2006-09-07 TPD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

made. Because such a definition reasonably would include things like noise level, traffic, number of visitors, number of police calls, etc. And simply asserting something that is low impact doesn’t make it so. The second point: “that are licensed and regulated by the Department of Health.” If you look at the documents that are attached, the nice thick 40-some odd pages that were attached to the Background, it shows that they deal primarily with the physical aspects and the number of toilets in the house, number of square footage, etc. And while an annual evaluation plan is required for STF-type houses, no provision is made for review by interested members of the community, which would seem appropriate for some local involvement in deciding if a group home is meeting some sort of reasonable objectives in terms of client improvement. In the case drug rehabilitation, close monitoring of clients for at least a year past discharge would seem to be a reasonable minimum since the literature indicates that if they’re going to go back on drugs, they’re going to go back at about eight months post discharge. Recent findings of forged and highly selective research results in otherwise highly reputable laboratories should make us vigilant to the possibility that a similar phenomena may infect human service providers. Local community members may be in a good position to test the validity of the evaluation results. The delegating of such an important responsibility to a remote agency would not seem to argue for approval of the Director’s recommended changes. Further, suppose there are difficulties in the operation of the home that are clearly apparent to the neighbors. To whom do they voice their concerns when the operator seems deaf? To whom, would they not be better to have a mechanism for local response to such issues? Third point, what I call the Lemming and the magical number eight argument. “Honolulu and Maui allow up to eight residents so let’s join the bandwagon.” How many times have we told our children, something like, “If Jack jumps off a bridge should you do it also?” There’s nothing magical about the number eight. There’s no evidence that program goals will be accomplished better with eight residents than with five. Indeed, what evidence there is suggests that smaller is better. In any case, the reason why the operators have requested an increase is not that they will be more effective, but it is the only way that they can meet their overhead expenses. Mrs. McIntosh in a letter prepared for the Kona meeting, in effect, admits that as much when she said in her letter to the Commission, “It is impossible to operate this home with this limited (i.e., five) number of occupants.” No reason is given as to why it would be impossible. It’s also interesting to note that in the same letter she wants eight to be the lower number, not the maximum. The reason may be that it is in the Department of Health’s best interest to increase the number of clients being served in a single facility since it would allow limited funds to be more efficiently used. Increasing the size of a “family” means that the overhead cost (which form part of the per- client allocation and include such items as rent, mortgage service, staff costs, administrative expenses, and other indirect costs) can be reduced when compared with a smaller set of “families” having to reside in more locations. And the last point I want to make is what I call the son of SLAPP argument, slapping, strategic lawsuits against public participation. The Director seems to believe that the limit of five unrelated persons is so onerous that it would be seen by the courts as an “unreasonable” restriction on the rights of the handicapped to live in residential neighborhoods. The fear here is that the operator, acting for a disabled person or persons, will file suit against the County. The argument would have force if it could be shown that a) there is no procedure for increasing the limit or b) if there is a procedure, its invocation inevitably results in denial. Neither aspect is EXHIBIT D 5