Vermont Human Services Agency Poses Risk to Public Safety

Vermont Human Services is ignoring the standards of their own Best Practices Manual http://www.ddas.vermont.gov/ddas-publications/publications-os/publications-os-documents/os-pub-supervision-treatment-sex-offenders-with-ds committing Medicaid fraud and helping agencies such as Northeast Kingdom Human Services and Sterling Area Agency to cover up reports of abuse, posing a seriouse  “Risk to Public Safety”.  “Risk to Public Safety”  is the same term used to civilly commit and incarcerate some of the very people this service is supposed protect.

Vermont Human Services charges the state and federal government millions of dollars every year to pay for services not provided.  These State contracted Human Services Agencies are supposed to protect the public by “treating” and rehabilitating people; who could not be convicted of crimes, people who have served their sentences for crimes and in many cases people who haven’t even been charged with a crime.

Civil Commitment  is being used as a continuum of incarceration.  All over the country people are being detained indefinitely without charges or convictions.  Treatment is mandated and provided through state human services agencies and corrections.  The very people and agencies responsible for assessing and treating are the people profiting  from “treatment”.  This conflict of interest does not encourage treatment that results in successful rehabilitation.

In Vermont 194 individuals are in the custody of the Department of Aging and Independent Living (DAIL) under Act 248, Vermont’s civil commitment law for people with mental retardation (18 V.S.A Section 8839 et seq).  In a 2010 Report to Representatives Lippert and Marcotte on Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Who Pose a Public Safety Risk, http://www.ddas.vermont.gov/ddas-publications/…/ds-offenders-report-2009 DAIL  makes the following recommendations (to themselves) which remain unfulfilled;

1. Competency evaluations for individuals suspected of having a DD should include a current evaluation by a psychologist skilled in assessing individuals with DD.
2.  Some ACT 248 commitments should be for a defined period rather than indefinitely.
3. Additional review processes should be adopted  for individuals who are under guardianship and in a restrictive program.
4. The State should adopt the best available risk and criminogenic needs assessment tools, to ensure that these individuals do not remain in treatment or in restrictive settings longer than necessary.

Although the Act 248 Statutes give the individual the right to seek judicial review of an order of commitment, in many of the ACT 248 cases, annual reviews take place with no participation from private guardians or the DD clients themselves.

In the case of William Bennett notice of annual reviews were not given to him or the guardian.  This goes against Section 4.10 – (c) – (pg. 36) of Regulations Implementing The Developmental Disabilities Act of 1996 March 2011.  Clients with DD cannot be expected to fully understand and initiate these proceedings without support from their guardian and real advocacy from their attorney.

In the most recent annual review Bennett was phoned by a Vermont Legal Aid Attorney and asked if he needed a consultation.  For a person with a developmental disability the word “consultation”  may have no meaning.

Recommendations for continued services/incarceration were made by the service providers and DAIL, agreed to by the Legal Aid Attorney, submitted to the courts and approved by a  judge.  This automated system to extend “care” to ensure the continued funding is a breach of human rights.

Without  proper procedures for legal representation of DD individuals outlined in the legislation their human rights will continue to be violated for a profit to these privately owned publicly funded institutions at a cost to the state of $100,000 a year and up, per client.  The report to Lippert and Marcotte goes on to say that no court has ever concluded in the 23 years since the passing of Act 248 that a person committed should be released.  This should raise questions about the treatment being provided.

From a review of  the reel to reel tapes of the hearings it is clear that during the  formation of Act 248, the testifying professionals were concerned that DD people would be “swept up” due to public discomfort and families of DD individuals not wanting to deal with them   They expressed a clear concern that these individuals civil rights would be violated, that people would be detained longer than necessary and that treatment would not be given on an individualized basis.

Expert testimony given by mental health professional, felt that long-term commitment was not necessary for many of the Developmentally Delayed Individuals.  In testimony given by Charles Mosley to the House Judiciary, Mosley states that there is a lot of potential to train individuals with Mental Retardation and 24 hour supervision could often decrease after the first few months.  He goes on to say that Lots of these people are mildly retarded and have great potential for employment teaching.

During Testimony Walt Morris, Defender General disagrees with the characterization of the individuals as “getting off the hook”.  He also points out that public discomfort with street people and people who are different tends to sweep them up into the system.

Testimony by Bill Reedy of the Vermont Coalition of the Handicapped urges access to the same civil rights proceedings as any other citizen.  He also voices concern that commitment be provided in the “least restrictive manner” and adhere to constitutional standards.

Roger Strauss, Director of Washington County Mental Health refers to the Judicial Review as a method to see if  “appropriate therapy” is being received.  Saying that “constitutional law requires the commissioner to provide appropriate therapy”.  In discussions of the annual review it is repeatedly stated that the Commissioner is responsible to provide “individualized” treatment in the “least restrictive manner” possible.

It also requires that the burden of proof be more substantiated as the individual proceeds through the care-program. Thus putting more pressure on the Department of Human services to prove the individual still poses a danger to public safety.  This is obviously a measure that has failed.

An expert witness in the taped hearings, believed to be Bill Reedy of the Vermont Coalition of the Handicapped puts it very clear, we are talking about people with inappropriate behavior, not armed and dangerous criminals.  He continues saying “very few people need to be shackled, mentally retarded people actually are less violent than you and me“.

Major parts of the original Act 248 statutes in Vermont have been repealed leaving civilly committed individuals with no civil rights and undermining the oversight and accountability originally intended by the legislatures.  Section 8821-8834 regarding Provisions of Service and Judicial Review has been repealed, Section 8842 stated that Hearings be  in accordance with 8827 which has been repealed, Section 8845 states that procedures shall be in accordance with 8834 which has been repealed.  Just take a look at the most recent draft, it looks as though they will cross-out (repeal) the entire Act.

Total authority is given to DAIL due to the Court’s and the Legislature’s lack of concern for civil rights for all and fear of public opinion, “out of sight, out of mind”.   Developmentally Disabled people remain in restrictive and abusive environments for decades without hope.

DAIL has demonstrated that they will go to great lengths to silence reports of abusive practices.  In a recent petition for Relief From Abuse in which one DD client’s life was threatened by another client in a State Licensed Group Home, Attorney’s from the Agency (NKHS) running the  home and an Attorney for the Commissioner of DAIL showed up to fight the order.  The Defendant nor his guardian or attorney for the defendant was even present.  NKHS and DAIL made  no denial that the threat was  made, yet the judge dismissed the order after the attorney from DAIL threatened to call in the Attorney General if the judge pursued the matter further.  DAIL and NKHS immediately moved the aggressor client back into the group home with no concern what so ever to the risk posed psychologically and physically to the Aggressed client.

In January of 2011 William Bennett”s guardian and mother hired an attorney to contest the Act 248 placement. William’s Guardian is concerned that his placement in this program will have permanent detrimental effects on him.  Since his placement in this “Safe Choices”  program he has been assaulted by a home care provider, kept incommunicado, been double staffed by workers who refuse to give their names, been denied his rescue inhaler, been sexually harassed by a staff member, been kept isolated from his family and guardian, been denied a low fat diet recommended by his physician, been denied opportunities to exercise, forced to witness another client having daily uncontrolled grand maul seizures, has been denied private conversations with his attorney and his guardian, has been threatened and intimidated to sign releases of information for medical and psychological appointments. William Bennett has and still is being harassed and Bullied by the State of Vermont.

DAIL and it’s Agents have been actively thwarting efforts by William and his guardian to improve his mental and physical health through years of suppressing and isolating William.  The damage done due to the negligence and incompetence of these supposed providers is inexcusable.

DAIL has the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of people in custody, they have a vested interest in covering up abuse by providers they contract with.  The Human Services Board would normally review decisions made the Commissioner of DAIL  but has recently stated that they don’t have authority over the commissioner in Act 248 cases.  The  Human Services Board defers to the courts, which under threat of the Attorney General submit to the DAIL.

Adult Protective services is supposed to defer to the Secretary of Human Services when the Commissioner of DAIL is implicated in reports of abuse but instead make findings that the abuse never occurred.  The Secretary of Human Services Douglas Racine, after repeated pleas from the guardian of William Bennett defers to the Commissioner.  Vermont’s Governor Shumlin after repeated pleas from the guardian of  William Bennett defers to the Secretary of Human Services.

Adult Protective Services, commissioned with investigating abuse has recently been threatened by Vermont Legal Aid and Disability Rights Vermont for not investigating reports of abuse.  APS settled out of court and is supposed to implement changes and clear up a back log of abuse reports.  William Bennett and his guardian have made several recent reports of abuse to APS  and has not seen any action taken.  No doubt they will at some point write a letter saying “no abuse occurred”.

In case after case of abuse reported to The Department of Human Service they have hammered clients and advocates into submission with their incredible powers and access to tax payer funded attorneys.  It is time we as a Civil Society end this atrocious abuse of this vulnerable group of fellow human beings.