XCV

Developmental Disabilities Waivers – Chapter 2 page 25 - Competency observations – While I have no concerns with the requirements for the observations of either DSP and/or advanced competencies when they apply, I do believe that one sentence in this section on page 25 requires comment. At the bottom of the page a sentence appears states "in instances where the director is also a supervisor or providing direct support, it is recommended that another supervisor not directly supervised by the director observe for competencies and sign the competencies checklist along with the director". This statement is particularly problematic for small businesses like ours whose goal is to meet or exceed any regulatory requirement or recommendation. In very small businesses like ours, where director supports and/or direct supervision of other supervisor/DSPs is most likely to occur complying with this recommendation is essentially impossible. As a very small agency we have only 2 supervisory personnel (the director and house manager) and there is no one to directly supervise the house manager except the director and thus no way to have "another supervisor not directly supervised by the director observe for competencies". While I understand that the use of the term "recommended" as opposed to required does create a loophole that would allow continued operation without any observation of director competencies, our agency (unsure how others feel) is loath to take advantage of loopholes in the provision of services and regulatory compliance. However, not taking advantage of the loophole would leave us with only 3 options: 1st – the director could discontinue providing services and supervision but that would leave the house manager without a supervisor just moving the problem one level, significantly undermine effective responses to staff callouts/shortages, take away the only part of the job I really love (never wanted to be a full-time administrator but here we are) and probably make continued service provision unlikely leading to our eventual closure; 2nd – hire an outside supervisor just for the purpose of the director competency observations but this would require complete training/retraining and ongoing hourly pay for a contractor to observe the competencies over time for the annual renewals which is currently beyond our financial abilities leading to closure and would not serve the intent of the regulatory recommendation as someone would have to supervised contractor and that someone would be supervised by the director just creating an additional layer between but not eliminated the conflict of interest the regulatory language appears designed to address. Again, I have no specific recommendations for change and feel we could continue to operate were this regulatory language included in the final document; however, as written it cast very small businesses who are unable to comply with the recommendation under a negative cloud, creates a circumstance where they may be arguably accused of not meeting best practices as recommended in the regulations and would be utterly devastating forcing closure of many small businesses if it were ever to be made into a requirement; thus warranting reconsideration for inclusion as written.