COFAR blog

As we have reported, the census or number of residents living in state-operated residential group homes and Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) in Massachusetts appears to be steadily declining.

But in response to Public Records requests filed by COFAR, first in January and then last month, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) said it no longer has information on the actual number of people living in state-operated group homes during the past five years.

If it is true that DDS has no such records, it would indicate that the Department is unaware of the status of one of its most important operational programs.

DDS has also declined to clarify an apparent discrepancy in its claims concerning the number of state-operated group homes that have been closed since 2021.

We have appealed to the state’s public records supervisor in an effort to get clarification on those matters. In a response filed on Friday to our appeal, a DDS attorney said that under the Public Records Law, “an agency is not required to answer questions…”

Denial of group home information

Prior to this year, DDS did provide us with information on the declining census in state-operated group homes. That data showed a steady decline from a high of 1,206 residents in Fiscal Year 2015, to 1,097 in 2021. During that same time, the census in the much larger network of corporate, provider run group homes, also funded by DDS, rose from 7,793 to 8,290.

But as of January of this year, as noted, that information on the census in the state-operated group home system is apparently no longer available. What DDS said in January and again in September is that while it can provide information on the total available beds in, or capacity of, state-run group homes over the past five years, it now has no records on the census.

In September, DDS stated that the total capacity of the homes had declined from 1,173 beds to 1,131 beds between Fiscal 2019 and 2023.

But capacity numbers don’t tell the full story, particularly if DDS has not been allowing admissions to the group homes, and there consequently are vacancies in them. In fact, DDS acknowledged last month that there were 91 vacancies in the state-run group home system as of June of this year. That would imply that the actual census in the homes is lower than the capacity.

But DDS also said that while there were 91 vacancies as of June 30, it has no records on the number of vacancies each year since Fiscal Year 2019.

We calculated the apparent drop in the census as of Fiscal Year 2023

Based on the Department’s partial records, we did our own calculation of the census in the state-run group home network as of Fiscal Year 2023. That year, it appears the census would have dropped to 1,040.

That census or number of residents is based on DDS’s statement that the capacity of the state-run group homes was 1,131 in Fiscal 2023, and that there were 91 vacancies in the group homes as of June 30, the last day of that fiscal year. Subtracting the number of vacancies from the census that year equals 1,040. (1,131 minus 91).

If that is the case, it would indicate that the census in the state-run group homes dropped from 1,206 in Fiscal 2015 to 1,040 in Fiscal 2023, a 14% drop. See our chart below.

(Source: DDS. Note: We were not able to calculate the census in the state-run group homes in Fiscal Year 2022 because DDS did not provide a figure on the number of vacancies in that fiscal year.)

DDS will not clarify number of homes closed

As noted, DDS is not willing to clarify seemingly contradictory information on the number of group homes that have been closed and subsequently reopened since August 2021, during the height of the COVID crisis.

In September, DDS indicated that a net of nine state-run homes were closed between August 2021 and September 2023, leaving 251 homes remaining. However, eight months earlier – in January — DDS indicated that a net of six state-run homes were closed between August 2021 and January 2023, leaving 250 homes remaining as of January.

The implication of the January data was that 256 homes existed as of August 2021, whereas the implication of the September data was that 260 homes existed as of August 2021. The discrepancy might also mean that the number of homes that DDS said were closed may have been inaccurate.

However, as noted, when I asked that DDS provide clarification regarding that apparent discrepancy, a DDS attorney stated that, “Under the PRL (Public Records Law), an agency is not required to answer questions…”

The Public Records Law does require clarity

As part of our appeal, we stated to the public records supervisor that we believe DDS is, in fact, obligated to clarify information it provides under the Public Records Law.

The Massachusetts Guide to the Public Records Law, updated in March 2020, states that, “(State agencies) must help the requestor to determine the precise record or records responsive to a request…”

Also, the Public Records Law [M.G. L. c. 66, § 6A(b)] states that:

(The state agency) shall: …(i) assist persons seeking public records to identify the records sought;… and (iii) prepare guidelines that enable a person seeking access to public records in the custody of the agency or municipality to make informed requests regarding the availability of such public records electronically or otherwise…Each agency and municipality that maintains a website shall post the guidelines on its website.

In asking for clarification regarding the number of homes that existed as of August 2021 and have subsequently been closed, we were seeking the Department’s help in determining the precise record or records that might be responsive to our Public Records requests.

In sum, DDS’s response to our latest records requests seems to be part of the Department’s usual pattern of providing as little information as it feels it can get away with under the Public Records Law. The only other explanation is that the Department doesn’t have basic information about the programs it runs. We’re not sure which explanation is more troubling.