DDS finally releases census records regarding Wrentham and Hogan, but refuses to release admissions policy
The good news is that after a three-month battle, the Department of Developmental Services has finally responded to our public records request for census and admissions policy records concerning the Wrentham and Hogan Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs).
The bad news is that DDS did give us the census data, but they said they are not giving us their admissions policy. As a result, we appealed their response yesterday to the state’s Public Records Division.
For a year and eight months, DDS has claimed an exemption from the Public Records Law regarding the admissions policy, saying the policy was under development and therefore in draft form and not releasable. We are arguing in our appeal that an agency cannot keep a document in draft form indefinitely and claim it’s exempt for that reason. At some point, it has to be looked upon as the department’s de facto policy, and must be released.
It’s unfortunate that the Department appears to be choosing not to be transparent about this policy, which we think is the ultimate closure of Wrentham and Hogan. We think closure of the ICFs is contrary to the best interests of DDS’s clientele. It will eliminate a critical option for residential care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and will potentially set the system back decades.
DDS’s records response took just short of three months to produce. We filed our records request on July 24, and the response came on October 21.
What DDS has provided are figures on the number of residents, or census, as of June 30 in the ICFs, and in state-and-provider-operated group homes in Massachusetts. No other new information was provided, leading us to wonder exactly why it took three months to respond. Under the Public Records Law, state agencies are supposed to respond to records requests within 10 business days.
What we asked for on July 24 was the following:
- Data showing the census at Wrentham and Hogan and in the state-operated and corporate-operated group homes in Massachusetts each year from Fiscal Year 2020 to the present;
- Documents containing current policies developed by DDS regarding admissions to the facilities cited above;
- Documents concerning any current plans to consolidate or close any of the facilities cited above, including plans to increase or decrease the number of state-operated group homes and beds;
- Data on the number of requests DDS has received for placements in ICFs, state-operated group homes, and provider homes from Fiscal 2020 to the present, broken down by area office;
- Any and all written materials provided to family members and guardians from Fiscal 2020 through the present that contain information on the process for residential placements in the settings noted above, and available options for such placements.
The census data that we received from DDS on October 21 showed that the total number of residents remaining at the Wrentham Developmental Center was 134 as of June 30, 2026 — down from 211 in Fiscal 2020. This was a 37% decline. We understand that Wrentham’s census is actually now down to 132.
Also, the data showed the Hogan Regional Center census had declined to 82 from 106 in the same period, a 23% decline.
The DDS data also showed that the number of residents in state-operated group homes was 929 as of June 30. This is down from 1,075 residents in Fiscal 2019. The number of residents in provider-run group homes was 8,228 as of June 30. This is UP from 8,130 in that same period.
Other than those census figures, DDS provided us with no new information.
Improper exemption claimed for ICF admissions policy
In response to our request for the admissions policies at the ICFs, DDS stated that it was relying on “Exemption (d)” under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, known as “the deliberative process exemption.”
In the October 21 response, the DDS records attorney stated that the Department was continuing to withhold two records under this exemption. She stated that one of the records relates to admissions at the Wrentham and Hogan ICFs, and the other relates to admissions at Evaluation and Stabilization Programs, apparently in the ICFs.
The attorney added that, “Both records are draft documents relating to policy development, and the release of these records could taint the deliberative process if prematurely disclosed. DDS has no other responsive records.”
In our appeal, we noted that DDS has continued to label its admission policy records as draft documents since at least February 2025, when we first asked for them. That is more than a year and eight months ago. As such, we would submit that the policy or policies in question have since become de facto operating policies for DDS; and the Department can no longer hide them from public disclosure based on a fictional claim that they are draft documents.
DDS has long blocked most admissions to the ICFs, and has stated in legal briefs in 2024 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.”
Thus, blocking most admissions to the ICFs appears to be an ongoing, de facto policy that has placed the ICFs on a trajectory toward closure. When people inquire of DDS about placements at Wrentham and Hogan, they are told such placements are not available.
As we stated in our appeal, every day that goes by would appear to cement DDS’s current de facto policy leading to closure. At some point, it will be impossible to reverse that policy.
An agency cannot shield documents indefinitely by claiming a policy is “in draft form” if their real-world actions show the policy has already been implemented. The fact that their actions are cementing a trajectory toward closure means a final administrative path was chosen years ago. The Department’s stated “deliberative process” is a legal fiction being used to shield an active policy from public accountability.
No records on planned closures or placement requests
Regarding Item 3 above — our request for current plans to consolidate or close any facilities — DDS stated that it had no responsive records. And regarding Item 4 — our request for data on the number of requests for placements that DDS has received in each type of setting — DDS also said it had no responsive records.
Boiler-plate records on placement options
In response to Item 5 — our request for written materials to families and guardians on the process and options for such placements — DDS provided two records that it has provided many times before.
One was a Home and Community-Based Services Adult Waiver Request Form, which we have discussed before. It includes a “choice statement,” which anyone seeking community-based residential services from DDS has to sign. The statement says they are waiving placement in an ICF. We believe this document actually takes away choice.
The second document DDS provided was what they called an Adult Services Flyer, which describes DDS’s “traditional” and “self-directed” models of service delivery. There is no mention in the flyer of any specific residential options or services that are available. Apparently, DDS provides no written information to people regarding residential placement options.
Timeline of our latest records request
As noted, DDS’s October 21 response came three months after we had filed our request on July 24 for the documents discussed above.
Under the Public Records law, an agency is required to respond within ten business days to a public records request. DDS told us on August 7 that it needed another week to respond to our July 24 request. Then, on August 14, the Department stated that they would provide a response “soon.” That led to our first appeal to the state public records supervisor on August 21. We argued that “soon” was not an acceptable response.
On September 4, the public records supervisor ordered DDS to respond to us within 10 business days. However, DDS did not respond to this order; and on September 29, the Public Records Division sent DDS a compliance notice requesting that it provide an estimated date for complying with the September 4 order. DDS’s response to that compliance order came almost a month later, on October 21.
More pressing than question why the Department would take so long to provide so little information is why the Department continues to withhold its actual policy regarding admissions. We can only speculate as to why DDS does not want to divulge this policy. But it seems clear that the policy is most probably not the continued operation of Wrentham and Hogan, and the administration does not want this information publicly known.
As we have argued, it’s really provider-operated group homes that have, in many cases, become the problematic warehouse-like residential settings in the DDS system. Ironically, the ICFs are held to much higher standards, and, as such, the dynamic has been reversed from the 1970s when the large congregate centers were indeed warehouses and centers of abuse.
It is now the opposite, and yet the administration is pursuing a policy of expanding the provider-operated group system while letting state-run services wither away. But somehow the administration doesn’t want to admit that policy. We are hopeful we will prevail in our latest appeal to bring this situation to light.