Why the Fernald center should close

FOR ALMOST five years, a battle has been waged to keep open the Fernald Developmental Center in Waltham, the nation's oldest public institution for the mentally retarded. However, legal pleadings will be filed in US District Court by family and other disability advocacy organizations arguing that the court should not prevent the closure of Fernald. Data and experience support the case that residents would do better by living in the community.

At stake are the services for future generations of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We know. We are parents of teenagers with disabilities.

For residents old and young who have left Fernald and other institutions, the results have often been nothing short of transformative -- the cessation of self-destructive behavior; the development of new skills; and the expansion of simple enjoyments of home and community whether it is a swing in the garden or a walk around the block where other people live too.

In his exhaustive investigation of the 49 residents who left Fernald in 2003-2005 before a judge put a stay on transfers, Michael Sullivan, a court monitor, quoted one mother of an elderly man saying, "I wish I had done this sooner."

Many family members felt the same as they saw the opportunities that opened up for them and their children, even those who are advanced in age and living with medical difficulties. Those living at Fernald are no different -- and in some cases are less challenged -- than those who have already left both Fernald and other facilities.

It is not that institutional care is poor. It is that institutions can, in the end, only be just that -- large, mostly impersonal, and vulnerable to the serious problems associated with "out of sight /out of mind."

There are many reasons to close Fernald. It is expensive (more than $250,000 per person per year). It has limited therapeutic options, and the physical plant adaptations would cost at least $40 million, according to recent estimates. Equivalent and often better care and support exists in the community settings. More importantly, our children deserve the opportunity to be active by going to the movies, community centers, the local pool, church, and, at the end of the day, a real home.

The state currently cares for more than 30,000 people with mental retardation, with 20,000 of them supported in their own homes. Another 9,000 are in community-based group or individual living arrangements. And fewer than 1,000 continue to live in the six state facilities still in operation. All these individuals are receiving services that have been effectively flat-funded or cut in recent years. Many are aging, and will need more extended senior care over time. Young people are new to this system, which has few resources, leaving many parents asking why the state is spending money on outmoded and unnecessarily expensive care for some when there is the possibility of better care for all.

Better care for all requires further community investments in areas such as in-home support, housing, employment, and healthcare.

Earlier this month, Judge Joseph L. Tauro ordered the state to prove why Fernald should not be an option for its residents. The answer is clear. Fernald is not the right place for anyone to live and should be closed because there are better places in the community and elsewhere. The world has moved on since the judge closed this case almost 14 years ago, and these residents deserve to move on as well.

Mary Ellen Mayo is president of The Arc of Massachusetts, an advocacy organization. John Nadworny is coauthor of "The Special Needs Planning Guide" and serves on the Governor's Commission on Mental Retardation.