Developmental Disabilities Reform Act

Draft Review and Revision Meeting 10

June 25, 2009
True Reformer Building

Meeting Notes

In attendance: Cassandra Assefa, The Arc of DC; Sandy Bernstein, University Legal
Services; Tina Campanella, Quality Trust; Karen Davis, Quality Trust Board; Laurie
Davis, Public Defender Service; Laura Flegel, Quality Trust; Bernard Gray, DDS; Thelma
Green, Project ACTION!; Erin Leveton, Quality Trust; Diane Lewis, DC Coalition on
Community Services; Mary Lou Meccariello, The Arc of DC; T.J. Sutcliffe, The Arc of
DC; Morgan Whitlatch; Bob Williams, DDS

Meeting notes:

1. Welcome and Introductions

The group welcomed all participants.

2. Updates

a. The second meeting on mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect was on

Monday, June 22nd. The group plans to meet next with key staff from Adult Protective
Services and the Department on Disability Services’ (DDS) Quality Management
division.

b. At a previous Review and Revision Meeting, there was a recommendation that

DDS Director Judy Heumann and DDS Developmental Disabilities Administration
Deputy Director Laura Nuss begin to have regular meetings with families and people
with developmental disabilities to foster dialogue and information sharing. They plan to
start such meetings in the next several months, most likely September.

c. At a previous Review and Revision Meeting, there was a recommendation for

greater staffing at the DDS Office of Advocacy and Rights. In the last two weeks, three
new staff have joined that office for a total of four staff.

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. The group agreed to meet again
in 1 month to continue the discussion. Key comments included the following:

Advocates
o Should be able to tap into volunteers through churches and other civic
groups;

Page 1 of 3
 o Should be able to use volunteer recruiters / managers;
o The Girl Scouts do a great deal of volunteer recruitment and management.
It may be useful to look at their volunteer operations as a model;
o It’s important to ensure the volunteer’s commitment;
o The advocate needs to get to know the person;
o Being an advocate appointed by the court gives more authority than if the
advocate is from an outside agency or acting on his or her own.

Attorneys
o Having the same attorney, and a relationship with that attorney, can be
very helpful;
o The lawyer needs to really know the person and how the person
communicates;
o The law needs to address the practice of attorneys and ways to improve
their representation.

Is it possible to meet with the court to talk about improving the advocacy program?

Is the ISP an enforceable document? Yes, we think it is.

The Ervin Act provides for commitment of persons with mental illness to receive
mental health services in the community. It provides an alternate model of
commitment. There are three ways to end commitment under the Ervin Act:

1. If the treating provider determines that the person is no longer a danger to

self or others;
2. There is also an administrative process involving DMH and the treating
provider, but this process is not very effective and typically not used; and
3. Commitment ends at the end of 1 year unless the District files and there is
a full evidentiary hearing.

It’s unclear how "voluntariness" will be addressed for people who cannot indicate
that they want services. Also, there was a concern that people may take actions that
do not appear to be in their best interest if they are no longer committed.

If there is a shift to a new system, it would be important to explore benchmarks

such as:
o The agency (DDA) should work;
o There must be clear public participation;
o There could be an end date, or there might be no clear end date;
o There should be a process in the law for terminating commitment.

In a new system, maintaining informal court access would be beneficial.

Additionally, would a person have to go through an administrative process to get to

the court?

Page 2 of 3

Finally, it is unclear what sorts of commitment can be used simultaneously with
services under a Medicaid home and community-based waiver.

4. Next meeting

The next meeting will be Thursday, July 23, 2009 from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. Location is To
Be Determined (TBD). Topics will be: legal services, advocates and Court access; and
transition from admission and commitment processes and procedures.

Page 3 of 3