Fasano Voices Support for Controversial Group Housing Bill

State Senator Len Fasano (R-34) issued a statement yesterday voicing support for two controversial bills currently before the General Assembly's Planning and Development Committee that would require public hearings prior to the establishment of group homes serving adults and children with developmental disabilities, mental health issues, and substance use disorders in towns across the state.

The bills, H.B. No. 5142 and H.B. No. 5259, both titled "An Act Requiring Public Hearings on the Location of Group Homes," have drawn opposition from group home administrators, clients, and legislators, including Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee Steve Cassano, who has described such facilities as unpopular but necessary fixtures in the communities they serve. The legislation was initiated following an incident in Bristol, CT where residents objected to group homes being established in town without preceding community notification.

At a emotional public hearing before the Committee on February 7, Fasano stressed that the safety of clients living in group homes was his first priority, saying, “There is a huge communication gap between first responders and group home providers and we must do something about it...The communication lapse is a matter of safety and we must inform fire and police departments in advance of any plans to open a group home in the community.”

North Haven Fire Chief Vincent Landisio echoed Fasano's sentiments, noting, “We find the homes when we are called to them for medical emergencies or fire incidents.  There are 25 group homes in North Haven. We welcome them."

"This is not a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue," added Landisio.  "This is a public safety issue.”

But group home providers dispute claims that their clients' safety is at risk, contending that the bills discriminate against people with disabilities and substance use disorders by subjecting them to potentially damaging and offensive public hearings with residents.

"This bill brings us back to discrimination that was happening fifty years ago," says Alyssa Goduti, Vice President for Public Policy at the Connecticut Community Providers Association (CCPA). "Clients could be exposed to ugly public hearings where their personal privacy is violated in attempt to meet the standards of their neighbors."

Goduti points to numerous State and Federal laws that protect the rights of group home clients to live in communities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 which prohibits discrimination based on disability, and the The Federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities in housing opportunities, or to deny a dwelling to any buyer or renter due to a handicap.

"It's completely antithetical to the idea we teach our kids in school," adds Goduti. "Don't discriminate against others, treat everyone with respect."

Bruce Stovall, Vice President of Oak Hill, the largest community based private non-profit provider of services for people with disabilities in CT, asked legislators to put themselves in the position of clients subjected to review by municipalities.

"I’d ask you to ask yourselves right now: when you choose to move to a new neighborhood, are you willing to subject yourselves to a 'hearing?'" he commented at the public hearing. "Are you willing to see if you pass muster with the neighbors? Willing to see if you are acceptable? Is this not a violation of the civil and human rights we hold so dear?"

Stovall continued: "Who exactly are these people that we are talking about? Who are the people that live in these 'group homes?' Who are the disabled? The simple answer is they are our daughters and our sons. Our sisters and brothers, cousins, and friends. Our community residences are the homes of people with disabilities just as sure as your house or apartment is your home. They are your constituents and surely they are entitled to the same rights as everyone in this room."

Supporters of the legislation, however, maintain that the bills are not intended to discriminate against individuals with handicaps or addictions, but rather to provide  more accurate public documentation on the homes and their clients.

Fasano noted at the public hearing that group homes operated by the Department of Developmental Services in the past have been subjected to different zoning requirements than the majority of other residences or businesses, specifically catered towards the outmoded notion that clients at such facilities neither own nor operate cars.

"There is no sense of where they are at any given time," said Fasano at the hearing, referring to group home clients. "They could walk out that door and just keep going. There are car issues, parking issues, a whole slew of issues you don’t have when you’re talking about disabled people.”

At the same time, opponents to the bills have testified that group homes maintain strict safety regulations, and must be licensed by the state before they start serving clients.

"Group homes managed by community providers are licensed, highly regulated and the provider agencies are often nationally accredited," said Goduti in her testimony before the Planning and Development Committee. "Homes have mandated staffing ratios and staff are highly trained. Often group homes are among the best kept homes in neighborhoods. There is significant research that shows that the siting of group homes does not negatively impact property values or property turnover rates."

Information provided by the CT Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DHMAS) backs up these claims.

"Participating facilities must be licensed by the Department of Public Health to provide residential services for individuals with a serious and persistent mental illness and must be certified by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services or its agent," reads a statement by DHMAS. "The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services’ facility certification will assure that the facility provides the necessary level of supervision and oversight of the non-licensed mental health counselor staff responsible for the provision of direct rehabilitative services."

Larry Wood, Executive Director of Benhaven, a group that oversees seven group homes in North Haven, says that the legislation will not affect already-established institutions, but sees the efforts to disclose information about clients and rehabilitation centers in a public forum as a throwback to decades-old objections of the "not-in-my-backyard" variety.

"Some municipalities are concerned about properties being taken off the tax base (which doesn’t always happen), and some potential neighbors can have some very practical concerns," says Wood in an email. "Will dangerous people be moving in?  Will a group home be a nuisance because of noise, traffic parking, etc.? Will the property be maintained well? Will area property values be affected adversely? Currently, state laws and regulations tend to support the establishment of group homes with certain reasonable restrictions."

Group home administrators, including Goduti, further suggest that the economic benefits of group homes far outweigh those of larger-scale rehabilitation clinics, with the cost of institutional care in some cases being three times more expensive than that provided at group homes. In these budget conscious times, Goduti says, legislators should be wary of the financial implications for the state that might arise should group home development be stalled as a result of the bill.

H.B. No. 5142 and H.B. 5259 are currently before the General Assembly's Planning and Development Committee.