At the D.C. Developmental Disabilities Council meeting
yesterday, a representative from Deputy Mayor Turnage’s office repeated an
offer already made to, and rejected by, advocacy groups in a meeting with the
deputy mayor on Monday – namely, that the D.C. government is willing to schedule
weekly listening sessions between DDS director Reese and advocates between now
and the end of August to hear about any specific shortcomings in the proposed
transition plan (https://dds.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dds/page_content/attachments/DDSGeorgetownUCEDDPlan-71919.pdf)
. However, there is no offer to extend the Georgetown contract beyond its
August 31 end date unless advocates can demonstrate that an emergency extension
is needed in order to address clear gaps in the transition plan – a very tall
order given limited time and the interconnectedness of the services Georgetown
has provided.
There was also a whiff of this offer in Andy Reese’s closing
remarks Wednesday on the Kojo Nnamdi show (https://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2019-08-07/upcoming-changes-in-d-c-disability-services-spark-public-pushback). However,
this “clean up” effort is not what anyone in the advocacy community had in mind
in remarks at the July 23 roundtable hosted by Brianne Nadeau (http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5144). In the DD Council statement I delivered (as
DD Council chair) at the roundtable, we pointed out that “the transition plan just issued by DDS [on
July 19] was made public far too late for adequate discussion to take place on the
representations it makes about plans to ensure Health Initiative services are appropriately
sustained. A transition plan for such an
essential set of services needs to be created in partnership with people
receiving services and other stakeholders, and this unfortunately has not been
the case.” Now the DC government is
offering three weeks.
At the same roundtable, Quality Trust’s
Phyllis Holton testified, “The best transition plan would be one that was informed by community
engagement – and integrates the perspective and experiences of impacted
stakeholders, including service providers, people with disabilities, family
members, and advocates.” Nothing – not even
a limited extension, much less the year or more advocated by some – is being
offered in order to allow for this sort of input and dialogue. While the deputy mayor’s office yesterday
acknowledged it “fumbled” in this case, no remedy is being offered beyond
listening sessions as the clock ticks down to the contract’s expiration.
Over a month ago, the DD Council offered to facilitate a
conversation between DDS and the advocacy community, and that offer was renewed in my statement on July 23. DDS has shown no interest in
this approach, instead allowing the clock to keep ticking. So here we are. Tell me what you think:
·
Should
the advocacy community refuse to engage in further discussions, in the face of
a near-term deadline and little prospect of any give in the government’s
perspective; or
·
Is
it worthwhile to talk further with Andy (at a time and place of the community’s,
not DDS’, choosing) as the summer, and the contract, wind down, in hopes of convincing
him to make limited last-minute adjustments?
Time to make yourselves heard.