Plan for the Closure of Lanterman Developmental Center

VII.
INPUT RECEIVED ON THE PLAN
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
As specified in Welfare and Institutions Code section 4474.1, the Department has
welcomed public comment regarding the recommendation to close Lanterman for
consideration and inclusion in the Plan. Many meetings occurred to obtain verbal and
written input from key stakeholders. (Refer to Attachment 4 for the list of contacts.) A
public hearing was held on February 24, 2010, and approximately 92 speakers provided
verbal input. In addition, approximately 276 written submissions were received by DDS
through March 22, 2010. (Attachment 3) Of the 276 written submissions, 4 are
identified as residents at Lanterman, 80 are identified as family members of residents at
Lanterman, 39 are identified as Lanterman staff, and 153 are other interested parties.
Some individuals provided input multiple times using various methods of
correspondence. Petitions indicating opposition to closure of Lanterman have been
signed and submitted by approximately 746 individuals including family members,
volunteers and members of the surrounding community.
The majority of public comments received from family members and employees stated
the opinion that Lanterman should not close. The Lanterman Parents Coordinating
Council is opposed to closure and concerned about the level of care available in the
community. The Council’s complete position statement is included at the beginning of
Attachment 3. There were also requests to suspend the recommendation for closure
and hold a re-hearing in 120 days. The longevity in years of residency; the age of
residents; and the acuity of nursing, medical, and behavioral supports were the greatest
areas of concern. There was emphasis on the significance of stability for consumers
and their sensitivity to changes in the environment, staff support, and social groups.
There were concerns about consumers experiencing multiple moves. The importance of
all services in the community having experienced and knowledgeable care providers,
diligent oversight by licensing, and financial stability was expressed by many interested
parties with and without affiliation to the developmental center.
Public comments in favor and/or acceptance of the proposed closure viewed the closure
as an opportunity to facilitate consumer involvement in communities beyond the
developmental center. There were references to successful transitions into the
community and the benefits of living in a less restrictive environment. There was
interest in ensuring individualized transition planning; continuity of relationships with
peers and staff; honoring consumer and family choices; ensuring standards of care and
oversight for safe and secure environments; and access to transportation, nursing,
medical, dental, psychiatric, behavioral, and social and recreational services. Some felt
it was the Department’s responsibility to ensure equality to the commitments made for
the Agnews closure such as the development of specialized enduring medical care
homes and the use of State Staff in the Community. In addition, there were requests for
39