Archive
COFAR opposes Healey’s decision to close two state-run hospitals
COFAR is joining state employee unions in opposing a decision by the Healey administration to close two state-run hospitals — one for persons under 22 with developmental disabilities and the other for individuals with mental illness.
The 60-bed Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital in Canton offers medical, rehabilitative, educational and recreational services for persons with developmental disabilities up to the age of 22, according to the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA). The administration plans to move the hospital’s programs to the state-run Western Massachusetts Hospital in Westfield.
The Pocasset Mental Health Center is a 16-bed facility that serves persons with mental illness.
“The Healey administration does not realize the importance of preserving state-owned and operated facilities that offer a comprehensive set of services to some of our most vulnerable residents,” said Thomas J. Frain, COFAR’s president. “These are unique assets whose closure may provide some short-term savings. But there will be a long-term detrimental impact to the state and taxpayers if these assets are eliminated.”
COFAR has long expressed concern that the administration has a policy of allowing the Wrentham Developmental Center and the Hogan Regional Center — its two remaining state-run congregate care centers for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities – to close by attrition.
The Pappas Hospital in Canton hospital offers 24/7 nursing care, therapeutic services including speech and language therapies, and operates full-time classrooms. The hospital offers a wide range of recreational programs, including a therapeutic horseback riding program.
DDS facilities not targeted for similar budget cuts, but still face possible closure
The State House News Service reported that Administration and Finance officials said the closure of Pappas Hospital would save the state $31 million. The News Service also stated that Healey’s budget calls for reducing the volume of Department of Mental Health (DMH) case managers from 340 to 170.
Despite those planned cuts, Healey does not appear to be targeting the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) budget for major cuts in the coming year. She is proposing a $320.4 million or 18.9% increase in funding for corporate-run group homes.
The governor is also proposing needed though relatively modest increases in funding for the Wrentham and Hogan Centers, and for state-operated group homes in the DDS budget.
But the governor’s proposed funding increases for state-run DDS facilities do not appear to reflect an attempt to open the facilities to new admissions. That is despite the fact that thousands of individuals in the DDS system are reportedly waiting for residential placements.
We have seen a number of instances in which DDS clients have been placed in hospitals because group homes have been unable to care for them. This is despite the availability of beds in the Wrentham and Hogan facilities.
Colleen M. Lutkevich, a COFAR member and former COFAR executive director, was critical of Healey’s plan to move the Pappas Hospital programs to a state public health hospital in Westfield, in western Massachusetts. “Why can’t they duplicate those programs at the Wrentham Center, which is a half hour away, or even Hogan, which is still greater Boston?” Lutkevich asked.
“Families should not have to visit their kids three hours away,” Lutkevich added. “These are children who come home every weekend. This is truly ‘institutionalization’ – placing kids far away from their homes – in violation of DDS policies or ‘area of meaningful tie.'”
Lutkevich, a former high school guidance counselor, added that she supervised several students who were at the Pappas Hospital when she was a school counselor. “It’s wonderful place for teenagers – real friendship and camaraderie,” she said. “If they cannot keep it open they need to duplicate it and there is absolutely no reason for it to be so far away.”
Change.org petition
Please consider signing this petition calling for reconsideration of the decision to close Pappas Hospital.
Yet another legal assistance organization that apparently doesn’t deliver for families in the DDS and probate court systems
Last month, I wrote to the co-chairs of what appeared to be a highly prestigious organization that might help us find legal representation for people caught up in disputes over guardianship with the Department of Developmental Services (DDS).
The Massachusetts Access to Justice Commission bills itself on its homepage as “Working to ensure that everyone in Massachusetts has access to the justice they deserve.” The homepage adds that the Commission is concerned with “providing and improving access to justice for those unable to afford counsel.”
But how serious is this Commission really? On the surface, it would seem to be very serious. It consists of 28 commissioners who represent the top echelons of the Massachusetts legal system.
The commissioners include judges from the Superior, Probate, District and other courts in Massachusetts, attorneys with prominent law firms and legal assistance organizations, professors from major law schools in the state, two attorneys with the state Attorney General’s Office, and many others.
The chief counsel for judicial policy with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court serves as the high court’s liaison to the Commission.
And yet, when I asked the Commission simply for information about how to ensure access to justice for people in the DDS and probate court systems, I was told that the Commission didn’t have the “authority or expertise” to help me.
A disagreement over what constitutes legal advice
I first emailed the co-chairs of the Commission on December 31, asking for answers the Commission might have to two questions:
1. What are the rules, case law etc. that govern representation of individuals in probate court and other settings by non-attorney advocates?
2. How can we find pro bono attorneys for family members involved in the DDS and probate court systems?
In a number of these cases, I noted, we have been asked by parents or other family members to help them fight efforts by DDS or other parties to remove their guardianships of their loved ones with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), or to help them seek to restore their guardianships.
It seemed the Access to Justice Commission might have answers to those questions because the Commission’s mission statement on its website states that the Commission is committed to:
- “Providing legal services for those unable to afford counsel“;
- “Enlarging the number of attorneys trained, willing, and able to provide pro bono civil legal services”; and
- “Enlarging the number of non-lawyers trained, willing and able to provide appropriate assistance to improving access to justice.”
On January 14, two weeks after I submitted my query, Deborah Silva, the director of the Commission, responded to me that the Commission’s co-chairs had forwarded my query to her. She said, however, that the Commission didn’t have “the requisite authority or expertise to answer” my first question.
Silva subsequently wrote that, “I honestly don’t know the answer (to that question), but because the Commission is not authorized to give out legal advice, I’m not sure I’d be able to be of much help even if I did.”
As to my second question about pro bono attorneys, Silva suggested that I contact another organization — the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA). She later added MassProBono.org to that. More about that a bit later.
With regard to my first question about rules constraining non-attorney advocates, I responded to Silva that I actually hadn’t asked the Commission for legal advice. I had asked for information about rules that govern representation of individuals by non-attorney advocates.
My question was general in nature. I was not asking for anyone’s legal opinions about any specific legal case or cases. That latter activity — providing advice about specific legal cases — is what I would consider to be legal advice, and is what I would assume the Commission is prohibited from doing.
No help with pro bono attorneys
With regard to my second question about finding pro bono attorneys, Silva, as noted, referred me to two other organizations — NAELA and MassProBono.
My real problem with that response is that it begged the question, why would such a seemingly high-powered and prestigious organization as the Access to Justice Commission need to pass the buck and shuffle me elsewhere? The Commission not only has those dozens of highly credentialed commissioners, it has a standing committee on pro bono legal services. It certainly has its own expertise in this area.
We had, in fact, already contacted a number of legal assistance organizations, and had gotten nowhere with them, before contacting the Access to Justice Commission.
Last fall, the Boston-based Disability Law Center stated that they don’t handle guardianship cases, while the National Center on Law and Elder Rights never responded to our query.
Brockton-based South Coastal Counties Legal Services said they couldn’t take on a particular case we were proposing because they were “up to capacity.” That case involves a woman who claims she has involuntarily been placed under guardianship by an organization funded by DDS. She needs an attorney.
In November, the executive director of the Easthampton-based Center for Public Representation (CPR) expressed interest in that guardianship case. But somehow that interest later evaporated.
Unfortunately, the Access to Justice Commission appears to be more of the same. It is yet another organization that claims to be committed to providing legal representation for people who otherwise couldn’t afford it. And yet, none of these organizations seems to be able to go beyond the words and demonstrate that commitment.
We remain committed to providing advocacy for people in the DDS and probate court systems. But those systems are largely broken. It’s time the people who run the institutions wake up to this reality and stop being satisfied with printing platitudes on their websites.
Our priorities for the 2025-2026 legislative session
The 2025-2026 session of the Massachusetts Legislature began on January 1 of this year. So we are taking this opportunity to announce our priorities for this 194th legislative session.
Admissions should be opened to the ICFs and state-operated group homes
We are seeking the filing and passage of legislation that would require the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to offer the Wrentham Developmental Center, the Hogan Regional Center and state-operated group homes as options for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) who are seeking residential placements in Massachusetts.
Unless the administration agrees to open those facilities to new admissions, they will eventually close. DDS data show the number of residents or the census at both the Wrentham Developmental Center and Hogan Regional Center continued to drop from Fiscal Years 2019 through 2024.
The census at Wrentham dropped from 323 in Fiscal 2015 to 159 in Fiscal 2024 – a 50% drop. The census at Hogan dropped from 159 in Fiscal 2011 to 88 in Fiscal 2024 – a 45% drop.
Source: DDS
From Fiscal 2008 to 2021, the census in the state-run group home system dropped from 1,059 to 1,023 – a 3.4% decrease.
Meanwhile, the census in the state’s much larger network of privatized group homes continued to climb during that same period, rising from 6,677 to 8,290 — a 24% increase.
Currently, the privatized group home system in Massachusetts is providing substandard care even as thousands of individuals continue to wait for residential placements.
Even the Arc of Massachusetts, which has pushed for the closures of all remaining ICFs, has acknowledged a “systemic failure” in the largely privatized DDS system in which thousands of persons with I/DD are unable to get services.
State-run residential facilities, which have better trained and higher paid staff, are vital to the fabric of care in the DDS system. As Olmstead v. L.C., the landmark 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision, recognized, there is a segment of the population with I/DD that cannot benefit from and does not desire community-based care. ICFs, in particular, must meet stringent federal standards for care that make them uniquely appropriate settings for persons with the most profound levels of disability and medical issues.
Yet, DDS does not inform individuals and families seeking residential placements that these state-run facilities even exist. During the past two years, we have reported on two admissions to ICFs in Massachusetts (here and here), but those admissions have been the exceptions. In at least two instances in the past two years, families have been unsuccessful in efforts to win placements for their loved ones at the Wrentham Center.
That policy decision by DDS to discourage or block new admissions guarantees that the number of residents in state-run residential care will continue to drop, and that the ICFs, in particular, will eventually be closed.
Right to ICF care
Despite DDS’s policy, the federal Medicaid law and its regulations confer a right to ICF care to individuals and their families and guardians.
As Medicaid.gov, the federal government’s official Medicaid website, explains, “States may not limit access to ICF/IID service, or make it subject to waiting lists, as they may for Home and Community Based Services (HCBS)” (our emphasis).
Open ICF campuses to family housing
In addition to our proposal for legislation to open the ICFs to new admissions, we are calling for legislation that would establish housing on the Wrentham and Hogan campuses for elderly family members of the residents of the facilities.
Such housing would allow families to live in proximity to their loved ones in DDS care and to establish caring communities. It would provide peace of mind to ageing parents and siblings who may find it increasingly difficult to make long trips to visit their loved ones in the facilities.
Adequate funding needed for state-run facilities in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget
In order to preserve ICFs and state-operated group homes, state funding for these settings must be adequate. We are calling for the following increases in the state budget for the coming fiscal year:
- DDS ICF line item (5930-1000). Based on the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate of 3.1% in the Boston Metropolitan Area as of November 2024, we are requesting a $3.9 million increase in this line item, from $124,809,632 in the current fiscal year, to $128,678,731 in Fiscal Year 2026.
The ICF line item decreased by 40% between Fiscal 2012 and 2025 when adjusted for inflation.*
- DDS state-operated group home line item (5920-2010). We are requesting a $10.3 million increase in this line item, from $330,698,351 to $340,950,000 in Fiscal 2026.
The state-operated group home line item increased by 47.6% between Fiscal 2012 and 2025 when adjusted for inflation. However, that compares with an increase during that period of 65% in the corporate-provider residential line item (5920-2000). The corporate community-residential line item was $1.7 billion in Fiscal 2025.
ICF budget language should be changed
We are seeking two modifications to the language that is included every year in the ICF line item in the state budget (5930-1000). In one instance, the language mistakenly implies that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the closures of institutions for persons with developmental disabilities.
In the second instance, the annual budget language lists three conditions for discharging clients from ICFs to the community, but leaves out one of the key conditions in Olmstead, which is that the client or their guardian does not oppose the discharge. We will request that that condition be added to the language in the line item.
Regarding the first instance, the budget language refers to Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court’s landmark 1999 decision, which considered a petition by two residents of an institution in Georgia to be moved to community-based care.
The budget language states that DDS must report yearly to the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees on “all efforts to comply with …Olmstead…and… the steps taken to consolidate or close an ICF…” (our emphasis)
However, as noted above, closing institutions was not the intent of the Olmstead decision. The decision explicitly states that federal law — specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) — does not require deinstitutionalization for those who don’t desire it.
We believe the annual state budget language should be changed to state: “…the steps taken to consolidate or close an ICF and the steps taken to inform families of the choices available for residential care including ICF care.”
We are concerned that the current line item language could allow the administration to justify continuing to underfund the line item, and possibly to seek the eventual closures of the Wrentham and Hogan Centers.
Regarding the second instance in which we are seeking a language change, the three conditions listed in the annual state budget for discharging clients to the community are:
- The client is deemed clinically suited for a more integrated setting;
- Community residential service capacity and resources available are sufficient to provide each client with an equal or improved level of service; and
- The cost to the commonwealth of serving the client in the community is less than or equal to the cost of serving the client in an ICF/IID…”
The first two of those conditions do match conditions listed in the Olmstead decision for allowing the discharge of clients to the community. However, there is a further condition in Olmstead, which is that such a discharge is “not opposed” by the client or their guardian. That condition is not included in the budget language, and we will request that it be included.
Choice needed in residential services
DDS holds considerable authority regarding residential placements. Families cannot change residential providers without DDS approval. We would support legislation creating a voucher system, which would allow family choice, create competition, and improve the quality of care. This would also help families who need to move to other parts of the state for work or family reasons.
Guardianship reform needed
Reform is needed of the guardianship system in probate court, which traps many families into losing disputes with DDS.
We would support a guardianship reform bill that would provide for free legal representation for family members and that would presume that parents or siblings would be suitable guardians in petitioning for guardianships.
We have long supported proposed legislation that would presume that parents, in particular, would be suitable guardians of their adult children with I/DD. This legislation was first proposed by the late Stan McDonald, who had sought unsuccessfully to regain guardianship of his intellectually disabled son.
Stan’s bill, which was most recently filed in the previous legislative session, has never gotten out of the Judiciary Committee, however.
Independent DDS appeals process
The appeals process that persons must follow regarding Individual Support Plans (ISPs) contains a serious conflict of interest in that DDS controls the entire process.
When a family member or guardian of a DDS client appeals the client’s ISP, the DDS commissioner appoints a hearing officer of its choice to decide the case. After the hearing officer decides the appeal, the commissioner can reverse the decision. We have reported on at least two instances in the past year and a half in which this appeals process has been marred by apparent bias on the part of the DDS-selected hearing officer against the appellants.
We would support a bill, which would place the entire ISP appeals process under the control of the independent state Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA).
DPPC Abuser Registry reform
Last year, we reported that in only a minority of the cases in which the Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC) affirmed initial substantiations of abuse allegations against care providers did the agency conclude that those persons’ names should be placed in the DPPC’s Abuser Registry.
An individual whose name is listed in the Registry can no longer work in any DDS-funded care setting.
Following our report, state Senator Patrick O’Connor, the original sponsor of the legislation that created the Registry, said he was worried by our findings and that it “may be time to fine-tune” the law.
We are calling for changes in the law that include requiring the DPPC to consider several factors listed in the regulations for determining whether a care provider against whom abuse has been substantiated is really fit to continue to provide services. Right now, the regulations say only that the DPPC “may” consider factors such as previous incidents of abuse and the provider’s previous work history.
Also, we believe the regulations should explicitly require that the DPPC place care providers in the Registry in all cases in which the agency has affirmed allegations of intentional physical or sexual abuse.
Funding to corporate providers must result in higher wages for direct-care workers
Increases in state funding to the providers over the past decade have resulted in continuing increases in the pay of the provider executives. The increased state funding, however, hasn’t been passed through by the providers to their direct care employees.
We are calling for legislation that would raise the pay of direct-care workers employed by DDS corporate providers to $25 per hour.
Work opportunities needed in congregate care settings
In the wake of the closures of all sheltered workshop programs in Massachusetts as of 2016, we are calling for legislation authorizing the introduction of work opportunities for individuals in community-based day programs.
The last time such legislation was proposed appears to have been in 2019 in the form of then H.88. That legislation, however, did not make it out of committee.
Safeguards and corrections needed in Supported Decision Making legislation
During the last legislative session, identical Supported Decision Making (SDM) bills came close to final enactment, but the bills died in the House Rules and House Ways and Means Committees respectively at the end of the session. We had raised numerous concerns about the bills with those and a number of other legislative committees.
We expect the same SDM legislation will be refiled in the current session. We intend to raise similar objections to the bills unless they are redrafted to correct serious flaws.
SDM reflects a growing movement to restrict guardianships of persons with I/DD and replace those guardians with “networks” of more informal advisors. While SDM can hold promise for some high-functioning individuals, and we would support its adoption only with adequate safeguards, particularly safeguards against the potential marginalization of family members.
*From the Massachusetts Budget & Policy Center’s online Budge Browser at https://massbudget.org/budget-browser/.
COFAR blog 