7-26-02

To the editor:

Unfortunately, the DHS primary concern has not been the safety of LDC residents, but the achieving of a concealed ideological agenda of radical downsizing or of closure of LDC.

During the last nine months members of the Lincoln Parents Association have asked persons in key positions of leadership of the DHS, ODD if they were committed to keeping LDC open. They have been unwilling to assure the LPA of this commitment. Over and over again, the answer was in the form of a question, "Does Illinois need 11 developmental centers?" Further, these same individuals in these influential positions would not commit themselves to oppose downsizing LDC.

Considering that there are 11 SODC [state-operated developmental centers] and LDC is in the center of the state, why has LDC been targeted? It appears LDC has been targeted for a number of years by one persuasive DHS individual in a position of influence because of a long-standing personal vendetta.

At an earlier time an individual now in a DHS position of leadership and Martin Downs were on staff together at one of the state developmental centers. During this time, an unfortunate incident occurred involving this DHS individual and family. For some reason, she blamed the Downs for this unfortunate incident in her life, resulting in an estranged relationship. Martin Downs was named facility director at Lincoln Developmental Center and served well in that capacity from July 1995 until October 1999. He had a good relationship with staff, residents, their parents and families, and the community. This DHS individual was named facility director of another developmental center.

LDC was one of two facilities in the nation to receive accreditation from the national accrediting association, The Accrediting Council, in 1996 and was held up as a model to other facilities as a motivation to excellence. Staff were asked to share their story with other facilities.

Later this DHS individual was named to her present position of leadership with DHS. At the time of the appointment of this DHS individual, Martin Downs confided in friends that he was fearful of his future at LDC. As feared, he was relieved of his position at LDC. It is reported that this DHS individual vigorously pursued a course of action to achieve his replacement and the closure of LDC, or at least significant downsizing, because of the reasons mentioned in the above paragraphs — LDC and Marty Downs received the recognition stated above by The Accrediting Council, and she and [the] developmental center where she was facility director at that time did not. When Martin Downs was relieved of his position at LDC in 1999, the employees and parents offered to appeal and seek his reinstatement, but he declined, not wanting this to become a personal issue.

LDC has really been under DHS management since that time — first, with a facility director who came to LDC with no experience with the developmentally disabled, with two previous years of failed leadership in the Department of Corrections, and with a mandate to downsize LDC. After one year of failed leadership at LDC, the employees in near-unanimous numbers appealed to the secretary of the DHS. They cited her failed leadership and requested appropriate action. Unfortunately, the DHS secretary dismissed their concern and request as being "racially motivated."

DHS, ODD leadership has defended this failed facility director since her departure Oct. 1, 2001. However, it has been reported that in a recent meeting with legislators the secretary of DHS was asked by Sen. Pate Philip, "If the situation has deteriorated at LDC as you say it has, how do you explain such rapid deterioration?" Her explanation was that it started during the two years of failed leadership of this facility director from 1999-2001, when she was the LDC facility director. This is one example of DHS contradictions and chameleon-like comments and conduct. Honesty, accuracy and consistency are replaced with verbal expediency, which will serve their objectives best at that time.

One night during a social event in the fall of 2001, the influential DHS individual referred to above was engaged in conversation with friends and individuals not known to her. In the course of conversation, when her position with DHS, ODD was mentioned, one of the men in the group, with whom she was not acquainted, stated that he was employed at one of the facilities managed by her in her DHS, ODD position. She inquired which facility, and when she learned it was LDC, she responded, "Oh, LDC has no future."

The concealed agenda has been to close if possible, and if not, to downsize drastically. The manner in which DHS, ODD has managed indicates they are more concerned with achieving this agenda than the welfare of the residents and the preferences of residents, parents and families.

It has been stated, "If you set someone up to fail, sooner or later they will fail." The mismanagement of LDC by DHS is obvious to any informed, unbiased observer. LDC has been set up to fail. The concealed objective to have LDC closed if possible has been implemented by giving the governor misleading information and by management methods destined to bring failure.

LDC has really been under the management team of DHS since 1999 — first, for two years under the failed leadership of facility director Gwen Thornton, with no previous experience with the developmentally disabled as stated before, and second, under the DHS management team installed by the governor at the time of Ms. Thornton’s departure Oct. 1, 2001. The acting facility director installed at that time has been compelled to serve as a "puppet director," reporting to and responding to the directives of her immediate superiors daily.

Gov. Ryan stated this DHS management team was installed "to get the facility back on track." Monitors and surveyors were sent to LDC in large numbers, but their actions indicated they were trying to find things that were wrong more than they were offering their expertise to help. Over and over again it was obvious their efforts were not "to get LDC back on track" but to derail LDC.

The irony of it all is that the instances during this time which have resulted in immediate jeopardy (reason given by the governor for closure) occurred during the time LDC has been managed by DHS. Instead of blaming the staff, the governor should have placed the blame where it belongs — on the DHS. They mismanaged and failed. But the governor has been misled by the DHS, and the news media has carried the rest of the story.

Misleading and exaggerated information has been given to the governor. As an example, events are repeated many times and stated to make LDC look as bad as possible. The deaths which occurred in the years 1998, 2000, 2001 have been repeated many times to create the impression that LDC is unsafe. The Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) records indicate that a LDC staff person was at fault in only one of these incidents. Because of this staff person’s negligence the resident died, and the staff person was dismissed. In the other two incidents the LDC staff followed DHS, ODD policies and procedures. As a result of these two incidents the policy and procedure was reviewed by DHS, ODD, and revised where warranted to be able to deal more appropriately and promptly with the unusual circumstances which might arise in the future. There were no police charges, and the OIG did not cite neglect nor abuse. No staff person was at fault. If there was any fault, it was that of DHS, ODD for not covering circumstances which might arise. LDC has been unfairly maligned. LDC is safe. No parent has asked for closure. Parents overwhelmingly express confidence in the staff.

[to top of second column in this letter]

Insufficient and overworked staff contribute to failure. DHS management knows this. Due to laying off so many staff LDC has been short 40-50 staff, according to a very recent statement by a DHS spokesman. Staff are mandated to work double shifts, 17 hours per day. A number have worked three or four successive 17-hour days. A tired staff finds it difficult to work at its best at all times. Also, faulty management policies have caused committed staff to become discouraged and frustrated. Salaries paid for overtime cost the state money. This is another example of mismanagement. Layoffs have not resulted in savings to the state. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses.

Deterioration of services has resulted. Our daughter’s most recent annual review was lacking in thoroughness. No person with medical knowledge was present who could address her present health and medical concerns. The caregiver (tech) who accompanied her to the annual review had been assigned to her building very recently and understandably was uninformed about behavioral and other personal problems. Additionally, food and clothing services have deteriorated. She is not eating well. Staff does not have time to mark and get clothing to residents’ rooms. DHS personnel have admitted that some staff have not received the training needed when reassigned, a cause for some incidents.

Additionally, incidents identical to those referred to by the governor have occurred at LDC before and at other SODC, and these were not cited for immediate jeopardy at those times. Accusations are selective and inappropriate. The manner in reporting these recent incidents has every appearance of being designed to give the governor a reason to close LDC.

All of these are the result of mismanagement by DHS, and DHS should be held responsible, and not a faithful committed LDC staff. The residents, their families and the staff should not suffer the consequences of the failures of DHS.

As parents, appointed by the court as guardians for our daughter, Jan Rene Springer, we are very pleased that she is a resident of Lincoln Developmental Center (LDC). Like the vast majority of parents/guardians of LDC residents, we are grateful for the quality care our daughter has received since her admission to LDC in June of 1984. No parent has requested LDC be closed, but parents have responded in great numbers in efforts to keep LDC open.

Jannie was born with excellent health but contracted encephalitis when she was 14½ months of age, leaving her profoundly mentally retarded. We cared for her in our home as long as we could. At age 22 we had to find appropriate placement elsewhere. Through the years she has been in four facilities. One of those placements was in a community-based facility which refused to keep her after six months. We were forced to seek placement elsewhere. She is comfortable in her present surroundings, is familiar with the caring, compassionate, capable staff. This is reassuring to her and gives her a sense of security which she would not receive otherwise. Another move would be very upsetting, something to which she should not be subjected again. To Jannie, LDC is not an institution, it is home.

We visit Jannie regularly and find the staff to be warm, friendly and approachable, Jannie has been clean, well-groomed and her clothing coordinated. We receive telephone calls if there is any need or any information which we should have. We have been impressed with the cleanliness and security of the building and the attractive surroundings. The staff keep Jannie’s room bright, cheery and well-decorated. Her room is neat and the bed coverings are attractive.

Jannie is taken out on frequent outings and taken to the activity building Monday through Friday. A full range of health care has been readily available if needed. When she required hospitalization as an outpatient, she was accompanied by a staff person who stayed with her through the procedure. This was reassuring to her. The periodic reviews with the caring staff, medical staff, pharmacist and sociologist have been informative and helpful through the years. Our input as parents is always received and given consideration. The services of the chaplains and their assistants have been helpful.

LDC is the most centrally located of the state-operated developmental centers (SODC) and accessed by good roads. For this reason it is convenient and helpful for parents/guardians who are elderly like ourselves to visit our loved one. When we visit Jannie, we take her for a ride and for refreshments, which she enjoys. The attention and love she receives from her mother is therapeutic, comforting and affirming to her. If she were transferred to another facility, our round-trip time would be doubled or more, of necessity our trips would be less frequent, and she would be deprived of something which she needs and desires.

Our court-appointed successor guardian who will serve actively when we can no longer serve as guardians and/or are unable to make the trips, also lives in central Illinois. If Jannie were moved from LDC, the distance would be much greater for the successor guardian, making visits much more difficult and reduce the number and frequency of visits with our daughter. A move from LDC would significantly reduce the visits and the benefits for our daughter. LDC must remain open to assure us that our daughter will receive quality care and benefits to which she is entitled after our lifetime.

One of the LDC social workers, who has been an employee of the state of Illinois for 36 years, most of which have been at LDC, expressed his concern in a letter to the governor for LDC and the need for LDC to remain open. At a time with population near 300 he stated, "As the population of LDC grows smaller, the majority of persons who remain living here need the structure and intensive care of the SODC. Further, he stated, "The community agencies, as good as they are, do not have the capability or the resources to provide a humane living arrangement for many of the persons who remain at LDC. The small group homes are unable to control behaviors exhibited by many persons living at LDC." He went on to say that many times small group homes refuse to take residents referred to them. Forcing moves is neither appropriate nor assures better safer care.

There is no good reason for LDC closure. Disruption of people’s lives, increased behavioral problems, emotional trauma, and unnecessary hurt and heartache of residents and their families are too high a price to pay. Residents and parents/guardians, grateful for the good care received at LDC, should not be deprived of continued care at LDC. The staff is great. Given a chance with committed leadership LDC can be the facility which received that well-deserved accrediting council recognition.

Robert J. Springer

Eureka

News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries

Community | Perspectives | Law & Courts | Leisure Time | Spiritual Life | Health & Fitness | Calendar

Letters to the Editor