in California.”

L.A. County routinely denied voting rights

As first reported by the Associated Press, the case stems from problems in the administration of limited conservatorships, “legal arrangements in which parents or guardians assume the right to make certain decisions for people who lack the ability to manage their financial and medical affairs.”

The Voting Rights Act complaint alleges that courts determined voting competence based on whether an individual could complete a voter registration form without assistance. Such a practice would violate federal law, which allows individuals to receive help in completing voter registration forms. California’s voter registration form (pictured above; a larger version is at the bottom of this article) even includes a section providing special instructions for those who receive assistance with the process.

“The Department of Justice has said that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, states must offer auxiliary aids and services, including ‘assistance filling out forms,’ to people with disabilities when necessary to help them participate fully in state programs such as voting,” said Samantha Crane, director of public policy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. “California is not only refusing to provide this assistance to people with disabilities, but is denying voting rights to anyone who gets help with filling out a form from someone else.”

The investigation into voting rights violations began after Teresa Thompson saw her son, Stephen, lose his voting rights in a limited conservatorship case.

“Just before he turned 18, I was advised to file a petition for a limited conservatorship so that I could make financial and medical decisions for Stephen after he became an adult,” Thompson said. “I had no idea that by seeking a conservatorship for him that I would cause him to lose the right to vote.”

Thompson said her court-appointed attorney informed her that the concept of conservatorship was incompatible with the right to vote. That didn’t sound right to Thompson, who sought the help of disability advocates at the Spectrum Institute’s Disability and Abuse Project.

Disability groups demand action

Leaders of prominent disability advocacy groups said voting is one of numerous fundamental rights frequently denied to people with developmental disabilities.

“This issue is a longstanding and concerning one — many autistic people and those with other developmental disabilities are denied fundamental rights, like voting, due to guardianship,” Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, told CalWatchdog.com. “We’re pleased to see this issue highlighted and will be urging the Justice Department to act on the complaint.”

According to a 2012 study published in the Lancet, adults with disabilities are more likely to be physically and sexually abused than adults without disabilities. “People with mental illness are about four times more likely — and people with intellectual impairments are about one-and-half times more likely — to get abused than non-disabled adults,” the study found. That’s reinforced by the 2012 National Survey on Abuse of People with Disabilities, which found more than 70 percent of people with disabilities claiming to be victims of abuse.

But, without voting rights, people with disabilities aren’t a political force that can demand action on problems affecting 15 percent of the population. That was no different in this case. Disability advocates asked state and local officials to address the voting rights problem, but were ignored.

“We reached out to the ‘powers that be’ both locally and at the state level to correct this problem,” said Coleman, the attorney for the project. “Nothing has changed. So we are ‘making a federal case out of it.'”

Should competence tests exist?

The case could spark a broader debate about whether voter competency tests should exist at all.

Not every state imposes competency tests for voting. According to a 2008 report, “VOTE. It’s Your Right: A Guide to the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities,” published by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and National Disability Rights Network, 11 states have no disability-related restrictions on voting. As of 2008, eight states — Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Vermont — had no voter competence requirements, according to the report.

Other public participation experts believe voting should require a certain level of competence. Pete Peterson, executive director of Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Participation, said that voting requires “a certain capacity for thoughtful and intentional decision-making.”

“Our voting laws must balance the latest in this research, taking into account these gradations, while understanding that voting itself is an act of both a ‘head and heart,’ said Peterson, who is running for Secretary of State. “I look forward to following this case, and hope it does bring greater clarity to these issues.”

What might be the best way to determine voter eligibility?

“If somebody can articulate in whatever way … that they want to vote, that they have an interest in voting, that’s the only test that should be applied nationwide,” Coleman said at a press conference earlier this month.

For more information on the Voting Rights Complaint, visit the Disability and Abuse Project’s website.

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.”