Another Letter to My Legislators
In which I decided to give them a taste of what it’s like to participate in a DDA webinar.
Dear [Legislator],
DDA is moving ahead with the implementation of the budget changes approved by the General Assembly. A big part of their communication plan is a series of webinars outlining the changes. I’d like to share a couple of highlights from the May 4 webinar. The description promised an overview of planned changes and included the all-important promise, "You’ll also have an opportunity to ask questions.”
I’ve learned from past DDA webinars that the opportunity to ask questions does not necessarily equal the opportunity to hear answers to them.
One of the changes that is alarming families is the 60-40 Rule, which limits the number of hours participants can receive services from family members, combined with planned wage reductions. Participants hire family members for many reasons, almost all of which have absolutely nothing to do with exploiting the government or getting rich. Some choose family because their needs make them very vulnerable, and they trust family more easily than outsiders. Others struggle to hire non-family members at current wage rates, so family members step in to do the job themselves. I understand that equation: My daughter Leah can’t be at home alone. Without staff, I can’t work. If I have no staff and can’t work, then I’m going to fill in, because without income, I can’t supply the food, clothing, shelter, and unpaid overnight support that DDA and the State of Maryland rely on me to provide.
Attendees at the May 4 webinar definitely had questions related to the 60-40 Rule. The answers from DDA Chief Operating Officer Robert White were less than substantive.
(All of these quotes are easily verified, by the way. A recording of the webinar is posted on the DDA website.)
When asked (at roughly 41:30) to clarify the new limits to family as staff, Mr. White said, “When we look at our data internally, we see that individuals who fall under the definition of family as staff are working hours that could jeopardize one’s health and safety, and so that is one of the reasons why the MDA included a budget amendment to cap family as staff hours.”
Whether paid or unpaid, family members routinely provide far more than 40 hours per week of participant care, which I suspect Mr. White knows very well. If he truly doesn’t, he isn’t competent to be Chief Operating Officer of anything. I’ve noticed that citing internal data without actually providing the numbers is an integral part of DDA’s playbook. I find the existence of this data to be as believable as DDA”s stated concern about the health and safety of its constituents.
In other words, not believable at all.
Even though cameras and microphones were turned off, I knew I wasn’t alone in my skepticism. And indeed, a man named Robert (not to be confused with our webinar host) spoke for us all when he asked the final question of the webinar at roughly 1:20:
“In listening to the presentation, it seems like we have two conflicting objectives: Number one, we capped family as staff hours to 60 for the stated reason to help avoid burnout of family members, which is a laudable goal. However at the same time, we’re looking at potentially large wage reductions for what we’re able to pay our staff, which is going to make it harder to hire people. So essentially you’ve created this kind of Catch-22 where you’re capping the amount of hours family can work, but making it harder to hire non-family support, which is going to effectively put more burden on families, but it caps the amount of income that they can earn. So how are you going to de-conflict these two objectives?”
Robert nailed it.
He was rewarded with this answer from Mr. White:
“Thank you for your comment. Um, we have six minutes left. I do want to flip it back over to you, Rhonda [Workman, Director of Federal Programs and Integrity], to take one last look at the questions we have received online, to see if there’s any that we have yet to address.” Ms. Workman went on to promote the remaining scheduled webinars.
I can only assume that Mr. White and Ms. Workman found the question inconvenient.
During their testimony before the General Assembly in February, DDA representatives were quite self-congratulatory about the number of outreach events DDA hosted in 2025. That statistic doesn’t tell the full story. Is an event helpful or meaningful for constituents if questions are cherry-picked and respectful inquiries like Robert’s are blatantly ignored? The May 4 webinar represents a typical DDA presentation, not an exception. DDA is planning significant changes that will upend care for many of their self-directed constituents. They should be able to justify their reasoning with hard data and coherent answers. I recognize that containing costs and securing the future of the Community Pathways Waiver is important, but I have learned nothing in the last several months that suggests to me that DDA is on the right track.
I wish you had asked more of DDA when you had the chance. With your budget vote in April, you reinforced a broken system and validated the leadership of people who may be motivated by many things —federal and state policies, cost savings, and (probably most importantly to them) keeping their own jobs — but the well-being of the people they’re tasked to serve does not appear to be one of them.
Please pay closer attention to the actions of this agency. Maryland’s most vulnerable residents need you to do better.
[Love, Me]