DDS liaisons outline Human Rights Committee review process, consents and video-monitoring rules

Tanya Pacheco and Kenrick Brown, human rights liaisons with the Department of Developmental Services, summarized how providers should request Human Rights Committee (HRC) reviews and which interventions require prior approval during a regional presentation.

Pacheco said HRC exists to "protect and preserve human rights" for individuals supported by DDS and reminded providers that "human rights are fundamental rights...and we are the government in this case." She outlined three categories HRC uses for review: restrictive interventions (locks, restricted access), intrusive devices (door and bed alarms, monitors or searches) and aversive procedures (physical or chemical restraints, isolation). The HRC procedure referenced in the presentation is listed in DDS materials as IF PR006.

Brown described the packet required for a complete HRC submission: a completed request-for-review form with presenter contact information, current consents describing the proposed restriction and reassessment frequency, a current behavior support plan (BSP) or behavioral guideline, summarized data and relevant medical or legal documents. He emphasized that consents should be current — "Consents are valid for one year from the date signed" — and recommended including photos of requested devices and, when an item is wearable, a photo of the device on the individual.

Both liaisons said certain items require prior HRC review before implementation: video monitoring and financial restitution are explicitly flagged as requiring approval before use. Brown said starting an intervention before review is permitted only when (1) the full team — case manager, agency, guardian and professional staff — agree it is necessary for health or safety and (2) a packet is submitted promptly; he noted the two exceptions that cannot be started prior to HRC review are video monitoring and financial restitution.

Pacheco distinguished HRC from the Program Review Committee (PRC): PRC handles reviews that involve behavior-modifying medication and physical restraint; PRC includes an HRC representative and, when appropriate, PRC reviews can include HRC items. "Anything with medications or physical restraint, that's gonna go to PRC," she said.

The liaisons described HRC outcomes as approval, approval with qualifications, disapproval or tabling when information is insufficient. Timelines for approvals vary; Pacheco said outcome durations can range from about a month to a maximum of three years, with shorter durations typically indicating the committee expects closer follow-up.

On best practices, Pacheco urged person-first language, realistic and obtainable goals in BSPs, and clear proactive interventions before reactive ones. She advised against blanket overnight checks, describing them as frequently unnecessary and intrusive: "Blanket checks overnight don't make sense, and they really shouldn't be used because they're very intrusive to the individual's privacy." She also cautioned that cameras are not a cure-all: "The use of a video monitor is the most severe form of an intrusive intervention...a camera will capture things but it won't reach out or pick someone up," Brown said.

The liaisons encouraged providers to submit renewal packets well in advance to avoid coverage gaps (they recommended about three months before expiration) and invited volunteers to serve on regional HRC committees.

The presentation materials and DDS policies referenced during the session include the DDS HRC procedure (IF PR006) and the DDS policy on use of video and audio technology (PR001). The liaisons said they will share a two-page HRC submission reference guide after the session and provided contact emails for regional liaison follow-up. The meeting closed with an invitation for questions and outreach to the liaisons for further clarification.