Once again with the either/or arguments. Everyone has known this day would come since at least the 70's.

Why aren't we well onto implementing the second generation of the remedies that were called for then. Why are these questions still being asked?

The only complicating factor in this whole sad affair has been the market value of that prime land.

I volunteered at Rosewood in the late 1960's. It was a hellhole. When I visited two years ago it still was a place where no one should live.
Ideally why not have each person live with another person or two maximum, assuming that the people know and like each other and want to live together. They should live is regular houses or apartments or condos is regular neighborhoods, near their families if they have families who are involved in their lives.

All people deserve the freedom to live in community settings, regardless of their disabilities! Forcing people to live separately from the general population violates their human rights, denigrates their humanity, and reflects poorly on our whole nation.

There is no need for facilities like Rosewood in this day and age. Just because a person has a disability doesn't mean they should be segregated in that kind of setting. The care at such large institutions is notoriously poor. We now have the ability to care for everyone in our communities, no matter how severe their disability. People with disabilities should reside in neighborhoods where they have a more normal existence and meaningful choices. If we stop wasting precious dollars operating outmoded facilities like Rosewood, we can focus our resources on ensuring quality in the community. Think about it - where would you want to live if you had a disability? Not Rosewood! It is high time for all of us to make space in our hearts and lives to include people with disabilties and stop shuttling them out of sight. It is not only the right thing to do; it's the law.

"If we stop wasting precious dollars operating outmoded facilities like Rosewood, we can focus our resources on ensuring quality in the community... "

All we have to do is actually commit to and then actually follow up (read: fund) on that obviously more appealing but also poorly specified option... sadly and as we all know far too well it just won't happen. Will it?

Did it work for the mentally ill when Reagan closed and de-funded the mental hospitals? Did that work out well for anyone?

Don't mistake my comments as criticism of the goal here (it truly isn't) but rather as the dose of reality I see being needed.

A warehousing operation of the scale that Rosewood and similar facilities once practiced is a memory now and should remain as such... but the principle of it still has a role.

We can and should do it better but that doesn't mean we can do without.

Facilities like Rosewood serve no purpose in Maryland or anywhere else in the United States. Every individual deserves respect and the chance to live the life he or she chooses. Segregation is not legal and has not been legal for decades. Separate but equal has likewise been struck down. Yet there are those who want to force individuals with disabilities into segregated institutions. What is the appeal of pretending people don't exist and placing them out of sight? In the community, people with disabilities and people "without" disabilities are able to communicate and interact. This has a positive effect on the lives of everyone involved.

To answer the question posed: What would be better than Rosewood? Individuals living in their own homes with people of their choosing assisting them. Individuals decorating their rooms how they want. Individuals working in the jobs that they want. Individuals receiving respect and support. Individuals being able to be true members of society. In short: the freedoms of living their lives that is not afforded to someone in an institution.

The Arc of Washington County has been providing community residential supports for people with developmental disabilities for over 50 years. Many of the people living in homes all over Washington County came from Rosewood as well as other institutions. These folks are thriving as part of a community where they go to church, shop, out to eat, attend sporting events, visit their own doctor or just sit on their front porch like everyone else. Why would anyone choose an institution when the community is where we all belong?

I have worked with individuals who have intellectual challenges for over two decades. Over this period of time I have seen many changes, most with the intent to improve the quality of people’s lives that have disabilities. I believed then and continue to believe that there is no room or tolerance for state institutions where people’s health and safety remained a constant issue. All people have the right to live in their own communities in a location and home of their choosing. I strongly feel that it's inhumane to cluster groups of people together based on "society's" lack of understanding about individuals with intellectual challenges. There are many more similarities than differences with people who have intellectual challenges when compared to those who do not have these challenges. Why treat them any different.

As a disability rights lawyer who spent many hours visiting clients at Rosewood and as the parent of a 15 year old daughter with profound disabilities, I truly understand what the closure of Rosewood means because in another age, with other parents, perhaps parents with less knowledge and support than my family has, my daughter easily could have been one of the people leaving those asbestos and lead-infested buildings after years of institutionalization. Instead, my daughter has spent her life fully included in general education, part of the community in which we live. However, there is still a tremendous need for family support, for respite care, and for other services that will allow families to raise their children with disabilities successfully. We must also ensure that sufficient safe, accessible community placements are available for people when they leave their family homes or other living situations. There is no longer any reason to debate the legitimacy of institutions; one might just as well debate whether the earth is round or flat. It simply is an irrelevant argument. We have moved beyond institutions and now must focus on ensuring that sufficient family and community supports are available.

All individuals have the right to live and actively participate in a community of their choosing. A medical model to support people with disabilities is an archaic ideology that has failed many people for way too long. It is imperative that all individuals must transition out of institutions into community-based services that provide as much support as necessary. Yes, the transition will ultimately be difficult, but those individuals will benefit in the long run when they can take pride in their own apartment/house, belongings and unrestricted lifestyle. As long as institutions remain open, we will continue to deny the right to a full and meaningful life for many individuals.

I am a mom of a young man with mental disabilities. My husband and I spent years trying to find the right diagnosis, treatment, etc. for our son. Finally, just as we were coming out of some very long dark years, we were able to find a treatmment that made it bearable for us to live with him. Then my husband became ill and subsequently passed away. I was devastated. How was I going to care for my son alone without support. Well, I was very fortunate to find a program called Emerge, Inc. This program is a community based program that really respects the "clients" to whom they provide service. Emerge's goal is to get their clients involved in the community (living, working, thriving) as much as they possibly can. I see my son every other weekend and I am so AMAZED at his growth and development as a human being. On several occasions he has said to me, "Mom, I am so happy." When I ask why, he always says, "I am a free man". I am so joyful and at peace that this program is so community oriented. There really is no other way to support people with disabilities, but to engage them in our communities.

There was a time when people with developmental disabilities were institutionalized because we thought they were too vulnerable to live in the community. We were wrong. People, all people, are vulnerable when they are disconnected and isolated from people, when they lack the opportunities and support to make and keep good relationships. The debate about institutions has gone on too long. We need to concentrate on building community supports which respect and honor the needs and choices of people with disabilities. Expanding and improving family supports, respite and ongoing living and employment supports is imperative. Children should be raised with families; adults should live and work in the community. We are all neighbors. When are we going to recognize the inherent value in each of us? When are we going to learn, alienating one of us, alienates us all? Institutions and segregation are not an answer.

In the last 20 years the treatment and care of the disabled has made many advances and some of them occured at Rosewood. Some types of treatment can't occur in the subcontract world of the group homes. At least two of the people were transfered from Rosewood to Holly Center because there was no group home that would accept them. There "is" need for Centers such as Rosewood. If a person can't hear, see or speak and has the mentality of an 18 month child, what does church,society etc. mean to him? What is important is that they are safe and receive the best treatment and services available. They should not be mistreated- read the papers see what is going on out in the community.
There are no advocates in the Health Dept for the residential centers. Rosewood was doomed to fail because of the placement of the forensics and the neglect of the Health Dept. The Health Dept and the Md Disability Law Center has already started their campaign of half truths to attempt to close Holly Center. They are using the same tactics they used at Rosewood. Watch?
We need the State Residential Centers. We need a Center in Central Md.

People with intellectual disabilities are a part of "us." To understand this is to realize that institutions that separate people from our communities have no place in our system of supports and services. My daughter Elise, who has significant disabilities, lives in a home in the community that she rents with a friend. She is cared for by staff she loves and who love her. They believe that she should live her life according to her own choices and patterns, not those imposed by institutional schedules and routines. (Yes, she can choose a weekend "pajama day" and go out only to activities she enjoys like bowling.) Counselors have helped find a volunteer (now a friend) who takes Elise to religious services every week. Elise lives a full life with both paid and volunteer work hours. How many of us would choose institutional regimentation and exclusion over Elise's life?

For years people with the most complex needs have been well served in the community. They do not need institutions to keep them safe. Rather than worrying about keeping institutions open, we need to focus resources to ensure that quality community services--residential, vocational, family support like respite care-- are available to everyone who needs them.

Having had the privilege of working with persons with disabilities for a number of years, I have seen time and time again the incredible growth that occurs when a person leaves an institution and lives in a community home with well planned supports. Many of the problems that were seen in an institutional setting disappear. Every day experiences like working, cooking, taking care of your own space, keeping in close contact with family and friends, and other things that we all take for granted (things which enrich our lives and give them meaning) were denied to folks in institutions. It is not that the staff who ran institutions intended to them to be snake pits—it just happens when you segregate folks into large and isolated residential settings. Now the challenge is to make sure that community based supports are adequately funded, supported, and overseen.

Before anyone judges whether the community is the best place for people that have support needs - you should check yourself into a facility that inhibits your rights to chose freely. Spend a week - then go home and appreciate your life. Then - put yourself in the place of someone that has been institutionalized for years of their life, years of restriction and years of other people telling you what is best. Then really look at where you may live when you are older and no one is there to advocate for you and take care of you. Visit a nursing home and imagine living there... then we'll talk again...

We have a special needs son, Danny. He has lived with us and will remain with us until we are no longer able to care for him. At that time, it will be hard but we hope that he can be placed in a Residential Home Program to live in the community close to us. I expect that when Rosewood was founded the mindset for those with special needs was to institutionalize them as there was a stigma attached. However, now with the various Maryland school systems and service providers for those with special needs, institutions are NOT the way to go. We need to respect all those with special needs so that they can live their lives as fully as possible with their families and in communities as part of our diverse society.

I have personally known several people who lived in segregated institutions for 40 years or more and were considered "nonverbal" and profoundly retarded begin to talk after living in the community. All of us tend to live "up" or "down" to other's expectations. People with disabilities need the opportunities that we all have, and time after time people with disabilities have blossomed when given the opportunity. Why would we think of anything else but the community?

As an advocate for and a person with a disability,I truly feel that residential facilities such as Rosewood should be closed!

With proper supports,all individuals with disabilities can live successfully within the community.

I began my journey in working with people with disabilities at the age of 20. I clearly remember visiting Rosewood for the first time 18 years ago. At that time there was a process of visiting people who were looking for community support.What I winessed was truly sad to me. I remembered feeling like I was at a store shopping, looking at human beings through a glass window, or peeking in a door. Visually seeing people in pain and distress. I felt horrible that I was leaving people behind. I never wanted to return. I , however have worked with many individuals (who lived at Rosewood many years ago) who were given the opportunity to live their lives and have been more sucessful then anyone could have ever imagined. One recent experince that I have had is a conversation with a individual who has recently joined our agency since the Rosewood closure. This person is now living in their own home with continous support from staff. I asked this person how they were feeling about their life, home, and job now .The response I received really hit home to me. This person stated " I love my new home and life." when I asked this individual why they loved it , the response that I received was " The first time I walked out onto my balcony/deck I looked up into the sky and the sun was beaming down on my face , it felt so good and I always wondered how that would feel. It was the best feeling in the world .Thank God for bringing me to what I have always dreamed of , just feeling the sun again." When this individual made this statement my mind went back 20 years and I remembered what Rosewood was like back then and then I look up at the sky and thanked God for giving this person and many others the opportunity to follow their dreams. T.S.

Where would you rather live? In a hospital with hospital sheets, hospital food, clinicians who see you periodically on rounds, green cement walls, bars on the windows..... or at home with your own food, your own sheets and comfy bed, fresh air and sunshine, neighbors, and choices about your daily life?

Your question “Can everyone be served in group homes, or is there still a need for an institution like this one?” in reference to the Rosewood Center took my breath away. That option should be off the table because it is no longer defensible in 2009. An institution is not a home or even “home-like.” Institutions are by their very nature, regardless of good intentions, facilities. No one, except prisoners, deserves to live in a facility. Especially not when good, individualized support is available in the community.

More to the issue was the question “How should the state structure its care for this population?” which is a challenging and worthy public policy question. The answer is to properly invest in the supports and services that people with disabilities need to lead healthy, safe, full lives in the community—alongside people without disabilities. This is the case regardless of how significant their disability is or how intensive and extensive their support needs are.

Do bad things sometimes happen in the community? Yes, but thankfully rarely. The community system is continuing to evolve and must continue to improve. Is this a reason to institutionalize people with developmental disabilities? Absolutely not. There should be zero tolerance for mistreatment or poor services in any setting. Institutions do not ensure safety, health or well- being and certainly not quality of life. The 180+ pages of citations that Rosewood received testify to that. We should not – and cannot as a civil, inclusive society – any longer condone segregating people with disabilities in institutions simply because they have a disability that requires intensive supports. Those supports must be provided in the community.

We need to encourage our national and state elected officials to fund the community supports and service this constituency needs.

The way to go is to seek choice and variety for persons with profound disabilities just as persons without those disabilities have! Cut out the false argument of only getting fresh air in the community neighborhood settings! State residential center residents are part of a vibrant community and are integrated very well in the local communities and with families who love them.The satisfaction rate of residents approaches 100% and there are persons seeking to live at the SRCs becauses they know that residence is what they want and need. It would be a huge positive step forward when MD's Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene allows that choice for people.
We need to go forward offering the best quality possible for whichever choice is made by individuals and families. Either/or is much more appropriate than dictates for "community residences at all costs."

The issue of rights is for people to seek choice and variety in their home and services and for excellent quality to prevail in any choice! State residential centers as well as community homes offer "the right fit" for some people. To advocate for this one-size-fits-all approach to services (group homes only) is narrow-minded. Just as state residential facilities are not right for everyone, group homes are also not the right choice for everyone. The focus should be on preserving a variety of options and working together to strengthen all options for the benefit of all Maryland residents with disabilities. When we speak of freedom, we also need to allow people the freedom to choose the type of services that are best for them. Sometimes that may mean a SRC for those with the most severe disabilities. For others, it may mean a group home. All are valuable options.

Feel welcome to visit Holly Center, Brandenburg Center or Potomac Center. You'd be welcome and you'll be impressed. Meet some people living in the home they are choosing and is working out best for them!

Either the insitution or the community---Rights, choices, QUALITY services---
When I was volunteering at Rosewood in the 60's (IT WAS THE 60's FOR CRYING IN THE BUCKET!) It is wonderful that people with disabilities are thriving in the community. But tell that to the family whose loved one was serverely beaten by a staff member at the North Star group home agency. Has anyone heard of being segregated and abused in the community?. I guess once you live in a group home all is well; therefore all people with profound disabilities should live there. Wasn't that the same type of faulty reasoning that shoved Rosewood's census to 2700 in the 60's and 70's??!! If your loved one is doing well in their community placement--great! But don't assume all is well because all is well for you. Wake up people! Janet Carbone Olney Maryland

I long ago discovered that “institutionalization” can take place in many settings, whether that be a State Residential Center, a Community Group Home, or their parents’ own home – anywhere that life is structured and scheduled by others. It is ridiculous to think that a person is any more “institutionalized” at a SRC where they go to daily off campus activities, participate in community events and make lasting friendships, than are people who live in other settings where there is some structuring of life by the forms and schedules of others (“institutionali zation”). The goal is to have each person in the “least restrictive environment” for that person taking into consideration that person’s total care needs and personal desires. For some the least restrictive form will be home care; for others, a community group home; and for others, a State Residential Center. Yes, we still need the SRCs!

Most of the people posting here have ignored the fact that places like Rosewood were originally intended to bring into the AWARENESS of the community people who were ALREADY LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY. The community had little understanding of people who were locked away in the attics of family homes, or were turned out into the streets to wander as the "town fool". These folks were brought into the light to live in congregate homes such as Rosewood so that they could learn to interact and to participate in the community. That these places became dumping grounds for thousands of people who should never have been placed there is not the fault of the institution, nor of the people who work there. The fault lies with families, doctors, politicians and well-meaning advocates (the so-called pillars of the "community") who proclaimed then, as today, that there was only ONE choice (institutionalization). Now, while most of the people who were placed there are indeed thriving in group homes, the few who truly need the intensive care of such settings (people with severe profound mental retardation, accompanying fragile health and/or behavioral problems) are again becoming invisible. As these people leave places like Rosewood and Great Oaks, many of them are returning to the virtual locked attics in the house next door. If they have any social interaction in the "community" at all it is with staff, family (if they are lucky) or people with their same disabilities.

There are so many half-truths and lies being presented as absolute truth. "People, no matter how severe their disability, should be free to choose where they want to live and who they want to care for them." Please tell me how a person with the mind of an infant sets up an appointment with a realtor or fires the staff who doesn't clean them promptly after a bowel movement? "Institutions are obsolete or even illegal." See the Supreme Court decision OLMSTEAD-and read it in its entirety. "All the experts in the field are for closure of all institutions for people with mental retardation." Across the country, many parents and advocacy groups are fighting to keep their loved ones in facilities where they are loved, respected, and able to interact in the "community". Even local chapters of the Association of Retarded Citizens are breaking with the national and state ARC because of (among other things) its extreme anti-institution bias.

There is one statement I do feel is absolute. "Wherever there are disabled people who are unable to speak or defend themselves, there is a great potential for them to be abused." This includes, unfortunately, institutions, the "community" or even the family home. I believe most people want these folks to live happily and safely. Yet, whichever living setting we believe in, we should never become too complacent. A person may need our voice.

Thirteen years ago I witnessed the heartbreaking and difficult transfer of nearly 100 people forced to leave their home at Great Oaks Center, a state of Maryland Intermediary Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR).Within 18 months nearly 30 those individuals were dead.

As the legal guardian of one of those displaced persons who was made to leave Great Oaks, we have firsthand knowledge about what the lack of oversight and the lapses in medical care and treatment in community living represents to the most medically fragile and complex needy persons.

Even when medical and therapy needs are identified often times these conditions can not be addressed because of the lack of medical insurance coveage, personal or system funding. I say "even when" because witthout a knowlegeable advocate present, the staff accompanying the person to the doctor may not always have the background or information about changes or issues to assist in proper assessment of the patient.

The people who have left the care and medical supervision of Rosewood now are without the over 340 Medicaide standards to overseeing and demand their well being is maintained. Now they have little oversignt because the Developmental Disabilities Care Quality is too overburdened and under
staffed to possibly address what is happening to all the people now living throughout the neighborhoods in Maryland hidden behind those lovely surburban doors away from the eyes of anyone who might care what is really happening to them.

Rosewood was bad in the 60s and faced difficult times in recent years with the mixing of court-ordered individuals in the Rosewood campus alongside individuals who had profound disabilities and oftentimes fragile medical situations and/or very severe behavioral challenges. Not a good combination. Maryland should have treated the individuals and the staff better than that.
In the 1960s all that existed was warehousing anywhere! There were no community services to help people with profound disabilities! Our family moved 11 times in 13 years seeking services and help for our family member. Warehousing was not an option. What about the 40 years in between? Family advocates demanded better care in the 60s and 70s and with the help of federal licensing and oversight got it. State residential centers evolved into excellent choices. Maryland also built 3 outstanding smaller state residential centers in the late 1970s. Community services evolved as well and offer homes for many people with disabilities. Both options continue to improve and need to continue that growth.
To portray the current state residential centers (Holly, Brandenburg and Potomac) as 1960s warehouses is a totally false scare tactic perpetuated knowingly. From the Fox report, General Oliver’s family isn’t celebrating Rosewood’s closure – he had apparently lived well and appropriately at Rosewood and was viciously attacked in June by staff with criminal records in the group home to which he had been transferred.
We do need both systems of services and we do need both public and private providers. To have all services come from private providers invites wider abuse and less monitoring for very vulnerable individuals who deserve choice, monitoring on their behalf and appropriateness of services.

June 22. 2009 was the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision. - the importance to the Rosewood issue is that Olmstead does not condone a "forced " residential mandate for someone to an institutional setting. However, the justices also said ” We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings...Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it”

President Obama said in his June 22 press release on the anniversary: “The Administration acknowledges that strides have been made, and knows and accepts that there is much work to do in order to maximize the choices and opportunities for individuals to receive long-term services and supports in institutional and community settings.”

We hope the president “gets it.” So, what is the problem in Maryland ? Is it vying for dollars? Philosophy over care and choice? How do money, care, quality, choice and greed intersect here?

IF all necessary services are actually provided to former Rosewood residents, how can the closure of Rosewood possibly save the state money? Former Rosewood residents were getting services at Rosewood, under one roof. Moving from Rosewood does not negate their needs. They still need services, but from many different, scattered locations, with transportation costs added. There are already more than 18,000 people with developmental disabilities in Maryland waiting for services. Can we be sure that the former Rosewood residents will get the services they truly need, or will they join the ranks of the unserved or underserved? If that is the case, I hope the State will be able to refrain from patting itself on the back for saving money. Not serving people is not cost effectiveness. “Offering” comparable, state operated, specialized licensed care 2-3 hours from families, but only after a contentious administrative law hearing and only if the judge agrees, is not choice.

Closing Rosewood is a historic event for people with disabilities in the state of Maryland. Everyone deserves the opportunity to choose where he or she lives, and with the proper tools, information and support, individuals with disabilities can make these choices and plan their own lives. We should be encouraged to see so many people move out of an institution and into places they can call home. This closure will have a positive impact not only on the people who moved out and their families, but on all of us, as we benefit from more integrated, supportive, and inclusive communities.

As a Hopkins medical student, I recall visiting the Rosewood wards as the most distressing experience of my education. I am relieved to know that there are now better ways of caring for severely disabled people in the community. Society must also do a better job at keeping chemicals that cause birth defects away from potential parents.

I have worked with individuals with intellectual disabilities for over 20 years. I have known many people who transitioned out of Rosewood during various periods. Life afterwards, in community agencies, may not have been perfect but no one ever told me that they wished they could go back to Rosewood. Many individuals told me how happy they were when Rosewood closed due to the abuse they had endured while there. Many continue to show signs and symptoms of Post Truamatic Stress Disorder from the years of institutionalization. I believe that all human beings deserve a home to live in and the freedom to create a life worth living.