COM 0067.004 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Testimony of Dan Landis, Ph.D on the Proposal by the Director of Planning to change the Definition of "Family."~ Council Bill Number 345 January 4, 2007 Chair Hoffman, members of the County Council, thank you for allowing me to testify on this most unwise proposal put forward by the Director of Planning and introduced by Councilman Pilago. Of course, I am opposed to this Bill and the reasons are based on an extensive review of the literature of group home sitting. This proposal has been generating a good deal of controversy with people from all over the island weighing in on its merits or demerits. It is interesting, and even germane, to note that all of the letters submitted to the Planning Commission (which resulted in a negative recommendation) from individuals were in opposition, while all of the letters in support were from operators or governmental organizations that either fund or supply clients to operators. Most of the oppositional comment has been temperate and to the point; some has been a bit more emotional. However, the emotion often comes from a feeling of being put upon by organizations whose primary aims seem often the enrichment of their coffers rather than the rehabilitation of their clients. The reasons given for the necessity of changing the definition of the family are five fold: 1. "They aze low impact..." Impact level is in the `eye of the beholder." But, should a property have, say, two houses (e.g., in the case of an ohana), the move from 10, plus cazetakers to 16 plus caretakers is certainly not "low impact." Without a definition of "impact" it is hard to see how this azgument can be made. Such a definition might include noise levels, traffic, number of visitors, number of police calls, etc. Simpl} asserting something does not make it so. 2. "..that are licensed and regulated by the Department of Health." Inspection of the attached documents of the Department of Health show that they deal primarily with the physical aspects of the property. While an annual evaluation plan is required (for STF- type houses), no provision is made for review by interested members of the community. It 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 of drug rehabilitation, close monitoring of clients for at least a yeaz past discharge would seem to a reasonable minimum. Recent findings of forged and highly selective reseazch results in otherwise highly reputable laboratories should make us vigilant to the possibility that a similar phenomenon 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 azgue for the approval of the Director's recommended changes. Further, suppose there aze difficulties in the operation of the home that aze cleazly appazent to the neighbors. To whom do they voice their concerns when the operator seems deaf? To Honolulu? Would it not be better to have a mechanism for a local response (up to and including terminating the facility) to such issues? 3. The Lemming and the magical number 8 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 also do it?" There is nothing magical about the number eight. There is NO evidence that program goals will be accomplished better with eight residents than with five. Indeed, what evidence there is mm. No.a~ ~ Prepazed for the Hawaii Island Planning Commission meeting on September 7, 2006 in Hilo, Haw~iQ Ref. To: Pr Ref. Uate