Planned Failure - Blind Allegiance

[Developmental Disabilities Advocates]

I'm not writing this to be negative - I'm writing this to inform people of the planned failure of services that our state and others are utilizing in denying services to our citizens with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

 

There are several ways in which our state and others are managing this and unfortunately this is being done by some of the very agencies which state their mission is to support this population and people will believe what they hear.  Another unfortunate issue is that some of these groups monopolize many of the social media groups (hence the emergence of this group) and therefore silence anyone who may question some of the tactics or information which is disseminated through these groups.

 

The “research” that is done by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Division of Developmental Disabilities and written in reports  - particularly the report entitled “Assessment Findings for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served in Residential Habilitation Centers and Community Settings” written by Barbara Lucenko, PhD, http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/5/36.pdf is one example of the lack of integrity and accountability in reporting issues. 

 

The data was researched in three distinct residential settings: “Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs)”, “Community Residential” and “other Community Based” and there were statistically significant differences found between all 3 areas in support needs of the residents.  Ms. Lucenko chose to collapse these three categories into two:  “RHC and Community Residential” and “Other Community”.  This decision to manipulate the data invalidated the conclusions she drew yet no one would know unless they read the report or questioned the findings.  When I questioned her findings I was ignored or called “abusive” for questioning.  How can we base policies on actions and decisions such as this?  

If this report was submitted to any academic journal for review it would be ripped apart due to the poor conclusions that are not based on the facts that were documented in the data collection.  Why then, does our state government accept this report blindly?  Is it because the false “Key Findings” were written to support the planned attrition of services to our most vulnerable citizens?

 

I am not attacking the author here – I’m only informing you of the situation.  As I wrote, I have attempted several times to contact the author through various methods and also DSHS Administrators.  They have chosen to ignore the questions.  Would a person in academic or scientific research choose to ignore questions about their findings?  I think they would choose to answer the questions to verify and prove they were correct in their analysis.  Why then, do we allow our state researchers to make poor conclusions and ignore scrutiny?

 

I have discovered that reports are handed out by DSHS and DDD with “facts and figures” are accepted by agencies without questioning where they came from or what they represent.  With this blind allegiance to an agency many are being hurt.  With this blind allegiance to the inaccurate and/or incomplete data and information, policies are being made. 

 

Please, take off the blinders and ask questions!

[Saskia Davis]

Cheryl,

You have done an incredible job of validating what we have known and have been saying for years!  I don't have the answer, but here is what I think is the important question:  What do we do with the information that will make a difference? 

As far back as the 90's and as recently as last year I had occasion to discuss the concept of planning for failure (for purposes of budget management) with people involved with such plans: Nita Rhinehart, Senator who was Chair of Senate of Ways and Means, and then, last year, Susan Dreyfus.  Of course, neither were receptive to hearing such planning named, and naming it for them (letting them know that the emperor's nakedness was not a secret) had zero effect on their sense of purpose. If it did anything, it advised them of the need to cover their backsides politically.  

 In 2003, several trial budgets  for closing Fircrest were developed by DSHS to be floated by the legislature.  At least one of them had unusually low cost because cost containment was based on projections of higher-than-normal attrition (death).  (Although that budget was not ultimately selected, we know that there were definitely some cost reductions due to higher-than -normal deaths.)

When I took evidence of false representation to one of the legislature's 2 economists, whom I thought capable of recognizing and caring about the discrepancies, he did nothing about it.  When I later questioned him about it, he said he had just gone with the figures that had been presented by DSHS.  He had done this in spite of the evidence that I thought should make a difference to him.   In just harping on it, we risk being written off as nuisances, which is how I think he regarded me as I repeatedly brought his attention to the lies. 

Legislators are so inundated with information from every direction, I think for many the concept that their official sources of information could be providing false information and basing their requests for legislation  on false information may be just too overwhelming to  entertain.  We are fortunate to have at least 2 who will face that reality, but we need to find a way to make it real to the others.

If anyone has any ideas of how to make such information real as well as important  and useful by legislators, I think this is where this discussion should be headed. 

I keep coming back to legislators because they hold the purse strings and can legislate what DSHS can and can't do; but CMS also has significant clout, so perhaps they, too, should be considered as we strategize.

Saskia  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DD Coalition" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/dd-coalition/-/7XNObaRUaW4J.
To post to this group, send email to dd-coa...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dd-coalition...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dd-coalition?hl=en.

[Cheryl Felak]

Thank you, Saskia,

 

Yes, I understand about the legislators being inundated and having to trust what is told to them - they can't possibly check into everything.  Yet, what I also find very frustrating is hearing "I've seen the numbers" when in fact they haven't really seen the numbers - only the numbers that DDD and DSHS want them to see. 

 

I have pulled together much information gathered through public disclosure and will be sharing it also.  There are many who will accuse me of manipulating and falsifying information since it will be very different than what they have seen or what they want to see.  All I can say is to look at the documents that the residential providers submit themselves and one will see a very different picture than one which DSHS, DDD, The Arc, The Developmental Disabilities Council, Disability Rights Washington and others may present.  The reason is that all those agencies use the same regurgitated data that DSHS gives them without going to the original sources.

 

If one would look at the original sources, one would be able to see more clearly.  This is why I have also contacted the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) on this issue.  WSIPP has been very responsive, replies quickly with interest and concern yet they are also at the mercy of the legislature and cannot undertake a report unless directed by a legislator. 

 

This is why I am also trying to encourage legislators to inquire through WSIPP to investigate this issue and to look at the real data more thoroughly.  It is only through transparency and accountability that we will be able to improve the system and best serve ALL people with developmental and intellectual disabilities. 

 

If anyone would like information on the original sources, I have a multitude of information and copies.  Just let me know if you would like to see them.

 

Thank you,

 

Cheryl

[Saskia Davis]

Hi Cheryl,

One might assume that encouraging legislators to inquire through WSIPP to investigate and look at the data more thoroughly would serve the purpose.  Maybe even we should be able to assume that. And, in the end, it also may be the best we can do.  

But   I think we need another strategy, one that does not require them to do more work before they become impressed with the reality/scope of the problem. 

Do you know the old "joke" about the sale of the best, most cooperative donkey ever?  This is the claim of the donkey seller who also asks for assurance that his donkey will be treated well.  , Having assured the seller that he will treat his donkey well, the buyer is  quite delighted with his purchase.

But as soon as the seller leaves, and the buyer has mounted his donkey, urging him forward yields no results.  The donkey just stands there.  The buyer tries everything he can think of: pulling, food enticements,  sweet talk, etc.  Nothing works.  So he contacts the seller who arrives to assess the problem.  He has brought a big board with which he whacks the donkey upside the head!  Then he instructs him.  The donkey is at that point obviously quite intelligent and cooperative as well.  The buyer exclaims, I thought you said I had to treat him well!  "Yes!  Yes!" says the seller, " but, first, you must get his attention!"

Question is:  How do we focus attention of legislators? 

Saskia