Post on 16-Dec-2015
TEXAS’ “STATE-SUPPORTED LIVING CENTERS”: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
David Braddock, Ph.D., Associate Vice President, University of Colorado
Professor and Executive Director, Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Austin, TXSeptember 14, 2011
Presentation © 2011 David Braddock
2
PRESENTATION
I. FROM INSTITUTIONS TO COMMUNITY AND FAMILY SUPPORTS
II. THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTIES
III. DEVELOPMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS IN DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
3
FIRST MENTAL DISABILITY INSTITUTIONS
BETHLEHEM, LONDON, ENGLAND (1403)
VALENCIA, SPAIN (1409)
ZARAGOZA (1425)
SEVILLE (1436)
VALLADOLID (1436)
PALMA MAJORCA (1456)
TOLEDO (1480)
GRANADA (1527)
SAN HIPOLITO (1566, Mexico City)
I.THE INSTITUTIONAL ERA: 1403-1963
4
ABILENE EPILEPTIC COLONY,ABILENE, TEXAS (1899)
D. Braddock, University of Colorado, 2007.
5
AUSTIN STATE SCHOOL (1917)
D. Braddock, University of Colorado, 2006.
6
NEW YORK STATE MENTAL RETARDATION INSTITUTION, CIRCA 1967
Source: Braddock, D., University of Colorado, 2008.
7
DECLINING NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENTSWITH I/DD AND MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE U.S. (IN 1,000s)
1844 1858 1872 1886 1900 1914 1928 1942 1956 1970 1984 19980
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Da
ily
Ce
ns
us
(T
ho
us
an
ds
)
559
195
Mental IllnessIntellectual/Developmental Disabilities
Sources: Mental Illness Data -- U.S. Bureau of the Census, cited in Hamilton (1944); Center For Mental Health Services,U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996, 1999; NASMHPD, 2002, 2005 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010;SAMHSA, 2003, 2005, 2006,
Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Data -- State of the States, Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities and Departmentof Psychiatry, University of Colorado, 2011.
(1955)
(1967)
2009
48,344
33,732
8
II .TO COMMUNITY: KENNEDY & 88-164
9
TEXAS STATE PLAN (1966)
Source: Braddock, D., University of Colorado, 2008.
10
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
DECLINING I/DD STATE SCHOOLUTILIZATION RATES: 1977-2009
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09Fiscal Year
0
20
40
60
80
100In
sti
tuti
on
al
Re
sid
en
tis
pe
r 1
00
,00
0 P
op
ula
tio
n
83
60
40
29
23 22 2220
69
45
31
23
16 14 13 11
Texas
U.S.
11
TEXAS GENERAL POPULATIONINCREASES 125% FROM 1970-2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011).
7071
7273
7475
7677
7879
8081
8283
8485
8687
8889
9091
9293
9495
9697
9899
0001
0203
0405
0607
0809
10
Fiscal Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Ge
ne
ral
Po
pu
lati
on
(M
illi
on
s)
11.1
14.1
17.0
20.6
25.0
12
• Structure and Financingof Intellectual/Developmental Disability (I/DD) Services
II.1 TRENDS IN I/DD SERVICES IN TEXAS &THE U.S.
13
STATE-OPERATED I/DD INSTITUTIONS IN TX
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1 Denton State School 620 2 Abilene State School 516 3 Mexia State School 539 4 Richmond State School 492 5 Lufkin State School 433 6 Austin State School 441 7 Brenham State School 395 8 Corpus Christi State School 364 9 State-operated ICF/ID 10
10 San Angelo State School 307 11 San Antonio State School 295 12 Lubbock State School 271 13 El Paso State Center 143 14 Rio Grande State Center 73
TOTAL 4,899
14
LARGEST CENSUS STATES, PER CAPITA*
*Per 100,000 of the state general population
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1 Mississippi 46.5
2 Arkansas 37.5
3 New Jersey 31.3
4 Louisiana 26.1
5 Connecticut 20.9
6 Texas 19.9
7 North Dakota 19.1
8 North Carolina 19.1
9 South Dakota 18.1
10 Illinois 17.9
CENSUS PER CAPITA*, 2009
15
INSTITUTIONAL PER DIEM RATES IN TEXASAND THE U.S.: 2009
TEXAS: $317*LOUISIANA $539*NEW MEXICO $0*U.S.: $524Highest State (New York): $1,237Lowest State (Arkansas): $281
*Texas’ per diem ranked 3rd lowest of the 40 states with institutions, Louisiana’s ranked 19th highest. New Mexico closed it’s last institution (Los Lunas) in 1997.
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
16
STATES WITHOUT STATE-OPERATEDI/DD INSTITUTIONS
1.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1991)2.NEW HAMPSHIRE (1991)3.VERMONT (1993)4.RHODE ISLAND (1994)5.ALASKA (1997)6.NEW MEXICO (1997)7.WEST VIRGINIA (1998)8.HAWAII (1999)9.MAINE (1999)10.MICHIGAN (2009)11.OREGON (2009)12.ALABAMA (2012)13.MINNESOTA (2000)*14.INDIANA (2007)*
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011. *Denotes ICF/ID units in mental health institutions.
17
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF COMPLETED/IN PROGRESS CLOSURES OF STATE-OPERATED 16+ INSTITUTIONS, U.S.
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1969 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2012 2013
Year
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175N
um
ber
of
Clo
sure
s
1 2 7 10
28
48
80
117
136
153 154
18
WHO’S NEXT?
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1 Nevada 482 Montana 643 Delaware 764 Wyoming 835 Idaho 966 Colorado 1037 North Dakota 1238 Arizona 1269 South Dakota 146
10 Utah 236
SMALLEST INSTITUTIONAL CENSUS, 2009
19
WHO’S NOT?
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1 Texas 4,8992 New Jersey 2,7034 Illinois 2,3083 California 2,1945 North Carolina 1,6386 New York 1,4927 Ohio 1,4238 Mississippi 1,3719 Pennsylvania 1,253
10 Virginia 1,184
LARGEST CENSUS, 2009
20
• Justice Department in 2008 found poor care and little protection from harm for Austin Center residents.
• Austin Center now out of compliance with 153 of 171 provisions that were outlined in a June 2009 agreement.
• Some improvements: increased staff pay, decreased staff turnover, and new policies to protect residents.
• However, half of the 350 Center residents have urgent dental needs, patient restraint records are incomplete, and there are continued employee problems.
• Between November 2010 and May 2011 twelve staff were fired for abuse or neglect of residents.
• Disability activists say the State must close state centers, move residents to community settings including group home.
A. Ball, American-Statesman, Austin, August 7, 2011.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEREVIEWS TEXAS I/DD INSTITUTIONS
21
Utilization Rate: 194 per 100,000
INDIVIDUALS WITH I/DD IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS IN THE U.S., 2009
33%
10%
6%
4%5%
Total: 593,483 Persons
7-15 Persons 58,136
Nursing facilities 16+32,469
United States
Group, foster, host homes, apartments
196,211 Persons
Supported Living246,822 Persons
6/Fewer Persons75%
State inst.16+33,732
Private 16+26,113
16+ Persons 16%
42%
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
22
Utilization Rate: 182 per 100,000
(32nd)
INDIVIDUALS WITH I/DD IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS 33 YEARS LATER: 2009
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
11%
31%
36%
3%
11%
6%
Total: 44,782
<8 Persons (78%)Private ICF/MR 14+ - 1,374
State Schools - 4,899
Nursing Facilities - 2,880
TEXAS
9-13 Persons - 732 (2%)
ICF/MR Group Homes - 5,029
Supported Living - 16,194
Other Group Homes - 13,674
14+ Persons (20%)
23
I/DD REVENUE SOURCESIN 2009: UNITED STATES
3%
39%57%STATE
$20.91 BillionFEDERAL
$30.58 Billion
6%
25%
15%
52%
Total: $53.21 Billion
Title XX/SSBG (1%)
HCBS Waiver
Waiver SSI/ADC
ICF/MR
Other MedicaidOther Federal (1%)
LOCAL $1.72 Billion
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
24
I/DD REVENUE SOURCESIN 2009: TEXAS
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
32%
66%
STATE $593.7 Million
FEDERAL$1,229.7 Million
47%
13%
38%
Total: $1.86 Billion
HCBS Waiver
Waiver SSI/ADC
ICF/MR
Other Medicaid (1%)Other Federal Funds (1%)
LOCAL $32.8 Million (2%)
25
STATES VARY GREATLY IN THE AMOUNT OF I/DD MEDICAID FUNDING
NY Times, August 2, 2011
26
UNITED STATES
FEDERAL HCBS WAIVER SPENDING DOUBLES ICF/ID SPENDING IN 2009
73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
Fiscal Year
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
Bill
ion
s o
f 20
09 D
olla
rs
$9.4$8.5
$7.9
$7.7$10.1
$11.9
$15.9
ICF/ID
HCBS Waiver
Intercept(2001)
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
27
TEXAS
BUT TEXAS’ WAIVER SPENDING IS STILL BELOW ICF/ID SPENDING
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09Fiscal Year
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Mil
lio
ns
of
20
09
Do
lla
rs
$202
$338
$669$702
$584
$46
$228
$328
$472
ICF/ID
HCBS Waiver
28
TEXAS
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2009. *Includes Home and Community-Based Services (HCS) and Community Living Assistance and Support Services (CLASS) Waivers.
HCBS WAIVER PARTICIPANT GROWTH IS INCREASING IN TEXAS: 1982-2009*
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09Fiscal Year
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Nu
mb
er o
f P
arti
cip
ants
0 0 68 288 4201,335
2,3983,164
4,6015,140
7,1237,955
9,11110,204
12,447
14,455
16,433
18,619
20,045
29
• Case management; transition assistance;• Adaptive aids; minor home modifications;• Medical supplies; nursing;• Adult foster care; residential care and/or assistance;• Personal Emergency Response System (PERS)• OT, PT, Speech Pathology, Audiology; specialized therapies• Personal assistance;• Home delivered meals; dietary• Respite care;• Supported employment; day habilitation;• Dental, psychological services.
II.2: TEXAS HCBS WAIVER SERVICES
30
TEXAS HCBS WAIVER SERVICES (Cont.)
AMONG THE HCBS WAIVER SERVICES NOT PROVIDED:
• Assistive technology
• Community integration training
• Transportation
• Independent living skills training.
• Communication devices
• Nutritional counseling
• Private duty nursing
31
• Texas has two major HCBS Waivers for which persons with I/DD await services:
1. Home and Community Services (HCS) Waiver: 51,856 persons on “interest list”
2. Community Living Assistance and Support Services (CLASS) Waiver:36,770 persons on “interest list”
Source: Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) interest list.*Duplicated Count. In March 2009, the HCS and CLASS “interest lists” were 41,011 and 25,289, respectively.
TEXAS “INTEREST LIST” FOR MEDICAID WAIVER SERVICES AS OF MAY 2011*
32
TEXAS RANKED 49th IN WAIVER UTILIZATION IN 2009, NEW MEXICO 8TH AND LOUISIANA 16TH*
* Federal-State HCBS Waiver spendingper citizen of the general population.
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1 New York $247 18 South Dakota $113 35 Oklahoma $632 Maine $230 19 Wisconsin $106 36 New Jersey $573 Rhode Island $214 20 Kansas $104 37 Virginia $564 Minnesota $211 21 Delaware $100 38 Alabama $545 Vermont $205 22 Nebraska $93 39 California $526 District of Columbia$203 23 Maryland $91 40 North Carolina $517 Wyoming $178 24 Tennessee $90 41 South Carolina $518 New Mexico $139 25 Iowa $89 42 Florida $479 Connecticut $133 26 Massachusetts $88 43 Utah $47
10 Pennsylvania $131 27 Hawaii $82 44 Arkansas $4511 North Dakota $131 28 Michigan $80 45 Idaho $4412 West Virginia $127 29 Ohio $79 46 Kentucky $4213 New Hampshire $124 30 Washington $76 47 Illinois $3814 Alaska $124 31 Montana $72 48 Georgia $3415 Oregon $121 32 Indiana $72 49 Texas $2816 Louisiana $119 33 Missouri $66 50 Nevada $2717 Arizona $115 34 Colorado $63 51 Mississippi $13
UNITED STATES $82
33
II.3 MEASURING COMMITMENT TO I/DD SERVICES:FISCAL EFFORT & OTHER METRICS
Fiscal effort is a ratio that can be utilized to rank states according to the proportion of their total statewide personal income devoted to the financing of I/DD services.
Fiscal effort is defined as a state’s spending for I/DD services per $1,000 of total statewide personal income.
34
FISCAL EFFORT FOR I/DD SERVICES IN TEXAS LAGS U.S. AVERAGE FOR 33 YEARS, DECLINED 2003-09
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
7778
7980
8182
8384
8586
8788
8990
9192
9394
9596
9798
9900
0102
0304
0506
0708
09
Fiscal Year
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00D
oll
ars
pe
r $
1,0
00
of
Pe
rso
na
l In
co
me
$3.40
$4.02$4.25 $4.34
$2.30
$2.28
$2.03 $1.93
(Texas ranked 50TH in 2009)
U.S.
TEXAS
35
LEADERS AND LAGGARDS INI/DD FISCAL EFFORT*: 2009
*Fiscal effort is I/DD spending per $1,000 of statewide aggregate personal income. (LOUISIANA 6TH, NEW MEXICO 15TH AND TEXAS 50TH)
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1 New York $10.10 18 Wyoming $4.90 35 South Carolina $3.492 Maine $8.32 19 Arkansas $4.75 36 Arizona $3.493 Connecticut $7.69 20 Massachusetts $4.72 37 Missouri $3.454 Minnesota $7.54 21 Idaho $4.69 38 Washington $3.425 North Dakota $7.28 22 South Dakota $4.59 39 Oklahoma $3.396 Louisiana $7.13 23 Mississippi $4.26 40 Illinois $3.137 Ohio $6.84 24 Tennessee $4.17 41 Hawaii $3.118 Iowa $6.50 25 Nebraska $4.16 42 Utah $2.949 Rhode Island $6.31 26 Indiana $4.13 43 Maryland $2.89
10 Vermont $6.21 27 Kansas $4.11 44 Kentucky $2.8711 District of Columbia $5.91 28 North Carolina $4.06 45 Virginia $2.7312 Pennsylvania $5.70 29 Alaska $3.95 46 Alabama $2.2813 West Virginia $5.70 30 California $3.82 47 Colorado $2.2314 Wisconsin $5.46 31 Michigan $3.80 48 Georgia $2.1415 New Mexico $5.34 32 New Hampshire $3.79 49 Florida $2.0916 Oregon $5.18 33 Montana $3.77 50 Texas $1.9317 Delaware $5.00 34 New Jersey $3.62 51 Nevada $1.59
UNITED STATES: $4.34
36
District of Columbia $71,044 26 LOUISIANA $38,4461 Connecticut $56,001 27 Wisconsin $38,4322 Massachusetts $51,552 28 Iowa $38,2813 New Jersey $50,781 29 Maine $37,3004 Maryland $49,025 30 Oregon $37,0955 New York $48,821 31 Nevada $36,9976 Wyoming $47,851 32 Missouri $36,9797 Virginia $44,762 33 Oklahoma $36,4218 Alaska $44,174 34 Ohio $36,3959 New Hampshire $44,084 35 North Carolina $35,638
10 Washington State $43,564 36 Michigan $35,59711 Illinois $43,159 37 Georgia $35,49012 California $43,104 38 Montana $35,31713 Minnesota $42,843 39 Tennessee $35,30714 Colorado $42,802 40 Arizona $34,99915 Rhode Island $42,579 41 Indiana $34,94316 Pennsylvania $41,152 42 Alabama $33,94517 Hawaii $41,021 43 NEW MEXICO $33,83718 North Dakota $40,596 44 Kentucky $33,34819 Vermont $40,283 45 South Carolina $33,16320 Delaware $39,962 46 Arkansas $33,15021 Kansas $39,737 47 West Virginia $32,64122 Nebraska $39,557 48 Utah $32,59523 TEXAS $39,493 49 Idaho $32,25724 Florida $39,272 50 Mississippi $31,186
25 South Dakota $38,865 UNITED STATES $40,5841District of Columbia not ranked by Bureau.
STATES RANKED BY PERSONAL INCOME PER
CAPITA, 20101
Sources: Estimates for 2010 based on 4/1/10 decennial census data (released 12/10); U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census (2011).
37
III.RECENT TRENDS IN: Family Support, Supported Employment,& Aging Caregivers
1. FAMILY SUPPORT
2. SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT
3. IMPACT OF AGING CAREGIVERS
38
III.1: FAMILY SUPPORT DEFINED
FAMILY SUPPORT INCLUDES
• Respite
• Family counseling
• Architectural adaptation of the home
• In-home training, education, behavior management
• Sibling support programs, and
• Purchase of specialized equipment
“CASH SUBSIDY FAMILY SUPPORT” INCLUDES:
Payments or vouchers directly to families; families determine what is purchased
39
FAMILIES SUPPORTED IN TEXAS ARE 12% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED I/DD CAREGIVING FAMILIES
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
FISCAL YEAR
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
FA
MIL
IES
5% 5% 9% 12%
201.0220.3
228.4 234.1
Total I/DD Caregiving FamiliesFamilies Supported by State I/DD Agencies
40
FAMILIES SUPPORTED: TEXAS LAGSTHE U.S. AVERAGE
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
State
Families Supported
% of All Caregiving
FamiliesNational
RankNew Mexico 33% 3Louisiana 26% 10UNITED STATES 17%Texas 12% 31
41
“While supported employment has made significant gains since its formal introduction in 1984 (P.L. 98-527), segregated services continue to outpace the growth of supported employment nationally.”
True in 2004 and true today.
(Rusch & Braddock, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 2004)
III.2: SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT
42
PER CAPITA* SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENTWORKERS IN LOUISIANA AND TEXAS LAST IN U.S.
National Rank State
Workers per Capita
(General Population)
1 Vermont 146 2 Connecticut 129 3 Iowa 111 4 Oklahoma 93 5 South Dakota 90 6 Maine 87 7 Maryland 82 8 Pennsylvania 75 9 Alaska 71
10 District of Columbia 71 13 New Mexico 63 49 Texas 3 50 Louisiana 2
UNITED STATES 34
*Per 100,000 of General Population
43
III.3: IMPACT OF AGING CAREGIVERS
44
• 1970s: 59.1 years
• 1993: 66.2 years
• U.S. General Population: 70.4 years
• In the future “…those without severe impairment can be expected to have a life span equal to that of the general population.”
LONGEVITY INCREASES FOR PERSONS WITH AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
Source: M. Janicki. (1996). Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Aging and Mental Retardation, University of Illinois at Chicago.
45
20% OF PERSONS WITH I/DD LIVE AT HOME WITH CAREGIVERS AGED 60 YEARS OR MORE
TEXASAGING CAREGIVERS AGED 60+
46,752
Caregivers Aged 41-59 82,121
Caregivers Aged <41105,224
TOTAL FAMILY CAREGIVERS: 234,097
35%
45%
20%
Source: Braddock et al., Coleman Institute and Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado, 2011, based on Fujiura (1998).
46
STATES WITH GREATEST AND LEAST PROPORTIONS OF RESIDENTS AGED 65+ YEARS, ‘09
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
PERCENT OF STATE POPULATION AGED 65+
FLORIDA (1st)
WEST VIRGINIA (2nd)
MAINE (3rd)
PENNSYLVANIA (4th)
IOWA (5th)
U.S.
COLORADO (47th)
GEORGIA (48th)
TEXAS (49th)
UTAH (50th)
ALASKA (51st)
17.2%
15.8%
15.6%
15.4%
14.8%
12.9%
10.6%
10.3%
10.2%
9.0%
New Mexico 32nd and Louisiana 38th
47
AGED 65+ YEARS: 2010-2050
AGING POPULATION DOUBLES 2010-40, U.S.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
Am
eric
an
s A
ged
65
+ (
Mill
ion
s)
40
55
71
80
87
48
III.4: ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTYIN THE STATES
49
ONLY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS CONFIDENT ABOUT THE U.S. ECONOMY
11-13-16-17-17-19-19-20-20-20-22-24-25-26-26-26-27-27-27-28-28-28-29-29-29-30-30-30-31-31-31-31-31-31-33-33-33-33-33-33-34-34-34-35-35-35-36-37-37-39-44
-45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIANebraska
North DakotaSouth Dakota
MarylandMassachusetts
UtahIowa
MinnesotaVirginiaAlaska
ColoradoWisconsin
TexasCalifornia
HawaiiSouth Carolina
GeorgiaKansas
New YorkIllinois
New HampshireNew Jersey
PennsylvaniaNorth Carolina
WashingtonNew MexicoConnecticut
VermontIndiana
AlabamaMissouriMichigan
OklahomaArizona
MontanaWyomingArkansas
OregonTennessee
Rhode IslandFlorida
OhioDelawareKentucky
NevadaMississippi
LouisianaIdahoMaine
West Virginia
ECONOMIC CONFIDENCE INDEXLeast Pessimistic
Most Pessimistic
Gallup Poll, in C. Rampell, "Why Washington Likes Itself," NY Times, 8/28/11
50
U.S. RANK STATE INDEX
U.S. RANK STATE INDEX
1 North Dakota 4.68 27 Arkansas 0.002 Texas 1.29 28 Michigan -0.033 Oklahoma 1.08 29 Arizona -0.084 Nebraska 0.91 30 Hawaii -0.085 South Dakota 0.75 31 Pennsylvania -0.116 Utah 0.75 32 New Mexico -0.127 Alaska 0.70 33 Rhode Island -0.128 Wyoming 0.69 34 District of Columbia-0.139 Colorado 0.36 35 Connecticut -0.1310 Wisconsin 0.26 36 Tennessee -0.1311 Washington State 0.23 37 New Hampshire -0.1912 Louisiana 0.19 38 South Carolina -0.2413 Illinois 0.18 39 West Virginia -0.2514 Idaho 0.15 40 Florida -0.2915 Oregon 0.14 41 North Carolina -0.3316 Vermont 0.13 42 Mississippi -0.38
17 Virginia 0.08 43 Missouri -0.4118 Montana 0.07 44 Indiana -0.4219 Delaware 0.06 45 Alabama -0.4920 Massachusetts 0.06 46 Georgia -0.5121 Kansas 0.05 47 Maryland -0.5222 Iowa 0.04 48 New York -0.5823 California 0.04 49 Maine -0.7624 Minnesota 0.03 50 Nevada -0.9225 Kentucky 0.03 51 New Jersey -1.0226 Ohio 0.01
UNITED STATES 0.00
INDEX OF ECONOMIC MOMENTUM1 IN THE STATES: JUNE 2011
1Weighted average growth in personal income, employment and population (Federal Funds Information for States, June 2011).
51
CHANGING POPULATION MIGRATIONIN THE STATES 2006-09
Source: Federal Funds Information for States (2009). State Policy Reports, Vol. 27, No. 21.
California (793,578)New York (639,918)Michigan (356,139)New Jersey (229,605)Illinois (229,524)
Texas 644,310North Carolina 373,278Arizona 298,480Georgia 298,235South Carolina 183,159
OUT-MIGRATION: TOP 5 STATES
IN-MIGRATION: TOP 5 STATES 7th Louisiana (184,145)20th New Mexico 21,712
52
STATE BOND RATINGS: AUGUST 2011
Delaware AAA Alaska AA+ Alabama AA Arizona AA-
Florida AAA Idaho AA+ Arkansas AA Kentucky AA-Georgia AAA Kansas AA+ Colorado AA Michigan AA-Indiana AAA New Mexico AA+ Connecticut AA New Jersey AA-
Iowa AAA North Dakota AA+ Hawaii AAMaryland AAA Ohio AA+ Louisiana AA
Minnesota AAA Oklahoma AA+ Maine AA
Missouri AAA Oregon AA+ Massachusetts AA Illinois A+Nebraska AAA South Carolina AA+ Mississippi AA California A-
North Carolina AAA South Dakota AA+ Montana AAUtah AAA Tennessee AA+ Nevada AA
Virginia AAA Texas AA+ New Hampshire AAWyoming AAA Vermont AA+ New York AA
Washington AA+ Pennsylvania AA Canada AAA
Rhode Island AA France AAAWest Virginia AA Germany AAAWisconsin AA Sweden AAA
United Kingdom AAAUSA AA+Chile AASpain AA
Source: Standard & Poor's Ratings, August 11, 2011 China AA-Up in rank since January 2010: ID, LA, NE, OR, SD, & OR; down in rank: NV, NJ. Japan AA-
Italy A+Ireland BBB+Russia BBB+India BBB-Portugal BBB-Greece CCLibya NR(August 11, 2011; NR - No rating)
SELECTED SOVEREIGN
NATIONS
TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 4TIER 3
TIER 5
53
1. GENERAL ADVANCES
2. SMART HOME TECHNOLOGIES
3. PERSONAL SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES
4. CLOUD COMPUTING
IV. DEVELOPMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY
54
THE ARC’s PROPHECY: 22 YEARS AGO
There is a prevailing belief …in the field of assistive technology that people with mental retardation are not appropriate consumers of assistive technology…
People with mental retardation should be named as a ‘traditionally underrepresented group’…It is the belief of the Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States that advances [in AT] will not occur without strong leadership from our federal government (Cavalier, 1988)
Source: Testimony of A. Cavalier before the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped, 1988.
IV.1 GENERAL ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY
55
ADVANCES IN MICROELECTRONICS
Dramatic increase in price-performance of computing technology
Advances in wireless technology, GPS, broadband, and web-based services
Improved access to computers & the Internet including voice recognition systems
Easier to use Personal Digital Assistants (PDA’s) with “prompting capabilities” and “context-awareness”
Source: D. Braddock, State of the Science Conference, Denver, 2006.
56
A NEW GENERATION OF TECHNOLOGIES
Sources: Adapted from Business Week, August 25, 2003.
AS SOME MARKETS MATURE…
NEW HIGH-GROWTH MARKETS EMERGE…
57
“I think we can do a ‘virtual nursing home’ with technology”…
Andy GroveCo-Founder, Intel Corp.
In USA Today, 2006
IV.2: DOWN TO EARTH:SMART HOME TECHNOLOGY
58
U.S. DEMAND FOR ID RESIDENTIAL SERVICES IN THE NEXT DECADE IS 165,000
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Fiscal Year
0.0
300.0
600.0
900.0
Th
ou
san
ds
of
Per
son
s
259.9
345.2
440.2
607.1
772.76 or Fewer Person Settings7-15 Person SettingsPublic and Private 16 + Person Settings
Projected from 2000-2009
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
UNITED STATES
59
I/DD RESIDENTIAL SERVICES EXPECTED TO GROW BY 31,000 PERSONS 2010-2020
Projected from 2000-2009
Source: Braddock, D., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Fiscal Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
Th
ou
san
ds
of
Per
son
s
10.216.0
19.9
45.9
76.7
6 or Fewer Person Settings7-15 Person SettingsPublic and Private 16 + Person Settings
TEXAS
60
INTEGRATED WIRELESSSENSOR NETWORKS
IN THE FUTURE:
A combination of wireless cell phone, Internet, and sensor technology will connect people, objects, and events.
Smart homes/care will play key roles in assisted living for persons with I/DD, allowing seamless connectivity between clients, caregivers/health care providers, and parents.
61
WHERE TO PUT WIRELESS SENSORS?
TWO PRIMARY METHODS TO REMOTELY MONITOR A PERSON’S PHYSICAL AND MENTAL STATE AND LOCATION:
1. Via instrumenting the environment(Sensors located in rooms, on doorways, drawers, faucets, light switches, mattresses, pill bottles, etc.)
2. Via sensors located directly on people
Both have advantages: environmental sensors are less instrusive, and do not require user compliance. Person sensors offer more direct measurement.
62
MIT PLACELAB - BEHIND THE SCENES
Context-aware PDA with wireless sensors/motes
Source: MIT PlaceLab website at http://architecture.mit.edu/house_n/placelab.html
63
Source: Braddock, D., Coleman Institute, University of Colorado, 2010.
U.S. SMART HOME SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR PERSONS WITH ID
• IMAGINE!BOULDER AND LONGMONT, COLORADO
• REST ASSURED, LLC., LAFAYETTE, INDIANA
• SOUND RESPONSE,MADISON, WISCONSIN
64
IMAGINE! SMART HOME, BOULDER, COLORADO: COMPLETED 2009
Imagine! Smart Homes in Boulder and Longmont, Coloradohttp://www.imaginesmarthomes.org/
65
IMAGINE! SMART HOME, BOULDER, COLORADO: GREEN TECHNOLOGIES
Geothermal systems heat and cool the home
Photovoltaic cells generate electricity
66
IMAGINE! SMART HOME, LONGMONT, CO, OPENED MAY 2011
Imagine! Smart Homes in Boulder and Longmont, Coloradohttp://www.imaginesmarthomes.org/
67
• Private donations
• HUD
• Cities of Boulder and Longmont
• State of Colorado/Medicaid
FUNDING FOR HOMES
68
• Employee/manager portal for centralized information collection and reporting
• Web-based medication prompt system
• Location based activity prompting/logging
• Web based training courses
• Lifelogging of resident histories
• Family portal for daily activities and health status with text and picture-sharing
STAFF SYSTEMS
IMAGINE! SMART HOMES, BOULDER/LONGMONT
69
• Accessible control of environment and appliances
• Accessible, safe kitchen and bathroom
• Cameras monitor high-risk areas
• Automated windows and doors
• Task prompters and reminders
• Specialized, accessible PC, Internet, journalingand web conferencing
CONSUMER, ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNICATIONS ADAPTATIONS
IMAGINE! SMART HOMES, BOULDER/LONGMONT
70
• Activity and safety sensors are utilized: bio-metric, motion, pressure, contact, security, fire, temp, nurse call, door threshold.
• Residents’ badges provide location, call for assistance.
• Real-time resident monitoring, alerts, reporting and care planning.
ELITE CARE/CUROTEK WEB-BASED MONITORING SYSTEM
IMAGINE! SMART HOMES, BOULDER/LONGMONT
71
IMAGINE! SMART HOME ADAPTS ELITECARE WEB-BASED MONITORING SYSTEM
72
Creating Autonomy-Risk Equilibrium
• Infrared/RF tracking• Pendant Assistance calls• Bed weight, threshold, motion• Control lights, locks, appliances• Programmable events/alerts• Building sensors/controls• Real-time Intra/Intranet• DB Reports, trends, queries
www.elitecare.comOregon Assisted Living
Oatfield EstatesJefferson Manor
Holistic care model
Open building design
Supportive technology
Elite Care Technologies CARE Systems
73
EliteCARE Copyright 2001
Assist resident Badge detects when resident
reaches his/her room Unlock their doors Turn lights on/off Turn ceiling fan on/off Disable unsafe appliances
Predict/prompt activity (future) Using statistical modeling
Source: Elite Care Corp.
SMART HOUSE BADGE
74
REST ASSURED PROGRAM
Staff person monitors several apartments simultaneously.
75
• Uses PTZ (Pan, Tilt, Zoom) cameras for monitoringin high risk areas like the kitchen
• Remote supervision via two-way audio/video communication with caregiver
• Motion, temperature, carbon monoxide, and door brake sensors used in, in addition to a Personal Emergency Response System
• Consumers report increased independence; caregiveris not a constant physical presence in the house
• Reduced overall cost of care
• Currently used primarily for third-shift support
Source: Rest Assured, Wabash, Indiana.
REST ASSURED PROGRAM
76
• Developed in collaboration with EPICS (Engineering Projects In Community Service) at Purdue University
• Serves consumers with ID
• Nearly 300 homes and apartments withover 400 consumers served in eight states: FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, MD, OH, & WI
• Recent agreement with Humana to market technology to 500,000 elderly caregivers
Source: Dustin Wright, General Manager, Rest Assured, LLC, Wabash, Indiana.
REST ASSURED PROGRAM–ATTRIBUTES
77
Monitoring Station• Professional Monitors• Communication between
Monitor and staff/ individuals served
• Access to protocols and personal intervention strategies
• Provider agency back-up• Individualized alarm
readings• Generates reports
SOUND RESPONSE SYSTEMS: MADISON
78
SENSORS
Personal Pagers
Door/Window Security Sensors
Smoke Detectors
Carbon Monoxide Detectors
Flood/Moisture Sensors
Motion/Sound Sensors
Stove Sensors
Incontinent Detectors
Other Sensors Available Upon Request
79
Completely Wireless in the Home
Cellular Transmission- No Phone or Internet Connection is Required
2-Way Communication
Event Sequencing
Data Tracking
Portable and Adaptable to People’sHomes and Abilities
EQUIPMENT FEATURES
Sound Response costs average between $25 to $850 per person per month
80
INDIANA GOVERNOR MITCH DANIELSENDORSES SMART HOME TECHNOLOGY
“We can alleviate some of the demand for Direct Support Professionals (DSPs) by identifying new service options for people who do not need intensive DSP support.
The system is tailored to the needs of each person who uses it and has been shown to improve personal independence, as well as alleviating the needs for a direct support professional where one is not needed.”
Mitch Daniels, Governor, State of IndianaThe Arc of Indiana, Meet the Candidates, Summer 2008
81
CURRENTLY HAS MEDICAID WAIVER AMENDMENT APPROVED BY CMS
• INDIANA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, OHIO, & WEST VIRGINIA
SELF-DIRECTED WAIVER ALLOWING FOR TECHNOLOGIES
• WISCONSIN
STATES EXPRESSING INTEREST IN SUBMITTING WAIVER AMENDMENTS FOR TECHNOLOGIES TO CMS
• KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS,& NEW JERSEY
STATES WITH MEDICAID SUPPORT FOR SMART HOME TECHNOLOGIES
82
RECOMMENDATIONS:o Adopt early: learn from experienceo Start small: expand incrementallyo Adopt gradually: change care procedureso Assess needs, cost-benefits, & risk o Plan pilot & evaluation with R&D partner
o Source: Rodney Bell, Coleman Institute consultant (2007)
2000 2005 2015 2020
Care information systems … on web Predictive modeling Cognitive Assistance
EVOLUTION OF SMART HOME TECHNOLOGY
We are here
83
1. PDA Task Prompting Software
2. Adapted Web Browser
3. Adapted E-mail
4. Audio Books
5. Location Tracking
6. Personal Support Robots, Teaching Technologies
II.3: PERSONAL SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES
84
PDA TASK PROMPTING SOFTWARE
Visual Assistant (Prompting System)
Source: Ablelink Technologies, Colorado Springs (Terry & Jonathan).
85
A pocket personal computer with an integrated PC-slot digital camera;
Staff/caretakers take pictures of—and narrate--the steps in a task;
SOURCE: Ablelink Technologies, Colorado Springs.
The verbal instructions and images guide users through the steps:– Grocery shopping– Medications– Personal hygiene– Using public transportation, etc.
VISUAL ASSISTANT
86
Adapted Web Browser
The Web Trek adapted web browser improves access to the World Wide Web for people who have difficulty with reading and writing.
ADAPTED WEB BROWSER AND E-MAIL
SOURCE: Ablelink Technologies, Colorado Springs.
Adapted E-mail Program
87
Source: Ablelink Technologies, Colorado Springs; www.ablelinktech.com
ROCKET READER AUDIO BOOKS
88
LOCATION TRACKING Nextel mobile locator:
http://www.nextel.com/en/services/gps/mobile_locator Wherifone:
http://www.wherify.com/wherifone/ Accutracking:
http://www.accutracking.com/ 911 to go:
http://www.travelbygps.com/articles/tracking.php/
Contact your cell phone provider for phones/services
89
TREKKER BREEZE GPS
Verbally announces the names of streets, intersections and landmarks as you walk.
Source:http://
www.visabilitystore.org/browse.cfm/trekker-breeze-
gps/
90
INDOOR WAYFINDING SUPPORT
SOURCE: http://cognitivetech.washington.edu/assets2006_liu.pdf.
Participants preferred images with arrows, not audio alone
[In Development]
91
PERSONAL SUPPORT ROBOTS
Can serve as “life support partner” to follow a person from place to place, respond to commands, aid in activities of daily living, help with route finding, interact with others.
Source: Maja J Mataric, University of Southern California, Viterbi School of Engineering
92
Animated Teaching/Learning Tools Students choose animated images representing
themselves and their teacher.
Then students use the animated characters to engage in learning activities such as reading instruction.
Each of the 7 characters makes hundreds of emotions and expressions in real time.
For more information contact Sarel Van Vuuren at sarel@colorado.edu http://ics.colorado.edu/
TEACHING TECHNOLOGIES
93
• Envisions systems with wearable or environmental sensors that infer a user’s context and cognitive state.
• Prompts, reminders, and other forms of automatic intervention.
• Tasks addressed include navigation, remediation of memory impairments, behavioral self-regulation, and monitoring and guidance in the performance of ADLs.
Henry KautzDepartment of Computer Science
University of Rochester, January 2010
COGNITIVE ASSISTANCE FRONTIER
94
PETER BLANCK, PhD, JD, Chairman, Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University
DAVID BRADDOCK, PhD, Chair of Conference, Associate VP, University of Colorado
ANN CALDWELL, PhD, Chief Research and Innovations Officer, The Arc of the US
HENRY CLAYPOOL, Director, Office on Disability, US DHHS
BILL COLEMAN, founding donor, partner, Alsop-Louie Partners, San Francisco
DIANE COYLE, PhD, economist, internationally acclaimed author of The Economics of Enough: How to Run an Economy as if the Future Matters, Princeton Univ. Press
MARK EMERY, CEO, Imagine! Colorado
JIM GARDNER, PhD, President and CEO, The Council on Quality and Leadership
SHARON LEWIS, Commissioner, Administration on Developmental Disabilities, US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS)
WILLIAM POUND, Executive Director, National Conference of State Legislatures
JO ANN SIMMONS, Board Chair, National Down Syndrome Society
SUE SWENSON, Deputy Assist. Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitation
NANCY THALER, Executive Director, National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDDS)
Coleman Institute Conference, October 13, 2011 in Westminster, CO
State of the States, State of the Nation: 2011
ColemanInstitute.org
95
CONTACT INFORMATION
David Braddock, Ph.D.Coleman-Turner Professor of Psychiatry
& Executive Director
Coleman Institute for Cognitive DisabilitiesUniversity of Colorado System (SYS 586)
3825 Iris Avenue, Suite 200Boulder, CO 80301
E-mail: braddock@cu.eduPhone: 303-492-0639
http://ColemanInstitute.org