Public Hearing on

"Proposed Standard for Safety and Security in the Public Sector throughout New York State"

Testimony of Richard Ensminger,

Developmental Specialist III, West Seneca DDSO

New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO

June 24, 2003

    Members of the Hazard Abatement Board, I am Richard Ensminger and I want to thank you for this opportunity to address this public hearing on Public Employee Safety and Security Issues. I have been an employee at Western New York DDSO for thirty years as a Developmental Specialist III and have been active with the Public Employees Federation for almost twenty of those years. I serve as the statewide PEF Chair of PEF/OMRDD Health and Safety Committee and PEF Co-Chair of the statewide Labor/Management Committee. I am a member of the PEF Executive Board. I have worked at the Campus of West Seneca Developmental Center my entire career with the State and have seen dramatic changes in the way we deliver services to developmentally disabled individuals.

    With the on-going commitment of placing individuals in community-based homes and programs, the role of the remaining Developmental Centers in the OMRDD system has been to provide service to special populations. We have seen a recent increase in individuals that enter OMRDD facilities by direct order of the justice system. Many of these individuals have had serious problems while living in the community, including involvement in illegal activity. The placement of this special developmentally disabled population into Developmental Centers offers a more improved and humane alternative to sentencing them to prison. The Developmental Centers provide therapeutic opportunities to these individuals, which are not available in prison. This new population poses changes and challenges for both the staff and the other individuals who still remain in the Developmental Centers.

    Traditionally, Developmental Center staff has been trained to meet the needs of multiply disabled individuals with severe and profound developmental impairments and generally predictable behavior patterns. The newly admitted special populations include pedophiles with documented histories of sexual abuse. These individuals have a different behavior profile than that of a developmentally handicapped person. They need constant surveillance as they attempt to sexually prey on those around them. They are cognitively higher functioning and will manipulate situations in an effort to groom sexual victims. They pose a high risk of leaving the facility whenever the opportunity arises.

    Another sub-population recently admitted to the Developmental Centers are the court-committed individuals or highly aggressive adults who could not live successfully in a community setting. They tend to exhibit unpredictable, explosive behavior, with violence directed toward staff. They show a high frequency of attempting to run away. Such clients are typically streetwise and know how to get and use weapons. They are accustomed to adapting to life on the street. Aggression and violence are an everyday part of their lives. They bring this violence and aggression with them into the institutional environment.

    Another component of the new Developmental Center population is the dually-diagnosed adults who are both developmentally disabled and mentally ill. Their behavior patterns also include violence toward others and unpredictable, explosive conduct. They formerly resided in mental health facilities but now live among the other new Developmental Center populations.

    I recently interviewed several OMRDD employees who provided me with the following examples of the dangerous problems they have faced over the past several years.

    In October of 1994, I was a victim of a violent attack at the Developmental Center where I was working as a Developmental Specialist III functioning as an Active Treatment Manager. It was my job to attend Annual Case Reviews and act as a liaison between the Day Habilitation Program/Workshop and the residence for the clients who attended our programs. I would then assist in setting up appropriate programs within our site. I would meet with the appropriate clinicians and assist in developing programs that would be integrated or have an "overlapping" component with the residential plans. I was not responsible for an assigned class. I occasionally acted as a substitute in a specific class or in the cafeteria.

    While in the cafeteria, I would assist clients in selecting food items and would ensure diet selections were well balanced. I sometimes helped them to get the proper utensils, napkins, and dishes required to eat the menu items that day. I was instructed that each client could take no more than one fruit or juice.

    On the day of my attack I was helping the clients to select either one fruit or juice item and placing it on their trays if they needed assistance. I spoke with one particular young woman who wanted to have both a fruit and a juice item. I told her this was not allowed on her particular diet and suggested she take milk and a fruit. She complied and left the serving area to go to the dining area. She apparently did not like what I had told her but never voiced her concern. She brought her tray to the dining room and returned to the serving area. She took a knife from the utensil tray and walked behind me. She then grabbed me by the neck and forcefully pulled me towards her. She stabbed me three tunes on the upper part of my back, shallow puncture wounds. She also cut me on the middle left side of my back leaving a four-inch laceration. The most serious damage was done to my neck and upper back when she pulled me towards her. I was left with misaligned vertebrae and continuous muscle spasms similar to a "whiplash" injury. I was out of work for ten weeks attending Physical Therapy and did manage a successful recovery. I am however, now a victim of osteoarthritis in my neck and have recurrent headaches and limited range of motion. I can remember my doctor saying to me at the time that her fingerprints on my neck were still imbedded days later. She was a large, strong woman who easily overpowered me and took me totally by surprise. A male co-worker pulled her away from me and two large males held her down following the attack. This attack was premeditated and executed in a calm and effective manner. Following the attack she became very violent, requiring restraint, and was escorted to the "time-out" room.

    During the time that everyone’s attention was being paid to the incident and I was being tended to by the nursing staff, another client in the dining area managed to get a small container of peanut butter and swallowed it whole. He began to choke and our already limited staff ran to perform the Heimlich Maneuver without success. CPR was attempted for an extended period of time by our staff and medical personnel after they arrived. All efforts were unsuccessful and this individual died.

    Needless to say, all of these events were very traumatic and difficult to recover from, both physically and emotionally. After the fact, I discovered some information that made me question some of OMRDD’s current policies. I discovered that the individual that attacked me had been admitted from the Buffalo Psychiatric Center where she had a history of stabbing others. It was required that she be psychiatrically stable for only six months to qualify for admission to our facility. When she was initially placed at our facility, the staff were instructed to count the utensils following every meal, but as a substitute I never got this directive. I also was not told how fragile her psychiatric stability was and that she did not like to be denied. I feel that if I was given this information and if additional staff training was provided to OMRDD employees who work with a violent population this situation, in which one client died and one employee was severely injured, might have been avoided.

    Following my return to work I refused to ever be in the same building with this individual. My request was honored and she was subsequently moved to a locked facility in New York City. A few months after my return to work I was asked to join a "Vio1ence in the Workplace" group headed by one of our Deputy Directors. We met a few times and developed a comprehensive plan of action. I’m not quite sure whatever happened to the plan of action. Some cursory training was offered through OMRDD’s Department. of Education and Training. I’m truly not sure what new training is currently being offered to our new or seasoned staff so that they are better able to treat and control clients with a history of violent behavior.

    I work as a Developmental Aide (DA) in a residential building on grounds of the Western New York Developmental Center. The day I was attacked, I was working on the living unit with another DA. The person I was working with had to use the bathroom, and as I walked around the corner into the dayroom a client jumped in front of me and punched me in the head. I had no warning that this individual was even upset. The punch knocked me down and the client started kicking me in the head until I lost consciousness. I was told later that my co-worker returned to the area and restrained this individual. I was taken to the hospital by ambulance. I suffered from a concussion and was unable to work for several months due to severe headaches. Later when the client was asked why he stopped kicking me he said that he believed I was dead. This attack was difficult to recover from both emotionally and physically.

    Short staffing is currently negatively affecting the classroom I work in, which is part of a day program located at the WNYDDSO. The classroom has eleven individuals and is staffed with two Developmental Specialists and usually one Developmental Aide. Currently we have three Developmental Aides because one individual is supervised by one staff member 100% of the time and the other is supervised by two staff 100% of the time because this individual is extremely violent, with explosive behavior. Risk management plans were developed for the clients. These plans include various levels of supervision that must be maintained for each client with a risk management plan. These levels of supervision are as follows:

    Of the eleven clients in the classroom eight require either field of vision or line of sight supervision.

    These are just a few examples of what clients and staff face on a daily basis at all the Developmental Centers. In order to resolve these problems the Hazard Abatement Board should recommend that the Commissioner of Labor enact an enforceable PESH standard on safety and security that addresses the following:

Once again, thank you for conducting these hearings across New York State and allowing myself and other employees in Western New York to help you better understand what needs to be done to develop safe and therapeutic environments in our facilities.