Testimony

August 5, 2010

Testimony of Norma Martinez
Before the Senate Task Force on Government Efficiency
Regarding Spending at the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

August 4, 2010

Chairman Klein, distinguished members of the Task Force, good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today about an issue which is important to all New Yorkers, but especially important to families such as mine, with members who have developmental disabilities. My name is Norma Martinez. I live in Pelham, in the 34th Senate District.

My daughter Erica is 35 years old. Erica was born with Down’s Syndrome the same year as the Willowbrook consent decree mentioned at the beginning of your report, and three years before the formation of OMRDD, now OPWDD. So in essence, Erica has “grown up” with this agency, and fortunately she has been able to benefit from some of the programs that it has developed. I therefore have some before and after perspective and can attest to the growth and development of OPWDD through the years. Obviously they have made a great deal of progress.

Erica is an extraordinary young woman who has accomplished incredible things. The first in her Middle School Special Education class to be accepted to play on the JV Volleyball team. The first in her High School Special Education Class to be accepted in the advanced level of the performing arts class. The only person with a developmental disability to be accepted full time into a computer training program, originally structured to retrain adults for the job market (She taught me haw to use the computer!). She has lived in an IRA residence in Mamaroneck for the last seven years and, with support from OPWDD, she works part time as a stockperson at a CVS drug store. Our entire family is very proud of her, and in fact, my presence here today is a result of what I have learned from her about the importance of advocacy. Erica is a passionate, committed and effective advocate for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She recently made a trip to Albany to advocate for overturning cuts in state aid for these very programs that have helped her along the way. She is an inspiration to many people, including me.

As a New York State taxpayer, I am very pleased that the legislature is working to ensure that money spent by New York State’s government is spent wisely, and that efforts are being made to reduce spending in this difficult economic period, but in this instance, I am concerned that your task force has reached an inaccurate conclusion.
Your report reached three main conclusions, that:
1. OPWDD spends too much money acquiring houses for people with developmental disabilities,
2. OPWDD should contract out more of its services to not-for-profit providers, and
3. OPWDD should reduce its spending on overtime.

I will not speak about the latter two. The ratio of state-operated to voluntary-operated services and whether or not it is cheaper to pay someone overtime or hire a new person who gets health and pension benefits are areas in which I may have an opinion, but haven’t the expertise to comment. The first issue, though, is one I know something about and about which I feel quite strongly.

For decades, OPWDD has been an exemplary state agency that has worked in partnership with parents, people with disabilities and not-for-profit providers to build a system of services and supports which is unsurpassed anywhere in the country. We have a system that all New Yorkers can and should be proud of. And it is all the more impressive since only 35 years ago it was mired in scandal, disgrace and shame as politicians, journalists and judges all decried the inhumane conditions and civil rights violations of an underfunded system constructed on a false ideological premise.

I’d like to take just a minute to talk about that premise, because I think it is relevant to understanding how your report reached such an unfortunate conclusion. The premise on which that institutional system was based was that people with developmental disabilities did not have the same rights to lives of productivity and meaning in the community as their typically developing peers. This flawed understanding of the abilities, rights and indeed common humanity of people with developmental disabilities led directly to insufficient funding, which lead to their warehousing, neglect and limited life opportunities. When Erica was born, the thinking was ’do not get attached to the child, put them in an institution and leave them there because they will never be able to do anything for themselves.’ Fortunately due to many “forward thinkers” and my own stubbornness, we did not embrace that ideology. It was my belief that Erica should grow up to be as productive a member of our society as she was capable of becoming, and she has.

Unfortunately, the conclusion your report reached about how much money OPWDD spends acquiring property is based on a similarly flawed premise, that somehow people with developmental disabilities don’t deserve to live in houses and neighborhoods that are just as nice as anyone else in the state. Your report notes, and quite rightly, that real estate prices in some parts of New York are very high. I think that’s something on which we can all agree. But the notion that somehow OPWDD shouldn’t spend the fair market value on homes is simply unsupportable. Your own report notes that OPWDD does not ever spend more than the appraised value of the house. By definition, they are getting a fair deal for New York State’s taxpayers. Your report singled out two residences in Yorktown that in 2008 were purchased at a price that was above the assessed value and highlighted them as examples of overspending. But in neither instance did the State spend taxpayer funds in excess of the assessment. Any difference between the assessment and the purchase prices was covered by funds raised by the not-for-profit agency opening the residence. I saw no indication that OPWDD was “overspending” on sites purchased, unless somehow people with developmental disabilities are considered not to deserve housing like everyone else.

According to your report, the OWPDD budget was increased for the coming year, but, to the best of my knowledge, within that budget the amount allocated for residential development has been decreased. Your report clearly states that there is and will be an increased need for housing in the future due to aging and changes in the population which now includes autism spectrum. The only way you could argue that they should be spending less is to argue that people with disabilities don’t deserve what every other New Yorker deserves, and I’m quite sure you don’t believe that. We all agree that a “sky is the limit” mentality is unacceptable. This is after all your money and mine, but OPWDD’s policies are a very long way from that kind of mentality. Any backsliding in the accomplishments made by OPWDD with regard to housing is simply not acceptable.

Group homes are difficult to develop and complicated to run. As OPWDD serves more people with multiple disabilities and more people who are aging and losing mobility –  one of whom is my daughter – finding the right homes and renovating them properly will continue to be a costly proposition, and it will continue to be money well spent.

Two weeks ago Erica had the opportunity and the honor to join President Obama at the White House to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. At that event she heard the President say, “Equal access. Equal opportunity. The freedom to make our lives what we will. These aren’t principles that belong to any one group or any one political party. They are common principles. They are American principles.”

And these principles are brought to life by OPWDD when they refuse to accept less for the people they serve. When they buy a house which is just as nice in a neighborhood which is just as nice, they are telling me that my daughter, and all those like her who come along in the future, have the freedom to make their lives what they will, and they are clearly getting their money’s worth.

Thank you.