COFAR blog

Has the number of residents in the state-run network of group homes in Massachusetts for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) been rising or falling?

We thought we had long known the answer to that question: The population or census of the group homes has been steadily falling. That conclusion was based on data provided to us in recent years by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) in response to our periodic requests under the state’s Public Records Law.

But on September 18 of this year, DDS provided us with new data, in response to a new Public Records request, that contradict its previous numbers. That new data indicate that the census in the state-operated homes actually rose during the same fiscal years DDS had previously said it was falling – 2020 through 2023. Moreover, the new data show the census continued to rise until as recently as last month.

The problem is this discrepancy between the two sets of numbers from DDS leaves us uncertain what to believe. As a result, we have appealed to the state Public Records Division, asking them to order DDS to explain the discrepancy. So far, the Department has declined to do so.

The DDS state-operated group home network is far smaller than the privatized group home system, which is managed by DDS-funded corporate providers. DDS spends about $350 million a year in operating its state-run group homes, compared with more than $2 billion a year on the provider-operated homes.

But state-run services are just as important as provider-run services. We consider the state-run group homes and the Wrentham and Hogan congregate care centers to be the backbone of care in the DDS system. It has been our experience that staff in those state-run facilities are better paid and trained than staff in provider-run settings.

Yet, despite the fact that thousands of people with I/DD are waiting for residential placements and other services from DDS, the Department does not generally inform people seeking residential placements of the existence either of its network of state-run homes or of the Wrentham Developmental Center or the Hogan Regional Center. Instead, the Department directs those people to the much larger network of provider-run homes.

That’s another reason that a falling census in the state-operated group home system seems more likely to be the case than a rising census. In fact, it has long appeared that the administration does not view state-run residential services as viable options for waiting clients. DDS has, in our view, been letting the state-run system die by attrition.

Conflicting data regarding the census in state-operated group homes

So could it really be that the census has actually been rising in state-run group homes?

As noted, previous data from DDS showed a dropping census in the state-run group home system. During the period from Fiscal 2015 through 2024, that data showed the census had dropped from 1,206 residents to 986 – an 18.25% decrease.

Data provided by DDS on November 6, 2023, in response to a Public Records request, dovetailed with that previous data. The 2023 data showed the census dropping in the state-operated group homes by 2.9% between Fiscal 2020 and 2023.

However, in its latest response to our Public Records request on September 18, DDS provided data indicating, for the first time, that the census rose in the state-operated homes each year from Fiscal Year 2020 to 2023. The census in those years was now shown to have risen by 5.6%, rather than to have fallen by 2.9%, as DDS’s previous data had shown.

The census numbers provided by DDS on September 18 were on average 13% lower than the numbers that DDS had provided on November 6, 2023, for the same fiscal years.

The graph below shows the conflicting trend lines regarding the census based on those two contradictory sets of data from DDS.

Our appeal of the latest data response

Based on this discrepancy in the numbers between November 2023 and September 2025, we filed an appeal with the Public Records Division on September 24. We noted that the contradictory data made it impossible to determine which version represents DDS’s actual records.

We explained that the two data sets from DDS depict trends in opposite directions. We therefore asked the Public Records supervisor to direct DDS to clarify or reconcile its two sets of census data, or to explain in writing the reasons for the discrepancies so that the records provided would be comprehensible and complete.

On October 6, the Public Records supervisor denied our appeal, contending we hadn’t alleged a clear violation of the state’s Public Records Law (M.G. L. c. 66, § 10) by the Department.

On October 14, we asked the Public Records supervisor to reconsider her denial. We argued that under Section 10 of the Public Records Law, every state agency is required to respond to public records requests within 10 business days unless an extension or exemption applies. We noted that by producing two conflicting sets of census data for overlapping fiscal years—each purporting to respond fully to our records requests—DDS had failed to demonstrate that it had furnished the actual records it maintains as required by the law.

We further argued that under the Public Records law regulations [950 CMR 32.04(5)(b)], the agency “shall assist persons seeking public records to identify the records sought.” This duty necessarily includes responding in a way that allows the requester to understand what records are being produced. We noted that when an agency issues inconsistent responses for identical time periods, the requester cannot meaningfully identify the records received, frustrating the purpose of the regulation.

In addition, Section 10 of the Public Records statute authorizes the imposition of civil penalties when an agency has “failed to act in good faith in failing to furnish the requested record.” In issuing conflicting data for the same time frame without clarification, we maintained, DDS has not shown that it has acted in good faith or furnished a coherent version of the requested records.

Battle over records on vacancies in state-run group homes

Last year, we fought a similar battle with DDS to obtain records on the number of vacancies existing in the state-run group homes.  DDS finally acknowledged it doesn’t track vacancies in the state-operated network.

We are hopeful that common sense will prevail in this case and that the Public Records supervisor will ultimately agree that the Public Records Law is meaningless if an agency can respond to requests by producing data that can’t be meaningfully interpreted.

In this case, the confusion is particularly frustrating. All we want to know is whether the census in the state-operated group homes is truly failing, as the data have clearly shown in the past, or whether that reported trend was incorrect.

So far, DDS, in their usual manner, has decided not to enlighten us on this important matter. We hope the Department will finally be ordered to do so.