Developmental Disabilities Reform Act

Draft Review and Revision Meeting 11

July 23, 2009
Martin Luther King, Jr. Library Room A-9

Meeting Notes

In attendance: Mark Back, DDS; Sandy Bernstein,

University Legal Services; Tina Campanella, Quality
Trust; Laura Flegel, Quality Trust; Arthur Ginsberg, St.
John’s Community Services; Sudie Johnson, DC
Developmental Disabilities Council; Erin Leveton,
Quality Trust; Mat McCollough, Office of Disability
Rights; Mary Lou Meccariello, The Arc of DC; Victor
Robinson, Quality Trust/Project ACTION!; David
Rosenblatt, SEIU; Elaine Saunders; T.J. Sutcliffe, The
Arc of DC; Morgan Whitlatch, Quality Trust; Bob
Williams, DDS

Meeting notes:

1. Welcome and Introductions

The group welcomed all participants.

Page 1 of 7
2. Updates

a. The third meeting on mandatory reporting of

abuse and neglect was on Monday, July 13. The group
met with the interim head of Adult Protective Services
and the head of the Department on Disability Services
(DDS) Quality Management division. The group will
have its last meeting on Tuesday July 28 at 2:00 p.m.
at The Arc of DC, 415 Michigan Avenue, NE.

b. At the last review and revision meeting (Meeting

10), there was a recommendation to get more
information from the Superior Court about the court
advocacy program. On July 22nd, Sandy Bernstein, Tina
Campanella and Mary Lou Meccariello met with
representatives from the court. The court advocacy
program is currently interviewing to hire two new case
reviewers. They are also working to determine the
number of advocates. All advocates are being required
to complete a criminal background check. Additionally,
the court plans to offer advocates a $50 per month
stipend, but that has not yet begun.

Page 2 of 7
3. Discussion of legal services, advocates and Court
access, and transition from admission and commitment
processes and procedures.

The group discussed a variety of issues under this topic.

Key comments included the following:

It’s important to get away from the idea that “one

size fits all.” People may need and want different
levels of support from advocates, attorneys, and the
court.

At the last meeting, the group discussed the

Department of Mental Health’s model of community
commitment. After further research, the Drafting
Subcommittee does not believe that this model
would be appropriate for people with developmental
disabilities to receive services at the Developmental
Disabilities Administration (DDA).

It’s difficult to separate the ideal (all the supports

that may be beneficial) from the reality of cost.
Currently, it appears that the court’s annual funding
for lawyers is approximately $1.5 million. If the
DDRA becomes law, to maintain a comparable level

Page 3 of 7
of access to the court the District would need to take
on the cost of paying for lawyers. At various times, a
number of additional supports that would cost
money have been discussed. These include:

o Advocates;
o A fact-finding grievance system;
o Use of the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH) for all DDA services (not just Medicaid
services); and
o An external ombudsman / quality entity.

The advocacy program and attorneys would ideally

work closely together (and most likely be housed
together). Increasing advocates may in some cases
reduce the need for attorneys. However, other
factors may increase need for attorneys. It may also
be useful to identify ways to target advocates (and
possibly, attorneys) to people who need them the
most.

Benefits and costs associated with a fact-finding

grievance system, greater use of OAH, and an
external ombudsman need to be explored.

Page 4 of 7

In general, there is more trust in advocacy and
quality supports (a “check in”) that are outside of
government / DDS.

Massachusetts, New York and Oregon may have

found ways to use Medicaid home and community-
based funds to help pay for advocates, called
“support brokers” and/or “peer support.”

The group had a long discussion about how

commitment might be phased out under the new
law. The current proposal is as follows:

When the new law takes effect:

1. All current and new DDA service recipients would

have access to the court and informal court
procedures.
2. For new people, no commitment / admission.
3. Everyone who is currently committed and all
Evans class members would have a permanent
entitlement to services.

During a 3-year transition period:

Page 5 of 7
 1. Everyone who is currently committed would
continue to be committed and have attorneys and
an annual hearing.
2. The District would create access to legal
services and advocates, funded by the District, for
people who are not committed (e.g., people who
were previously admitted and people who are new
to the system).
3. The District would implement additional
supports which may include a grievance system,
quality controls, etc.

At the end of 3 years: Commitment ends for

everyone, only if certain benchmarks are met. Sign-
off on benchmarks would probably be done by the
DC Council through a reporting, oversight and
public hearing process. A key question is whether
there should be an option for people who are
currently committed to be permanently
“grandfathered” – even if all the benchmarks are
met.

4. Next steps

Page 6 of 7
The Drafting Subcommittee will work over the next
several weeks to incorporate the discussion into a new
draft. There will be a Saturday or evening meeting in
September to discuss changes to the draft with families
and others who cannot make a daytime meeting, prior
to introduction of the bill.

Page 7 of 7