Despite state order, DDS failing to provide records concerning decline in residential population at Wrentham and Hogan Centers
Despite an order from the state, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has not responded to our public records request for documents relating to the declining residential populations at the Wrentham Developmental Center and the Hogan Regional Center.
We first asked for documents relating to the census at Wrentham and Hogan and both the state and provider-run group home networks on July 24, more than two months ago. We also asked for the Department’s admissions policies to its state-run facilities. The Public Records Law gives state agencies 10 business days to respond to Public Records requests.
After we appealed on August 21 to the state public records supervisor, the supervisor ordered DDS on September 4 to respond to our July 24 request, and gave the Department 10 business days to do so. Those 10 days expired on September 21.
To date, we have heard nothing from the Department since the supervisor’s September 4 order. After notifying the Public Records Division of this on September 22 and again yesterday (September 29), the Division followed up with a “compliance notice” to DDS.
In yesterday’s compliance notice, a Public Records attorney requested that DDS provide “an estimated date” by which the DDS plans to comply with the September 4 order. The next step could be a referral by the public records supervisor of the matter to the state attorney general, who could sue DDS in Superior Court to produce the records.
The records we are seeking include:
1. Data showing the census at Wrentham and Hogan and in state operated and corporate provider-operated group homes in Massachusetts each year from Fiscal Year 2020 through the present;
2. Documents concerning current policies developed by DDS regarding admissions to the above facilities;
3. Documents concerning any current plans to consolidate or close the state facilities or to increase or decrease the number of group homes or beds;
4. Data on the number of requests DDS has received for placements in Wrentham and Hogan and in state-operated and provider-operated homes from Fiscal Year 2020 through the present; and,
5. Any and all written materials provided to family members and guardians from Fiscal Year 2020 through the present that contain information on the process and options for residential placements in the above settings.
Seeking census data due to steady decline in residential population
We have been working with families and state legislators over the past year in an attempt to save Wrentham and Hogan and the state-run group home system from what appears to be a trajectory toward closure.
The Wrentham and Hogan centers offer a high level of care specified under federal Intermediate Care Facility (ICF) regulations for individuals with some of the most profound disabilities. They also provide more than 1,000 jobs for direct care workers, clinicians, medical personnel, and others, according to the latest data available from DDS.
To date, DDS has maintained that it has no policy in place to close the ICFs or state-operated group homes. However, the de facto policy appears to be to let the facilities die by attrition. Admissions to the ICF’s are practically zero.
The population at both Wrentham and Hogan has decreased significantly. Families report that they are not informed of ICF options or have their placement requests rejected. If these trends continue, closure of these facilities is inevitable.
As of September a year ago, the census at Wrentham was 143, down from 211 in Fiscal Year 2020. The census at Hogan had dropped to 84, down from 106 during that same time period. The number of residents in both facilities has dropped even further in the past year.
Timeline of non-reponses for records
On August 7th and 14th, DDS stated that it did not have the documents ready in response to our July 24 request for the census records noted above.
On August 14, a Department attorney stated that the documents would be provided “soon.” A week later, we appealed to the state public records supervisor, arguing that “soon” was not an appropriate response.
The Public Records Law requires a response within 10 days, with additional time allowed if the agency is unable to produce the records in the initial time period. However, that additional time cannot exceed 15 business days from the original records request. That additional time actually expired on August 14, the very day the Department said it would provide the records “soon.”
As a result, the public record supervisor stated on September 4 that DDS had “not met its burden” in complying with the Public Records Law. The supervisor ordered the Department to provide an estimated date for providing the records, and gave the Department 10 business days to do so. That date would have been September 21, as noted.
We have been in many public records battles with DDS over in recent years. However, this appears to be the first time the Department has not responded to a direct order from the state’s public records supervisor.
We are concerned about a lack of transparency from from DDS on a range of issues. Unfortunately this latest situation shows that pattern is continuing and may be getting worse.
I CANNOT believe how this agency thinks they are above accountability They truly believe they are GOD!!
Can you do the math from the funding on the state comptrollers website minus the portion the AGs office is illegally using? Add in HUD funds and see if you can get your answers from that. DDS lies, there are no documents that come out of them that are truthful. Abuse, they lie, fraud, they lie… records request, they don’t answer. That is their MO. It’s not going to change even with leadership changes.
I truly hope that state government begins to work and that DDS is compelled to answer this request. It is incomprehensible to me that they refuse to follow the law.
Thank you for the work you do on behalf of disabled adults and their families. DDS has not provided a viable proposal for our adult child who has been waiting for a suitable residential placement for years in spite of the fact that she qualifies for priority 1 intensive support waiver. DDS has dodged transparency for far too long – we have no idea her w many opportunities she has lost out on but we are acutely aware of the withholding of her budget funding.
They were quite a formidable enemy when they were trying to terminate me for writing a book; I guess I’m lucky to have been able to transfer out of DDS just in time. I have serious concerns for all of our loved ones in DDS captivity.
I think readers of this blog would probably be interested in the title of your book if you are comfortable sharing, or is it something you plan to publish in the future? I hope that you will consider naming some names of the DDS administrators/managers/directors who, judging from your comment, apparently felt entitled enough to burn through taxpayer dollars going after their own employee for the Orwellian thought crime of writing a book and for calling out a broken, washed up system. This comment just goes to show how much free time these people apparently have on their hands plus the lack of accountability or intervention from higher government authorities. Time for DDS to get back to work helping people with disabilities and allowing employees to ask important questions, including uncomfortable ones that don’t tickle fragile leadership egos and sensibilities.
The most concerning aspect of this situation is that DDS has not responded to a direct order from the state’s Public Records Supervisor. This is not a routine bureaucratic delay. When an agency ignores a statutory deadline, misses the extended deadline, and then fails to comply with an explicit order from the oversight authority, it signals something far more serious: a breakdown in transparency obligations and a refusal to produce records that the public is legally entitled to review.
The Public Records Law is clear, and the Supervisor’s authority is well‑established. Agencies may request additional time, but they cannot simply decline to respond. DDS’s continued non‑compliance (even after a compliance notice) raises legitimate questions about what is in these records and why the Department is unwilling to disclose them. At minimum, it reflects a pattern of opacity that has become increasingly evident across multiple areas of DDS administration.
The public, families, and legislators deserve timely and lawful access to information about admissions policies, census trends, and placement options. When an agency charged with safeguarding vulnerable individuals refuses to comply with oversight mechanisms, it undermines trust and impedes informed public discussion about the future of these facilities.
This is a great summary of the key issues and raises a burning question for those of us who don’t have the same legal expertise and experience that certain COFAR advocates have, namely, who specifically is responsible at this point for stepping in to uphold the law and either force their hand to release the records or take swift legal action against them? Where is the higher official governmental intervention, oversight, and law enforcement in situations like this? Or is it the case of a rogue department that has some sort of special permission or protected status/immunity to do whatever it wants with impunity while parasitizing Massachusetts taxpayers? Barring constitutionally limited public record access in play, could the feds step in at some point to check these people? Can the specific employees/administrators who are stonewalling the records access be held legally accountable in their personal capacities?
You’re asking exactly the right questions, and the short answer is that people have tried to bring higher‑level oversight into this, including federal oversight, but Massachusetts has a long pattern of resisting scrutiny in this area.
Multiple advocates have attempted to involve CMS when state actions appear inconsistent with federal requirements. The difficulty is that CMS generally expects states to self‑report accurately. Massachusetts agencies have become very skilled at controlling the flow of information, which makes that threshold hard to reach.
As for state‑level enforcement: the Attorney General’s office has historically taken a very hands‑off approach when the issue involves another state agency. That’s not unique to DDS. It’s a broader structural reality in Massachusetts. Internal oversight mechanisms tend to defer to the agencies rather than challenge them.
So, the real problem isn’t a “rogue department” so much as a system where no one with enforcement authority is willing to step in. That’s why public records battles drag on for years and why families end up having to rely on external mechanisms rather than internal ones.
Regarding personal liability for individual employees: in practice, it’s extremely rare. State employees are generally shielded unless there is clear evidence of intentional misconduct outside the scope of their official duties.
The bottom line is that the usual oversight channels have been tried, and they haven’t worked. That’s why people keep asking these questions. Because the gap between what the law requires and what actually happens in Massachusetts is unusually wide.