You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myStatesman.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myStatesman.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myStatesman.com.

Commentary: Shuttering supported living centers hurts our vulnerable


Senate Bill 602 would establish a commission to evaluate the future of each of the 13 state supported living center (SSLC) currently serving persons with severe intellectual developmental disabilities.

Authored by Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa (D-McAllen), the bill would authorize five gubernatorial appointees to identify centers that should be shuttered or consolidated with other centers. The bill’s authors and supporters provide three reasons for shuttering or consolidating centers: the excessive cost of the state supported living centers per capita; the existence of less expensive group home opportunities, which they call community programs; and poor management and living conditions at state supported living centers.

As a brother and guardian of someone living in a state supported living center, I contend that the bill’s advocates are either ignorant of existing conditions at the centers or willing to sacrifice the current system and its residents for a mistakenly perceived greater good — or both.

The bill’s authors and supporters frequently contend that it costs three to seven times more to serve residents at state supported living centers than residents who live in group homes. This may be true, but they do not explain the reason.

First, there are no group home settings appropriate for the overwhelming majority of SSLC residents. The intellectual developmental disabilities population currently living in a state supported living center is diverse. The majority are the most medically fragile, intellectually compromised, and socially and emotionally unstable members of this population. And it costs more to care for those with the greatest needs.

SB 602 supporters know this. Yet, they claim that living center residents can be adequately served at less cost in neighborhood group homes. The 2015 case of the Austinite who was shot by a neighbor after wandering away from a community facility in which he was inadequately monitored is just one of the most recent tragic examples of the inadequacy of community facilities for these residents.

SB 602’s real goal is consolidating state supported living centers, not keeping residents near loved ones or in their community by moving to a group home. The purpose is to achieve better “economies of scale” in how we serve our disability community.

However, consolidating centers is tantamount to a return to the warehousing of a percentage of our disability population to justify lower costs to the state. Consolidating residents in a few locations means the opposite of building community — and the bill’s authors have a responsibility to acknowledge this.

Bill supporters do not talk about how living centers have moved far from the old, institutional medical-model of care to the smaller, cottage setting that provides a more personal and dignified living environment, yet maintains needed medical, behavioral and social supports. While living in a safe, nurturing setting, residents experience the greater community through weekly off-campus outings and, when possible, worthy work engagement.

Unfortunately, many of today’s disability advocates are willing to ignore these facts because they see the monies saved coming to help others currently with no access to much-needed care and services.

Yes, let’s support these fellow Texans. But we cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. SB 602 fails to address what’s really needed: a solution to strengthen and improve the total systems of care for our intellectual developmental disabilities population. State supported living centers are an integral component of this system.

We are at a crossroads in the disability and mental health movements. For decades we’ve struggled to do what’s right for persons unable to self-advocate and express easily their desires and preferences. Actions we take today will influence the quality of life for persons with the most severe disabilities for years to come.

This is an historic opportunity. Let’s find solutions that respect family ties; that locate people unable to fend for themselves near their homes; that ensure dignified living accommodations; that foster self-advocacy; and that help residents maintain individual support networks locally.

This is the right time to invest in supporting our fellow citizens. I am all for helping more Texans — but SB 602 is the wrong approach.

Novy is a retired educator. He has taught preschoolers, worked in state government in special education and juvenile justice, and was a research associate professor at the University of Texas.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Herman: The Texas Railroad Commission and bathroom attendance
Herman: The Texas Railroad Commission and bathroom attendance

It was a Tuesday that careened between low rhetoric and high drama as the Texas House churned toward the unlikely intersection of energy industry regulation and who should go to which bathroom. The day’s highlight was the bill needed to keep the Texas Railroad Commission in business. Lurking in the background were amendments that would have set...
Freedom Caucus conservatives are today’s abolitionists

The House Freedom Caucusis taking flak, with many saying they are responsible for the failure to pass the American Health Care Act. With all other Republicans on board, the votes of the 29 Freedom Caucus members could have led to passing the legislation. But they refused to support it. Should they be chastised as obstructionists? Are they childish...
Letters to the editor: March 29, 2017
Letters to the editor: March 29, 2017

Re: March 20 commentary, “Wear: Uber and Lyft ride hail into the Legislature — again.” Regarding Uber and Lyft: Ben Wear may want to look up “overconfidence effect” — that is, the tendency for people to think they know more about a subject than they actually do. I don’t think you’ll find many who think...
Commentary: The creative working class are bringing American jobs back
Commentary: The creative working class are bringing American jobs back

Even though tech progress tends to grab more headlines, there’s another “Made in America” story to be told. There’s a harkening back to the days of craftsmanship — and there is a groundswell of interest and entrepreneurship surrounding skills and trades. Legions of people seek work that calls for the use of their hands...
Commentary: We can honor today’s women through common-sense policies
Commentary: We can honor today’s women through common-sense policies

My mother was smart, compassionate and unfailingly giving. Though I don’t believe I will ever be able to equal her in spirit, I am forever grateful for the lessons she gave me and my sisters, which I am now passing on to my daughter. She taught us the vital role we all play in improving the lives of the people we love and the communities we live...
More Stories