AdvoSerV WW May 7, 1997 Pauline Koch Department of Services for Children Youth 1825 Faulkland Road Wilmington, DE 19805 Sometime ago i wrote to alert you to the publishing of a newspaper article that would carry a negative siant about our rogram. As you may be aware, the article appeared in the Sunday New or Times on May 4, 1997 and was entitled "Welfare Bill Has Opened Foster Care to Big Business?. As you?can imagine, we are greatly disturbed by these numerous unfounded allegations in the article. Because of your involvement, i want to provrde you with some facts to help alleviate any discomfort you may feel as a result of the Times piece. What started out as an effort on our part to enter the national debate on how federal funds are utilized to serve children with special needs, ended up as a derogatory front pa%e story questioning our motives and attempting to discredit our 3 year old program through selective reporting and innuendo. The reporter made an editorial decision to portray us as the "bad guy" in the national debate over privatization and private vs. non-profit providers. While we had some contact with the reporter over the past several months, we were given only five hours last Friday afternoon to respond to all of the allegations that were to appear on Sunday. What follows is our rebuttal to some of the more offensive allegations reported in the article. While this is rather i want to provide you with as many facts as possible to answer any questions you may receive. we became involved in Title As you may know, our Adcherv program serves clients with the most challenging behavior disorders such as extreme aggression and life threatening self-injury. Individuals are sent to us as 3 ast resort after repeated and failed attempts at treatment. In serving these individuals we assume risk, liability and responsibility for providing safe and effective treatment. Since we provide such a pivotal service, we obviously remain conversant with all legislative and funding trends. at? 4185 Kirkwood?St.Georges Rd., Bear, DE 19701 302-834~7018 (fax) 302-836?2516w ln 1994 we learned that agencies such as yours, placing students at programs such as ours, were ineligible for certain federal funds, due solely to the fact we are for?profit providers. Apparently, only private non-profits and state facilities were eligible to receive reimbursement under Title NE of the Social Security Act, which relates to foster care maintenance payments. We found this quite disturbing for a number of reasons. First and most importantly, this had the effect of limitin the treatment 0 tions available to states and agencies in placing indivi uals, especially ose with very challenging problems that very few providers were wil ing to serve. We felt the treatment options available to the individual an the attendant funding streams should be viewed in the context of the quality of care, measurable outcomes and budgetary constraints, not the form of ownership of the facility. Second, we viewed this as an issue of fairness. Why should for?profit groviders who are eligible for all other sources of federal and state funds discriminated against in this instance? For?profit providers already face significant disadvantages. For example, they pay taxes, are effectively ineligible for grants to subsidize programs and typically pay a higher cost for funds to improve and expand services. In light of what we and others felt was a very unfair situation to clients, families, agencies and providers, we set about educating federal lawmakers as to the equity of the then current law. We were determined to see that our clients were treated the same as those placed in non-profit facilities. Along with others, we submitted testimony to the Congress laying out our argument for change and in the and Congress agreed. I am a little overwhelmed that the New York Times would give a small business and an individual of my stature the credit for a change in national policy that members of Congress did not feel was in the best interest of the nation. FinalJ, contrary to the impression the article leaves, Title funding is not riven by private prowders, it is driven by the state and federal governments responsibility to serve this population. Tour of Delaware Facilitv We_ invite any parent, guardian, placing or licensing agency or government offiCIal to visit our program at any time, with ?or Without notice. in fact our facilities are visited by hundreds of family members and officials each yean However, we take very seriously disruptions to our students as well as any threats to their privacy. Our *mandate is to insure student confidentiality. None of our facilities are open to unannounced tours by the news media, even if it is the New York Times. Page 2 Mistreatment of Children and Complaints to Delaware Authorities in 1979 Even thou one incident dates back to 1979, this is without question the area 0 most concern to me. take great pride in the sen/ices we provide and our ability to safely and effectively change the behaviors of some of this country's most challenging youth. While the reporter writes of an incident in which I was involved in 1979 disciplining a youth utilizing corporal punishment, the reporter fails to mention the circumstances surrounding the episode which were reported in the same local newspaper. Those circumstances bear repeating here: sixteen year old boy was out of control. They (staff) called Mazik to help discipline the boy, who by then was grabbing for one female therapist's breast, resisting her restraints and becoming a threat to those around him." said the boy was 6 feet 3 inches tall, wei had 200 pounds, was not autistic but functionally retarded, had a menta age of 10 and was "feeling his manhood". He said for sometime the boy had talked incessantly about sex and had begun stroking the female thera ists? hair and reaching for their breasts." Wilmington News Journal, July 2, 1979. What was also not reported was that the parents of this particular young man had given their consent for this procedure, that corporal punishment was available for use in public and private facilities at the time and that the procedure was used only once, resolving completely the sexual aggression that was emerging as a dangerous problem. Even more unforgivable is the reporter's faiIUre to print how Delaware officials view our program today in 1997, some 18 years later. For the record, we presently have over 30 children and adolescents from Delaware in our program. Further, in April of this year we were approved for two years by the Department of Public instruction and in March received a very positive report on our professional services from an independent (program consultant retained by the Delaware Department of Services to hildren, Youth and Their Families to conduct their annual audit. lt is not difficult to surmise where anonymous allegations related to the Delaware program originated. There are some disgruntled employees who either left or were asked to ieave the program because they did not maintain the standards required by our program. They are determined to do everything in their power to harm the good work we do. In addition, Au Clair survrved an attempt to unionize the staff by a margin of three to one this past year. Those individuals who were unSuccessful in unionizing the staff will also do anything they can to harm the reputation of the program. .3 Page Allegations of Mistreatment of New York Children in 1992 This allegation offers an example where the reporter virtually ignored child agency evaluation reports in favor of anonymous allegations. We made available two evaluations pre ared by New York Child Welfare Agency (CWA) officials which reporte satisfactory living conditions and programming for the years in question. Further, these reports recommended that children continue to be sent to Au Clair. Other than these reports, staff at Au Clair has no record or memory of any conversation, meeting or correspondence which would indicate anything derogatory about the program. We have no knowledge of the incidents referred to by anonymous individuals from New York. Frankly, had those conditions been present, it was the duty and obligation of the "official" from New York to see that those children wete removed that day. Any individual Who knows of or witnesses an act of abuse must notify authorities or they themselves are culpable for the act under the law. it was our understanding that a law suit involving CWA was the impetus to return not Ijust mentally retarded/developmentally disabled Au Clair children, but al mentally retarded/developmentally disabled children with out?of?state providers to New York. We were told the reason it took over a year and one half to find appropriate placements in New York was due to the severity of the behavior disorders which the children at Au Clair presented. internal Mechanisms to Report Maltreatment As is stated in the article, there is a zero tolerance level for the maltreatment of any student at any of our facilities. All staff are trained and required to report any condition which they feel is detrimental to any student or the program to their internal supervisors and external authorities immediate y. All staff sign statements acknowledging their understandin of this policy. Further, staff are required to fill out a form on a mont ly basis which requests information concerning any circumstance or situation which they feel needs to be corrected. Every form is reviewed and where necessary action is taken to remedy the concern. Based on our exhaustive review of these reports we found no instance where staff have reported an incident which has not been dealt with in a timeiy?and professional manner. Staffing Levels Children are never placed in restraints due to lack of adequate staffing. Never. Contrary to the article's assertion that we were reducing staff, we have increased our staffing levels in the last years by 40% over the increase in student enrollment. Further, for the first four months of 1997, the vacancy rate for front?line staff was a level that all providers would agree is remarkable given the challenges associated with this? population. a: Page 4 i Reoulatorv Oversight for For-Profit and Non-Profit Providers The article leaves in the reader's mind the clear implication that for~profit providers require a more rigorous level of regulatory monitoring than non?profits. a level, it is suggested, that the states are ill equipped to undertake. This directly implies that agencies are categorically incapable of overseeing their placements,van assertion that is an affront to both sending agencies and providers. We know that the efficacy of for-profit and non?profit providers needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The same is true for the ability of states to provide proper oversight. The article ignores the significant oversight AdvoServ presently undergoes from the hundreds of visits we receive from parents, guardians and numerous regulatory and licensing a encies. Along with our professional staff, these individuals are responsib for developing, implementing, and ?gnonitoring individual education programs for each child on an annuai aSiS. Jovius Foundation The Jovius Foundation was established to analyze and, investigate issues relating to children with special needs and to utilize seminars and other support activities to assist in that effort. Jovius and Au Clair co-sponsored a number of activities that were beneficial to both or anizations. These include training videos, a survey of juvenile court ju gas as well as seminars. This was made clear to everyone in attendance at the beginning of every session that this was the case. Like many corporations in America which have sponsored a nonprofit charitable foundation, 3 degree of goodwill is generated by the activities of the foundation. Undeniably, this goodwill benefits the foundation and the sponsoring corporation. Althoug' this can be a difficult line to walk, we feel we were successful in navigating this line to protect the honesty and integrity of all involved. Further, 100% of all dollars contributed to the foundation were spent on research, pro ram activities and servrces, there were no staff salaries or offices funde as is the case with most foundations. The Florida seminars were a series of extremely productive two day meetin where officials from various states were given the opportunity to fran ly discuss the issues they faced in dealing with this country's most difficult population. Numerous and ongoing relationships were established between participants from different states as a result of the free exchange of concerns and ideas at these meetings. The quotes attributable to Ms. Najma Davis, are somewhat puzzling in that she states "It was like a scam. There was nothing of substance. They spent a lot of money to bring a whole group of us together only to entertain us. I felt almost bribed." Page 5 This is in stark contrast to Ms. Davis' letter (attached) received by me followin the Jovius Seminar she attended which states in part: I can't let anot er day pass without thanking you for the opportunity to be introduced to the work of the Foundation. The excellent group of professionals convened for this meeting helped me to grow as an individual and as a professional. The exchange of the ideas gave me new hope for serving troubled youth and provided me with numerous policy, planning and treatment Like other participants, I found your selection of site to be perfectly conducive to the purpose of the workshop." Attendees should be insulted by the accusation that this effort was a veiled marketing attempt to benefit Au Clair. In fact most attendees or their agencies already had clients at Au Clair. All participants knew in advance of the relationship between Au Clair and Jovius and as far as we know all found the seminars to be a valuable experience. I hOpe you find this rather rebuttal to some of the more offensive points in the New York Times article reassuring. As I mentioned in my last letter, I value the good faith you have placed in our program. Should you have any guestions or wish to discuss this further, please contact me or any of our acility directors. We would encourage or welcome a at any time. . Kenneth . Founder an