Another Perspective To Criticisms About Supports To People With Developmental Disabilities In NYS

A while ago there was an editorial in the Albany Times Union that was critical of organizations providing support to people with developmental disabilities based on an article in the New York Times. Both the editorial and the Times made some assumptions based on information that had been researched through a review of statistics and incidents. There has mainly been silence relative to these articles from the field of people who provide these supports. Recently there was a response in the form of an electronic comment to the editorial. I am respecting the anonymity of the author because it was posted that way. I have posted previously about anonymity and have my opinions on it as stated. I do think this is an important comment from someone who obviously understands the current state of affairs. Here it is:

"We live in a world of self-generating beliefs that remain largely untested. “Climbing the ladder of inference” is the process by which we establish meaning of something based a few observations without testing the accuracy of our beliefs or assumptions. This appears to have happen with the NY Times article and then the Times Union editorial. The Times Union editorial concludes the NY State system is an “overpriced disgrace”. Really? First, looking closely at where the $ are spent, one discovers that the non-profit agencies cost- averages fall within the mid-range of costs of like services nationally. The cost outliners are the state developmental centers. Two, the NY Times article says “And the state has no uniform training for the nearly 100,000 workers at thousands of state and privately run homes and institutions”. Again,what are the facts. OPWDD regulations require training in abuse and neglect (a standardized curriculum) typically 3 days in length, Medication Administration (a standardized curriculum) typically 4-5 days in length, first aid and CPR (a standardized curriculum, fire safety, and on and on. In addition, many non-profits train their employees in a variety of other topics or tap in the on-line training program called the College of Direct Support. And in terms of the “lack of oversight”, all the regulations (which there are many – just check out the following website:http://www.opwdd.ny.gov/regs/index.jsp) need to be followed in order to maintain OPWDD certification. Non-profits are audited throughout the year (yes, throughout the year) against these requirements. The NY Times suggests that OPWDD should have sent out “choking” warnings.

They did, twice, once in 1999 and then in 2007. Check out this site:
http://www.opwdd.ny.gov/hp_guidance_documents.jsp. In terms of incident management, there is a guidance document of over 330 pages, which is the bible of incident management, check out this site:http://www.opwdd.ny.gov/wt/manuals/part624/incident_management.jsp.
In terms of financial oversight, each non-profit has to submit to OPWDD a 150+page consolidated fiscal report, which has very tight guidelines in terms of allowable costs and where funds can be spent.

In terms of quality and scope, NY State is 2nd to none. The OPWDD collective system serves close to 100,000 people, many in 24 hour care and many over a life time. Visit any non-profit agency in your community and you will hear inspirational stories. Many of them are about how people with developmental disabilities are supported in the last stages of life, in their homes with friends and family. Also, check out OPWDD’s report on National Core Indicators (focused on quality care). NY State gets high marks on nearly every indicator. These results are generated from interviews with family and individuals receiving services.

In such a large complex system, are there breakdowns, slippage,human error, and at times crimes – you bet. Can we find any human system absent of these unfortunate aspects? Can we improve, of course. Should we assertively deal with trouble areas, of course.

So what is going on with the NY Times article and the Times Union editorial. One possibility is that the ladder of inference process is fully functioning here. Take a few tragic situations, and a few more situations involving abuse and possible criminal behavior and attribute it to the whole system without testing your assumptions."