Mother of Special Needs Man is learning about institutional drift in group settings..

Описание: In this video, I explain institutional drift and how it shows up in Oregon’s disability service system under ODDS policy. Using a real-world provider statement, I break down how dignity of risk, autonomy, and adult rights can be misused to justify withdrawing duty of care.

This is not about denying adults with developmental disabilities their rights. It is about understanding how systems drift away from safeguards, replace safety with values language, and increase the risk of neglect, exploitation, and abuse — even when intentions appear good.

As a mother of adults with developmental disabilities and a long-time advocate, I explain:

What institutional drift actually means

How it differs from direct abuse

How Oregon ODDS policy defines duty of care

Why “boundary-pushing” is not a safety strategy

How drift often becomes the precondition for harm

This video is for parents, providers, advocates, case managers, and anyone concerned about community-based disability services and accountability.

📌 This is education, not an accusation.
📌 Names are not used.
📌 Policy and systems language matters.

0:00 – Opening & Channel Intro
0:10 – Why I’m Talking About Institutional Drift
0:35 – What Institutional Drift Means
1:12 – The Provider Statement That Raised Concerns
2:10 – “Our Job Isn’t to Decide What’s Appropriate”
3:05 – Redefining Duty of Care (Drift Signal #1)
4:00 – Safety Claimed vs Safety Documented
5:10 – When Concerns Are Framed as “Discomfort”
6:15 – “Independently Expressed Interest” Explained
7:45 – Why Individualized Activities Still Carry Risk
8:56 – “Trained Staff” Without Defined Limits
9:45 – Boundary-Pushing as a Red Flag
10:50 – Strawman Arguments & Infantilization Claims
11:50 – When Drift Approaches Abuse Risk
12:45 – Gatekeeping vs Medicaid Responsibility
13:40 – Drift vs Abuse: What This Is and Isn’t
14:25 – Why My Concerns Are Policy-Based
15:25 – Final Thoughts & Call to Action