Overview of Presentation

Staff from Disability Rights Arkansas (DRA) presented to the Senate and House Public Health Committees on November 25, and the reception was at times contentious. Tom Masseau, Executive Director, and Thomas Nichols, Director of Legal and Advocacy Services, presented an overview of DRA's mission, programs, and advocacy efforts. 

DRA’s Background and Mission

• DRA is a nonprofit advocacy organization and part of the national Protection and Advocacy (P&A) network.
• Established in Arkansas in 1977 and renamed Disability Rights Arkansas in 2014.
• Operates with a $2 million budget and nine federal grants to provide advocacy, monitor facilities, and investigate complaints of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

Advocacy Efforts

Based on the presentation, Disability Rights Arkansas (DRA) highlighted several key areas of focus in their work advocating for and enforcing the rights of individuals with disabilities in Arkansas. These areas include:

1. Monitoring and Investigating Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation

• Facility Monitoring:
  • DRA monitors public and private facilities, including Human Development Centers (HDCs), schools, supported employment locations, and settings where individuals receive home- and community-based services.
  • They investigate allegations of abuse and neglect discovered through complaints or their own monitoring activities.
• Investigation Process:
  • Investigates abuse and neglect cases either as a primary investigator or as a follow-up to state investigations.
  • Publishes reports (public or private) on findings, depending on the situation.

2. Special Education

• Represents students with disabilities and their families in cases involving access to special education services.
• Addresses issues related to Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), accommodations, and disputes with school districts.
• Special education is DRA’s most requested area of assistance, though it lacks a dedicated grant for this work.

3. Employment Advocacy

• Advocates for individuals with disabilities seeking or maintaining employment, including:
  • Helping clients access vocational rehabilitation services.
  • Removing barriers to employment.
  • Assisting with cases of employment discrimination, including filing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints.

• Works to ensure that employment opportunities are accessible and inclusive.

4. Medicaid Access and Advocacy

• Focuses on ensuring individuals receive the Medicaid services they need, including through the PASSE (Provider-led Arkansas Shared Savings Entity) system.
• Provides advocacy for accessing services covered under Medicaid programs, including assistive technology.

5. Guardianship Oversight

• Assists individuals with disabilities in terminating or limiting abusive, neglectful, or unnecessary guardianships.
• Advocates for compliance with Arkansas’s Ward’s Bill of Rights, which protects individuals under guardianship from exploitation.

6. Assistive Technology

• Helps individuals with disabilities access assistive technology devices and services.
• Often works through Medicaid and other funding sources to ensure clients can obtain needed technology.

7. Voter Access

• Educates voters with disabilities on their rights.
• Works with election officials to ensure polling locations are accessible.
• Addresses barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from exercising their right to vote.

8. Social Security Representative Payee Oversight

• Audits individuals and organizations acting as representative payees for Social Security benefits to prevent exploitation.
• Ensures funds are spent appropriately and in the beneficiary’s best interest.

9. Self-Advocacy and Public Education

• Encourages and empowers individuals with disabilities to advocate for themselves.
• Conducts public education and outreach to raise awareness about disability rights and available resources.

10. Systemic Policy Work

• Engages in systemic advocacy to address statewide issues affecting individuals with disabilities.
• Provides input on policy reforms and collaborates with state agencies to improve access and services.

Key Exchanges with Legislators

On Human Development Centers (HDCs):

• Representative Jack Ladyman and Representative Jim Wooten expressed concerns about DRA’s perceived role in advocating for the closure of HDCs.
• Masseau and Nichols clarified that while DRA advocates for reducing abuse and neglect in HDCs, they do not have a goal to close these centers.
• Masseau acknowledged ongoing concerns among constituents about DRA’s position on HDCs and reiterated that their primary focus is ensuring proper care and safety for residents.

On Physical Accessibility Issues:

• Representative Julie Mayberry raised concerns about barriers to accessibility in public spaces.
• Nichols acknowledged the challenges, particularly in older buildings, and supported the idea of creating a state-level enforcement authority to address such issues.

On DRA’s Goals and National Affiliations:

• Representative Ladyman cited historical actions by the national Protection and Advocacy network, including opposition to sheltered workshops and alleged lawsuits to close facilities.
• Masseau and Nichols clarified that DRA operates independently and does not necessarily align with national P&A policies.

Challenges in Rural Areas:

• Senator Linda Chesterfield asked about the state’s performance in supporting individuals with disabilities.
• Nichols highlighted a lack of services in rural and economically disadvantaged regions, particularly in southeast Arkansas.

Representative Jack Ladyman

1. Concerns About Advocacy Goals:
   "In 2015, your parent corporation presented a suggestion to Congress to eliminate all sheltered workshops nationwide. These programs provide purpose and independence for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are not capable of obtaining competitive employment. Why would your corporation want to eliminate these workshops?"
   This reflects his frustration over perceived national goals of organizations like DRA and their potential impact on local programs.
2. Alleged Advocacy for Closure of HDCs:
   "Also in 2015, your organization, I believe I got that right, sued the state of Arkansas to require the state to close the Booneville Human Development Center. Why did you do that?"
   His question underscores skepticism about DRA’s long-term objectives related to HDCs.
3. Perceived Disconnect with State Needs:
   "When you're working in Arkansas, you need to have some input into this body so that we know how you're implementing. And I hate to get on you like this because you're doing good work in other areas. But I think in the HDCs, based on what I'm hearing, there are some issues in the way you work with the HDCs."
   Ladyman emphasizes the need for DRA to align its efforts with what he perceives as the state's priorities​.

Representative Jim Wooten

1. Frustration Over HDC Misrepresentation:
   "My fundamental concern is your board of directors prioritize, according to your statement, each year what you're going to do and look at. And my concern is how many members of the board of directors do you have that have people with disabilities that are in institutions?"
   This highlights his frustration with what he views as a lack of representation for HDC stakeholders on DRA’s board​.
2. Questioning Perceived Anti-HDC Sentiment:
   "Well, the problem that we're facing is one that so many of these individuals, they can't respond to anything. But yet the recommendation seems to be at times to close the facility, to put them back out in community-based-oriented or private homes or community-based facilities is the impression that's being left with residents."
   Wooten’s remarks suggest concern about DRA’s messaging and the impact on vulnerable populations​.
3. Concerns About Perception and Advocacy Goals:
   "I just want to make sure that you're aware of the fact that there's a thought process out there that says what your goal is. And in order that you can guard against that, because in my opinion, these facilities are desperately needed and need to be maintained and need to be funded adequately."
   This statement reflects Wooten’s broader concern about misalignment between DRA’s perceived goals and community needs.

Key Themes from Both Legislators:

• Perceived Misalignment: Both Ladyman and Wooten expressed frustration that DRA’s priorities, particularly regarding HDCs, might not align with what they believe are the best interests of Arkansas citizens with disabilities.
• Skepticism Toward DRA's Advocacy: They questioned DRA's ultimate goals, particularly whether DRA’s advocacy for community integration inadvertently promotes the closure of HDCs.
• Call for Collaboration: Both emphasized the need for better communication and alignment between DRA, the state legislature, and stakeholders.

DRA’s Responses to Representative Jack Ladyman

1. On Advocacy Goals and National Affiliations:
   • "National Disability Rights Network is not our parent association. They are a membership organization, and all of the 57 states and territories are members. They don't dictate the work that happens in the state."
     This response clarified that DRA operates independently from its national counterparts, countering the assumption that their goals are dictated by national priorities like closing HDCs.
2. On the 2015 Alleged Lawsuit to Close Booneville HDC:
   • "We didn't sue the state in 2015."
     See below for context.
3. On Advocating for Community Integration:
   • "Perhaps if we get to a time where we are not overwhelmed with abuse and neglect investigations and... trying to get access to special education and related services, maybe then we could talk about whether the facilities are necessary."
     DRA framed their work as prioritizing abuse prevention and ensuring that residents of HDCs receive proper care, only exploring transitions if and when systemic challenges are resolved​.

DRA’s Responses to Representative Jim Wooten

1. On Board Representation:
   • "Currently none. My board consists of individuals with disabilities, family members of individuals who live in the community, and individuals from the general public. It varies."
     Masseau acknowledged the absence of board members representing residents of HDCs but clarified that their board is intentionally diverse to reflect community-based priorities​.
2. On HDC Closure Concerns:
   • "I’ve been in this state for 11 years, and if they were going to close, they would have closed a long time ago. I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future. Our goal is to ensure that individuals in facilities are free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation."
     This counters Wooten’s assertion that DRA’s goals include closing HDCs, positioning their work as supportive rather than antagonistic​.
3. On Perception of Advocacy Work:
   • "I am aware of that thought. I’ve been here for 11 years, and it’s been reminded of me daily, so I’m fully aware of that perception."
     • Masseau acknowledged the perception that DRA opposes HDCs but reiterated that their focus is on ensuring safety and service quality, not closure.

Did Disability Rights Arkansas sue the state to close the Booneville Human Development Center in 2015?

In 2015, Disability Rights Arkansas (DRA) released a report titled "A New Approach to Care in Arkansas: Why the Time Has Come to Close the Booneville Human Development Center," advocating for the closure of the Booneville Human Development Center (BHDC) due to concerns over facility conditions and the excessive use of restraints.

(Link to the Report)

However, there is no evidence to suggest that DRA filed a lawsuit against the state of Arkansas in 2015 regarding the closure of BHDC. The organization's efforts appear to have been focused on advocacy and reporting rather than legal action.

Other actions

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an investigation into several Arkansas Human Development Centers (HDCs), including the Booneville Human Development Center (BHDC), to assess compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This led to the DOJ filing a lawsuit against the State of Arkansas in 2010, alleging discrimination against individuals with disabilities in these facilities. The case, United States v. State of Arkansas, was filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas. However, this lawsuit did not specifically seek the closure of BHDC but aimed to address systemic issues across multiple HDCs.

In 2021, the family of David Cains, a resident of BHDC, filed a $7 million wrongful death lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Health and BHDC. The suit alleged that improper restraint techniques led to Cains' death in June 2020. This lawsuit was specific to the circumstances surrounding Cains' death and did not seek the closure of the facility.

Based on available information, there have been no lawsuits filed with the explicit intent to close the Booneville Human Development Center. Legal actions involving BHDC have primarily focused on addressing specific incidents or systemic issues without directly seeking the facility's closure.