Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Protection Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider removing statutory reference to Community Protection Program amid complaints it traps participants
Summary
House Bill 1390 would repeal statutory language referencing the Community Protection Program (CPP), a DDA waiver for people judged to pose risk to others; supporters including the DD Ombuds and family members said the program has been coercive with low graduation rates, while DDA and defenders emphasized continuity of services must remain.
Representative Roger Goodman presented House Bill 1390, a Department of Social and Health Services request bill that would remove the Community Protection Program (CPP) from statute and allow DDA to restructure services for participants.
"I was a little hesitant to sponsor this bill when I saw we're repealing the community protection program," Representative Roger Goodman said, explaining the proposal is an agency-request bill intended to modernize and remove statutory language governing a waiver program created to serve adults who, under certain findings, were considered a risk to others. Goodman said the program has become coercive in practice and cited a prior ombuds report documenting a low graduation rate.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Chris Peterson described DDA’s view that removing CPP from statute would allow modernization and more person-centered services while continuing to ensure safety. DDA reported there were approximately 324 individuals in the program, down from 408 in 2023, and said the agency has worked with the DD Ombuds and CMS on reforms.
Supporters included self-advocates and the Office of Developmental and Disability Ombuds. Noah Seidel of the DD Ombuds referred to the 2021 report "No Way Out" and listed problems: early referrals before other services are tried, requirements to comply with strict program conditions, unclear path back to less-restrictive services and documented departures from policies protecting participants' rights.
Family witnesses described coercive processes and burdensome risk-assessment procedures; one witness said CPP threatened families with a contract release or loss of benefits, and argued CPP uses intrusive surveillance and restrictive conditions. Public defenders supported the bill’s intent but urged lawmakers to ensure the underlying services that enabled community supports remain available even if statutory language is removed.
No committee vote was recorded. Supporters and DDA said the bill is intended to replace a statutory construct with administrative changes that better support person-centered care while maintaining safety and access to needed services.
