WEST ROXBURY, Mass. — Surveillance cameras are everywhere: In convenience stores, parking lots, ATMs and even in some dressing rooms. While we have gotten used to the omnipresent video camera, a recent bill filed on Beacon Hill would take it even farther. The proposal is to install video cameras in the common areas of group homes for people with developmental disabilities and mental illness.
With the state’s Disabled Persons Protection Commission launching over 2,300 investigations of abuse in group homes this past year, installing cameras seem like a quick fix for a growing concern. But the solution can be just as complicated as the problem.
Protection — or intrusion?
Polly Wolfe knows the experience all too well. She said her daughter Heidi has suffered abuse at the hands of staff.
“My daughter had bruises all over her. Some were six inches long — it looked like rulers or something near her legs and on her knees,” Wolfe said.
As for the explanation from the staff, “They all just say, ‘Well, maybe it’s her diet or maybe it’s this or maybe it’s her medication.' And I said, or maybe they abused her. Well, she ended up in the hospital with a sprained ankle with no one to account for it.”
Wolfe recalled three investigations in each case, but the staff members quit before they could go anywhere. She said if there were cameras installed, the investigation process would be a lot a quicker, and the presence of cameras would deter the wrong people from working in these homes to begin with.
Her daughter's group home is now under new ownership, and Wolfe credits her unrelenting fight for this change.
“Now I have people who listen to me. But the thing is, I fight for my daughter. Most of these people don’t have someone to fight. It’s not just for my daughter. Cameras protect the innocent,” she said.
But they do more, and that’s what concerns Leo Sarkissian, head of The Arc of Massachusetts, a statewide disability advocacy organization.
“It’s an intrusive, invasive bill to put video recordings in the common areas. It’s trying to solve a problem, probably without looking at the whole picture,” Sarkissian said.
Getting the picture at one group home
To get a better sense of the whole picture, I went to West Roxbury. Tucked away on a quiet residential street is a home for autistic men. The white house with black shutters and well-kept lawn fits right in with the other single-family homes. It’s mid-afternoon, and the staff members greet the men as they come home from their daytime activities.
Five men live at this home, and they’re all of Chinese descent. Francis is one of them, and he talked about his day, working at a local employment agency for the disabled. On this particular day, Francis made dental kits.
As he chatted, it was clear that he felt a connection with the staff members. After all, they’re here around the clock, helping the guys out with meals, medications and keeping them company. But soon there might be more company — in the form of security cameras, to keep an eye on every group home in Massachusetts.
A couple of weeks ago, lawmakers held a hearing to discuss installing cameras as a way to prevent abuse and neglect of residents in group homes. I asked Holly Spahn, the group home supervisor, what she thought of the idea.
“I’m really on the fence about it because I understand it on a management level. I understand for the safety of the individuals how quickly that would let us know what is going on in the program. But I’m huge on human rights, and quality of life, normalization,” Spahn said.
After all, imagine the entire first floor of your home with a camera in every room: the living room, dining room, hallway and kitchen. Essentially, the entire first floor of the house would resemble the set of the TV show "Big Brother."
“In my opinion, it goes against what we do, and the whole purpose of starting residential programs was to take people out of institutions and places that were more facility-like,” said Spahn.
Is adding cameras to group homes the answer? Staff member Zac Burlingame has worked in group homes for 3 years and had mixed feelings.
“I don’t think it would be necessary in this house. But prior this, I had worked in a house with teens with mental health issues, so there were incidences of brief assaults and stuff. Either way, if a staff got injured we could see how, or if staff isn’t reacting the way he shouldn’t be, we could see. It might be good to have as backup,” said Burlingame.
Possible alternative solutions
One way around cameras could be higher pay for workers, an incentive that could attract and retain quality staff. The going rate is $11 an hour. At that rate, turnover is high — an average of 3–6 months.
Spahn said salary is directly tied to keeping good staff.
“As far as the pay and being able to have that directly affect the quality of staff you have, I absolutely agree with that. Because the staff that are really great don’t ever stay put,” said Spahn.
There’s another alternative to cameras, one that Leo Sarkissian of ARC said should have higher priority with the legislature.
“We’ve had a bill sitting that we’ve been trying to get passed for National Criminal Background Check, so people working in R.I., if they were convicted of a felony, cannot work [in Mass.]. They are able to cross the border, right? We wouldn’t even know, the people interviewing them, because the state doesn’t have a National Background Check,” said Sarkissian.
While lawmakers debate these issues and the complexities that surround them, Nancy Alterio, head of the Disabled Persons Protection Commission, was just glad for the discussion.
“Having this conversation just increases awareness, increases understanding and will ultimately increase the protections of people with disabilities,” she said.
