Fircrest School in Shoreline, or any other residential habilitation center (RHC), could have world-class staff, a beautiful campus and state-of-the-art programs. But in the end, it would still be a large facility where roughly 200 people with disabilities live with limited exposure to other people and the outside world. The facilities wouldn’t have different neighbors sharing a variety of life experiences, block parties, swapping of sugar and flour – a community in the real and full sense of the word.
Supporters of RHCs routinely contend that their residents are among society’s most severely disabled and medically fragile, or have behavioral disorders so severe that there is no other option but to reside in these facilities. I understand this viewpoint. Some of the individuals living in RHCs have been there for decades. Changing this environment would surely be frightening. However, the claim that there are some people who can only survive in RHCs is dubious at best.
In the ongoing debate about whether to close Fircrest, we must keep the best interests of our most vulnerable citizens at the forefront.
First, let’s be clear that de-institutionalization for people with disabilities is hardly a new idea. As of 2000, nine states had closed all RHC-type institutions. Fircrest supporters often cite their ability to serve people with severe and profound mental retardation as meeting a critical need. This is despite the fact that, according to Washington Department of Social and Health Services, there are currently 1,715 people with a diagnosis of severe mental retardation, and another 773 diagnosed with profound disabilities living in the community today.
Statistics are nice, but let’s talk about real people. I have engaged in multiple conversations with parents who have children who once lived at Fircrest. Two of these parents report that at one time their children were deemed, by professionals, to be among the most difficult patients in the region. Both of these individuals now live in the community and receive the very same services that were previously the reason for mandating residency in Fircrest.
What is particularly interesting about these two individuals is that their challenges, communication and otherwise, improved as soon as they moved into community settings. It’s possible that these individuals, who were demonstrating “bad behaviors,” were simply trying to communicate a plea for help.
There is research to support the notion that disabled individuals can do better outside of institutions. The University of Minnesota examined 250 studies (covering 2,600 subjects) on moving people with disabilities from institutions to community settings. A majority of these studies found that people became more independent (compared with individuals staying in institutions) and challenging behaviors decreased. What’s particularly interesting is that results are actually getting better as time progresses – an outcome likely due to better techniques and increased community involvement.
No rational person should expect that people with disabilities be simply dumped out of institutions. Individuals, guardians and relatives have every right, even responsibility, to expect that adequate plans are in place before taking this possibly frightening step.
The good news is that such a plan exists – Strategies for the Future: The Division of Developmental Disabilities, Phases 1, 2 and 3. This plan was created through a multi-year process involving all necessary constituents (including RHC residents and staff), thousands of staff hours and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. This process was requested by the Legislature, which accepted the study’s results. We must acknowledge these efforts, follow the guidelines laid out in this document and move forward.
One cannot look at this issue without talking about money. Conversations about whether institutions are more or less expensive should not be the point. This is about providing the highest quality of care in the least restrictive settings. The reality is that service options in the community for people with disabilities will be greatly enhanced as the money from the individual goes into the community. Thirty years of deinstitutionalization efforts prove this point. This is assuming, of course, the purpose of the money is to serve people.
A number of special interest groups have expressed concerns about the loss of jobs if people leave these institutions. The fact of the matter is all these individuals will still need the same level of care once they move into the community. The jobs won’t go away, they will just be in different settings.
Sadly, these institution advocates are putting their desire to hold on to jobs above the need to create positive, well-supported housing for people with disabilities. Would we tolerate any other group advocating for jobs over what’s in the best interest of our most vulnerable citizens? We must not forget that what we are talking about is the fundamental right and ability of our most marginalized citizens to be contributing and vibrant members of our community. That is, and should continue to be, the point.
Sean Barrett is the manager of the disAbility Resource Center located in Everett, which promotes independence by providing information and assistance, advocacy and skills training.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
