COFAR blog

It’s becoming clear that the legal division and even the internal appeals division of the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) have a bias against families and guardians seeking residential placements for their loved ones at state-run congregate care centers in Massachusetts.

A decision by a DDS hearing officer last summer marks at least the second time in the course of a year that the Department shot down appeals by families to transfer intellectually disabled persons from corporate, provider-run group homes to the Wrentham Developmental Center.

Concerns downplayed

In both cases, the same DDS hearing officer, William O’Connell, denied the appeals in rulings that used the same language in many instances. And O’Connell appeared to downplay or even ignore concerns raised by the families about a lack of adequate care and meaningful activities in the “community-based” group homes and day programs.

In his decisions, O’Connell stated either that he did not give “substantial weight” to testimony of the families, or that they had not provided “substantial and probative evidence” that their adult children were receiving inadequate services or that Wrentham had more services and less turnover among staff.  At the same time, he found to be “credible” every argument raised against the families by DDS in its closing briefs.

In particular, O’Connell didn’t explain why he didn’t give substantial weight to what is arguably easily verifiable and true assessments about the Wrentham Center regarding services and staff turnover. This is clearly due to the fact that O’Connell fully subscribes to the administration’s ideology that all congregate residential care is institutional and therefore bad.

Also, as explained below, O’Connell’s decisions appear to be internally contradictory with regard to whether clients in the DDS system have a right to placements at the Wrentham Center and the Hogan Regional Center in Danvers, which are known as Intermediate Care Facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICFs).

As we previously reported, O’Connell denied an appeal in July 2023 filed by a father and mother who had been trying to get their son into the Wrentham Center. Last summer, O’Connell denied a second appeal by another mother to gain admission to Wrentham for her son. Then DDS Commissioner Jane Ryder upheld both of O’Connell’s decisions.

We have frequently noted that both ICFs are critical backstops for care in the DDS system. Yet these facilities are being targeted for eventual closure by the administration. Families and guardians of persons needing residential placements are not informed that the two ICFs exist; and, if they do ask for placements there, are almost always denied.

Conclusion stated at outset of decisions

The DDS bias was evident at the start of each of O’Connell’s decisions in which he stated that care in the community in each case had been “successful.”

In both cases, O’Connell stated that one of the “issues presented” was, “Does (the) appeal … entitle (the individual) to a change in residential placement, specifically admission to a specific ICF, after…years of successfully being supported in a less-restrictive community-based residence.” (my emphasis)

It appears from this language in both appeal decisions that O’Connell had already made up his mind before even hearing testimony. He listed, as an “issue presented” (meaning the case had yet to be heard), that the individual’s supports in the community had been successful.

However, in each case, the family had appealed based on an argument that the community-based supports had not been successful.

Also, a guardian in at least one of the cases claimed that her son was leading a highly restricted life in his community-based group home. And both families noted that they found that the Wrentham Center is highly interactive with its surrounding community, and offers many services and activities that are normally not available in their sons’ group homes.

So, the hearing officer’s presumption from the start in these cases that ICFs are automatically more restrictive than are community-based group homes indicates an unwillingness to consider evidence in individual cases that the opposite may be true.

Also, his presumption that care in the community-based system is uniformly successful ignores years of evidence that the community-based system has become highly dysfunctional and is rife with abuse and neglect.

 Claims of inadequate services not given weight

As noted, O’Connell actually acknowledged that he didn’t give “substantial weight” to allegations by each family about a lack of specific activities or supports in the community-based system. Instead, he accepted DDS’s assertions that the individuals in each case were “well supported” or “successfully supported” in that system.

In fact, O’Connell used the exact same language in stating in each decision that:

I find credible (DDS’s) testimony that admission to (Wrentham) is not appropriate for (the individual) because there was no immediate risk to (the individual’s) health or safety and no indication that (the individual’s) needs cannot continue to be met in the community.”

O’Connell just updated the name from the first to the second decision.

In both decisions, O’Connell also stated that DDS was “continuing to work” or “willing to accommodate” some of the specific services and supports requested by the parents. But those promises, in the parents’ view, are vague and ultimately empty. If DDS were really committed to doing these things, they would have been done years ago, and the parents would not be appealing for placements at Wrentham. 

Hearing officer’s decisions and DDS policy are internally contradictory regarding ICF admissions 

In each decision, O’Connell accepted the DDS argument that the federal Medicaid law “does not entitle (the individual) admission to an Intermediate Care Facility at the Wrentham Center… “

O’Connell, as noted, also accepted DDS’s uniform position that each individual “is not entitled to admission because (Wrentham) is not the least restrictive environment available to serve (the individual.” And in each decision, O’Connell added that, “the Medicaid Act choice provision does not entitle (the individual) to choose between ICF or in a community home on an annual basis.”

But DDS, in fact, does offer such a “choice.” It’s just that DDS, not the Medicaid Act, insists the “choice” must always be a community-based home.

DDS requires families and guardians to sign a waiver of ICF care in order to receive DDS services. In what is referred to as a “Choice Statement” on the form, the applicant for DDS services is required to sign the following:

CHOICE STATEMENT:

I ____________________________________(Applicant or guardian) choose to apply for the Home and Community-Based Services Adult Waiver Programs and live and receive my services in the community rather than in an ICF/ID. (my emphasis)

DDS essentially admits here that a choice of ICF care exists in that the Department requires families and guardians to waive that choice in order to receive DDS services.

In fact, O’Connell explicitly stated in each appeal decision that the family applied for enrollment of their child “in the HCBS (Home and Community Based Services) Waiver …, exercising their choice for community rather than ICF services in so doing.” (my emphasis)

Despite that apparent choice, O’Connell stated in both decisions, as noted, that the individuals in question did not have a right under federal law to placement in an ICF. DDS, in fact, asserted in each case that:

DDS avoids institutionalization at the ICFs except in cases where there is a health or safety risk to the individual or others, and generally, when all other community-based options have been exhausted.

This, in our view, appears to violate federal law, which does confer a right to institutional care for those who desire it. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Olmstead v. L.C., also held that a right to institutional care exists.

Not only does federal law specify that there people who are found to eligible for ICF-level care are entitled to choose it, but DDS and O’Connell both acknowledge that such a choice exists. It is not a real choice, though, if DDS requires families and guardians to waive their right to one of the available options.

It is moreover, disingenuous of DDS and the hearing officer to tie families and guardians forever to community-based care by falsely claiming that those persons had freely chosen it years before in many cases.

What is ultimately so frustrating about this situation is that DDS and the administration as a whole continue to cling to an ideological position against congregate care that ignores reality. They continue to maintain that ICF care is more restrictive than care in the community, no matter what evidence may be presented to the contrary.

And DDS and the administration continue to ignore evidence that community-based care is beset by serious problems. As a result, when families and guardians appeal the inevitable denials by DDS of a full continuum of choice in residential care, the official adjudication process they encounter is anything but fair and impartial.