The foundations warned that we mustn't falter in this reform effort, according to the Globe, because that would be a sign of “bureaucratic inertia, union resistance, or political malaise.”
It's difficult to question a policy juggernaut consisting of The Mass. Taxpayers Foundation, The Boston Foundation, the Patrick administration, and The Boston Globe. But we'll give it a try.
Our question is: where did these findings in the MTF/BF report come from — particularly the finding that closing the state ICFs will save tens of millions of dollars a year?
Unfortunately, as noted, only an executive summary of the report is available yet on the websites of the MTF and the BF. So, that's all we have to go by right now.
The executive summary (linked above) includes a table with an institutional-vs.-community-bed cost comparison. According to the table, it costs $183,000 per bed in a DDS institution, such as Fernald, compared with a cost ranging from $95,000 to $150,000 per bed in the community system.
What's the source of that information? Beneath the table in the executive summary, it states that the source is the “DMR (now DDS) Community Services Expansion and Facilities Restructuring Plan, Revised March 9, 2009.”
In other words, the source of this cost comparison is the Patrick administration itself. The Mass. Taxpayers and Boston foundations are apparently relying on the administration's cost-savings numbers in reporting to the administration that there are… get this…cost savings.
Very nice arrangement. The administration can then point to this presumably independent report and say, 'We told you so. This report backs up our claim that closing state facilities will save us money. In fact, we look moderate in only seeking to close four out of six facilities. This report says we should close them all.'
Nevermind that groups supporting the developmental centers, such as the Fernald League, COFAR, and others, have been raising questions for years about these supposed cost savings, and pointing out the dangers in closing these critically important institutions. Closing all of the remaining ICFs in Massachusetts would not only not save money, it would have devastating consequences for hundreds of the most vulnerable citizens of the commonwealth and their families.
Those questions and concerns have been conveniently ignored in the MTF/BF report, or rather, executive summary.
BTW, we're eagerly waiting for the full MTF/BF report, and will probably have more to say about it when we get to read it.