|
 On March 7th, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a new leadership team for the State’s services to individuals with developmental disabilities. Courtney Burke was nominated to be Commissioner of the Office for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). Roger Bearden was proposed as Chair of the Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (CQCAPD).
And, the Governor also named Clarence Sundram, who had served as the very first head of CQC from 1978 to 1998, to be his Special Advisor on Vulnerable Persons. The appointments were greeted with praise by nonprofit providers and advocates. (See “New Leadership” on page 9.)
One week later, The New York Times published a scathing critique of OPWDD’s failure to protect individuals with disabilities by not terminating and/or prosecuting employees in its own state-run programs who had been accused of abusing consumers – often on multiple occasions. The article, which was written by Danny Hakim following a year-long investigation, detailed horrific stories of individual cases of abuse, including one employee who was found, literally with his pants down, apparently in the act of raping a female consumer whose own diaper had been pulled down. Rather than terminating that employee, OPWDD allegedly transferred him to another group home. This, said The Times, was a typical pattern for hundreds of employees who have been accused of serious, and even criminal, abuse of consumers placed in their care.
The article focused exclusively on the State’s own directly-operated OPWDD programs and highlighted the labor relations issues involved in disciplining its union employees.
The Times reported that it had “reviewed 399 disciplinary cases involving 233 state workers who were accused of one of seven serious offenses, including physical abuse and neglect, since 2008. In each of the cases examined, the agency had substantiated the charges, and the worker had been previously disciplined at least once. In 25 percent of the cases involving physical, sexual or psychological abuse, the state employees were transferred to other homes. The state initiated termination proceedings in 129 of the cases reviewed but succeeded in just 30 of them, in large part because the workers’ union, the Civil Service Employees Association, aggressively resisted firings in almost every case. A few employees resigned, even though the state sought only suspensions.”
The Times article sent shockwaves throughout the developmental disabilities services community.
“I broke down and cried when I read it,” said one advocate.
“NYSACRA and our members, voluntary not-for-profit agencies, were shocked when we read The New York Times article on abuse in state operated programs,” said Ann Hardiman, Executive Director of the New York State Association of Community and Residential Agencies.
“The article… alleges conduct that is absolutely unacceptable and appalling – both in the provision of care and the administrative oversight of these programs,” said a group of five nonprofit coalitions – Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, NYSARC, Inc., InterAgency Council of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities Agencies, Inc.; The Alliance of Long Island Agencies; and the New York Association of Emerging & Multicultural Providers, Inc. – in a joint statement.
“We are shocked, not only about the horrible incidents of abuse described in the article, but also about the inability of OPWDD to permanently remove the people responsible for the abuse,” said the Self-Advocacy Association of New York (SANYS), an organization composed of and led by individuals with disabilities. “Our members ask, ‘How can this be?’ and ‘How can this be stopped’.”
The article’s findings appear to have clearly laid out the agenda for the new administration – as well as determining who would or would not be part of the new team.
Approximately two weeks prior to The Times story, word went out that Max E. Chmura, who had been serving as acting commissioner at OPWDD for almost a year, and Jane G. Lynch, COO at CQCAPDD, were suddenly gone. The Times article effectively took credit for their departure. “After learning of The Times’ findings, Gov. Andrew Cuomo forced the resignations,” wrote Hakim in the piece. Both officials were cited by name in the article. The Times questioned Chmura’s response to whistleblower reports that records of mandatory fire drills at group homes might have been falsified and claimed that under Lynch’s leadership, CQCAPD “is more likely to play down allegations of abuse than to root them out.”
In hindsight, it is easy to see that the Governor was addressing these soon to be highly publicized problems when announcing his appointments. “This is a top-tier team that will bring fresh leadership and vision to these critical agencies,” the Governor said. “It is our fundamental responsibility as government to care for the most vulnerable among us. I look forward to working with this team to bring real reform and results to affected New Yorkers and their families.”
Key legislators have been quick to respond to The Times’ allegations.
“This is a terrible article in that it is terribly accurate and terribly sad,” said State Senator Roy McDonald, Chair of the Senate Mental Health Committee.
“We need to take a serious look at the way things have been run and make some meaningful changes,” said Assemblyman Felix W. Ortiz, Chair of the Assembly Mental Health Committee.
The legislators’ anger at the reports of abuse was palpable. “I give credit to Governor Cuomo for taking steps quickly and firing those two people,” said Ortiz. “More people should have been fired. I call for their resignations. They should step down before they are asked to step down. They know who they are; this is just the beginning.”
McDonald and Ortiz promised joint legislative hearings to investigate the reports.
In addition to reactions of shock and revulsion, nonprofit providers expressed a number of concerns regarding issues raised by The Times article – despite its focus on state run programs -- and the potential response, both political and bureaucratic, to it.
First and foremost was an acknowledgement of the continuing vigilance that all organizations – public or private – must exercise in order to prevent and punish any instances of consumer abuse.
“We believe that every State and voluntary agency should have a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ for abuse and neglect,” said the previously cited coalition of provider associations. “When allegations of criminal behavior are made against a staff member, these allegations should be investigated thoroughly and, when there is substantial evidence, routinely and consistently referred to local law enforcement for investigation and prosecution. We cannot tolerate those who perpetrate abuse and neglect.
“While no one can guarantee that an employee will never engage in abuse or neglect, The New York Times article demonstrates that agencies must be held accountable for how they respond when such allegations are made against a staff member. The key is robust and effective administrative supervision and oversight to ensure that when allegations of abuse and neglect arise, such allegations are vigorously investigated and appropriate disciplinary action is taken – including termination and referral for criminal prosecution – when warranted.”
“We know that bad things can happen in any situation but people with disabilities and their families need to trust that direct support professional staff are well screened before hiring, well trained, well supervised, and well supported to be caring, competent professionals,” said the Self-Advocacy Association. “We also need to trust that when things go wrong, when staff neglects the needs of people who depend on them, or are abusive in any way, that they will be removed from service.”
Nonprofit leaders have long believed that a respectful, person-centered culture of high quality care has been more firmly established among voluntary agencies serving the developmentally disabled than at state-run programs – despite the significantly higher salary levels for state employees providing direct care.
“Our network of voluntary agencies grew from the scandal of Willowbrook when families of people with developmental disabilities came together to create many of the voluntary agencies that we represent,” said the coalition. “The parents of children cared for by our voluntary agencies serve on our governing bodies and therefore, have a direct interest in assuring the quality of services provided.
Nonprofit executives also noted that unions representing staff at voluntary provider agencies have generally been more supportive of efforts to disciple and/or terminate employees accused of abusing consumers. The Times article attributed much of the blame for OPWDD’s problems on CSEA’s aggressive resistance to firing staff, even after they had been involved in documented cases of abuse. “If they’re brought up on charges, we have an absolute duty to represent them,” one CSEA official was quoted. “When we know the person is guilty, we try to convince the person to get out of it by resigning. But if the person decides to go forward, we have to do our best job.”
Nonprofit leaders point out that the voluntary provider system has pressed for safeguards in employee screening, improvements in training, and an overall professionalization of the direct care workforce.
“It was our voluntary agencies that secured passage of laws mandating that every new employee hired to care for a person with developmental disabilities be fingerprinted and have a criminal background check,” said Seth Stein, Executive Director of the Alliance of Long Island Agencies. “We continue to support any additional regulation or law which would further ensure the safety of those individuals we serve.”
For example, Stein points out past efforts to introduce legislation that would establish a “statewide registry” of mental retardation and developmental disabilities and mental health workers who are subject to the criminal background check (CBC) law and who are terminated as a result of a finding that such employee was engaged in behavior that constitutes abuse or mistreatment of a consumer. The legislation would offer legal protection for employers who might otherwise be unwilling to reveal the circumstances of an employee’s termination and, in the process, make it more difficult for abusive employees to move from one provider agency to another. The bill, which was drafted by the Alliance of Long Island Agencies back in 2007, was never voted on. This year, however, Stein believes the time may be right, in part because of the revelations in The Times article.
“We support the necessary reforms that will enhance the safety and security of people with developmental disabilities,” says Ann Hardiman. “We are willing to gather and share best practices, provide values driven training and equally as important, want New York to continue to invest in building a quality workforce and a culture of quality as employers. Good people may do bad things if they don’t have the skills they need to do a job.”
“Besides the obvious need for tighter supervision and tougher responses to offenses of mistreatment, we have been presented an opportunity to view the entire OPWDD service system—public and private—from two vantage points: one that is Olympian, retributive and reactive … and another that is ground-level, problem solving and enduring,” says Regis Obijiski, Executive Director of New Horizons Resources and Chair of the CQCAPD Advisory Council. “To cut hair or inspect a vehicle requires a license. To provide a range of community services to children and adults with disabilities who would otherwise languish or even perish without them requires no license, no certification, no nationally or internationally validated trainings. Until New York moves beyond minimum standard trainings to a competency-based certified credential, the performance by direct support personnel will hinge on organizational standards, personal motivation and luck.
“The time to adopt and implement a voluntary direct support competency-based credential that also requires a demonstrated proficiency in ethics throughout the practice is now. New York State does not have to create such a program. It already exists. The National Alliance for Direct Support Professionals offers a Code of Ethics and a credentialing program of this nature. In addition, NADSP and ANCOR spent the past two years working with the U.S. Department of Labor to develop the newly certified standards for a Direct Support Professional Apprenticeship program. Neither is a time-based, classroom tested program. Rather, both have a competency-based nationally validated curriculum that is field tested, and the competencies in both are proven through an independently scored portfolio that demonstrate real-life, real-person outcomes.”
In the end, both providers and consumer recognized the extraordinary level of commitment which the vast majority of direct support professionals demonstrate in their daily work caring for people with disabilities.
“For many of us, the most important relationships we have in our lives are with our direct support staff,” said the Self-Advocacy Association. “We know that most direct support professionals who work in state and voluntary operated homes are good and caring people; we see that in our many interactions though our work. We believe these staff are as appalled as we are about the examples of abuse in the article and we believe they deserve the opportunity to work in homes free of co-workers who are abusive.”
|
Comments
I have worked in this field for years and I find that the places with unions tend to hire better people. Where there are no unions there are no whistle blowers.
As to unions, there should indeed be union representation for DC - and all- workers. However, legal representation should be for the individual, NOT the union as a whole. The union as a whole is not charged with an incident, the individual is.
This article is the first that points out that these problems exist at the STATE-RUN, OPWDD homes. Am I shocked? The OPWDD is an oversight agency and a service provider...those two things should be mutually exclusive.
Let's see...some of the changes. Drug testing? That's been my experience at every agency, including random testing and any time of suspicion of use. High School Diploma/GED? I am shocked that it isn't a requirement for the position at the state. State Central Register for child abuse? At this time, my current agency does this for those that work with minors, as NYS does not allow us to "waste" money on those that do not by running all employees. Fingerprint background checks? Ok, this already exists, but we flush out a whole lot more bad applicants with drug testing and driver's license checks. Keep in mind, only what you have been caught doing ends up on your background check.
Here's a pretty insightful view of what has occurred under OPWDD's care:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12281224/Carey-v-Slinger land
This is the filing by Jonathan Carey's parents against OD Heck developmental center. Seems to me that Mr. Carey has some reason to doubt the effort of the OPWDD to again police itself.