ARTICLE
QUESTION: The guardian for an individual we support in their own home wants to install a security camera inside the home. The individual already has a high level of independence – she is not staffed 24/7, is alone much of the day, goes into the community alone, has a smartphone and laptop and utilizes FaceTime and video conferencing already. The rationale of the guardian is that the camera will permit the client to ask the guardian questions and show things. Our position has been that since the client has no control or knowledge of the status of the camera (i.e. her home and she can be monitored at will by the guardian) this is a violation of her right to privacy. The Case Manager disagrees saying since this is not a provider-owned home we have no role in this decision. Have other providers dealt with a similar situation and if so, how did they approach it? Also, do other members have policies regarding the use of security cameras by parents/guardians in an individual’s home? We have ALWAYS been told by Behavior Consultants and Case Managers that this is a Rights Restriction, and that it must go through the Human Rights Committee. This was regardless of home ownership. I suppose if the person wants to install the cameras, this is their option; however, the guardian demanding it would require a HRC review. The following applicable DDRS policies: Human Rights Committee Use of Restrictive Interventions If the person served (family member) agrees; it could be considered the same as remote monitoring or video drop-in services. We would recommend establishing rules of when it is “on”. If the family member disagrees then it would be considered an invasion of privacy. We a have had some issues around this and in fact we discontinued services with an individual because his guardian wanted to have a camera in the home. This comes down to the comfort of the provider working under the scrutiny of the camera and for what purposes. We were directed by the guardian to hire staff and not tell them that they were being WATCHED by the guardian. The issue here is the staffs right to know they are being watched by a camera. We are obligated to tell staff and that lead to staff not wanting to work in the home, because the guardian made it so unpleasant and interfered with the work we knew needed to be done. On the other hand, we have a home where we have a camera the guardian made it known and it is to see and hear the individual when we are not in the room. It works out as a win for everyone and no one has an issue with the camera. We have not had this particular scenario, but I can offer a bit of personal advice. We own two homes as my husband works in another state. When he is home, he covers the Ring Cameras in the home. When he leaves, he uncovers them so he can see what the pets are doing and know if the temperature drops (when he comes home) or if someone enters the home. This works well for us but on the flip side – I have NOT agreed to cameras in our Indiana home. As to the individual, I feel this is a violation of their rights and if they already utilize FaceTime, they should continue doing so. The only way the guardian would be able to “talk” to the individual with the camera on, is if the guardian was constantly monitoring the camera already. I would suggest the Provider stand firm and contact Matt Rodway if needed. Contact: Matt Rodway Email: Matt.Rodway@fssa.in.gov Call toll free: 800-622-4484 Call: 317-503-1217 This information is a compilation of suggestions, ideas, and opinions shared by INARF Members in response to the featured question. This information should not be considered official interpretation or guidance of State or Federal Policy. Additionally, statements within this document do not necessarily reflect an official position or opinion of INARF.
QUESTION: The guardian for an individual we support in their own home wants to install a security camera inside the home. The individual already has a high level of independence – she is not staffed 24/7, is alone much of the day, goes into the community alone, has a smartphone and laptop and utilizes FaceTime and video conferencing already. The rationale of the guardian is that the camera will permit the client to ask the guardian questions and show things. Our position has been that since the client has no control or knowledge of the status of the camera (i.e. her home and she can be monitored at will by the guardian) this is a violation of her right to privacy. The Case Manager disagrees saying since this is not a provider-owned home we have no role in this decision.
Have other providers dealt with a similar situation and if so, how did they approach it? Also, do other members have policies regarding the use of security cameras by parents/guardians in an individual’s home?
We have ALWAYS been told by Behavior Consultants and Case Managers that this is a Rights Restriction, and that it must go through the Human Rights Committee. This was regardless of home ownership.
I suppose if the person wants to install the cameras, this is their option; however, the guardian demanding it would require a HRC review. The following applicable DDRS policies:
If the person served (family member) agrees; it could be considered the same as remote monitoring or video drop-in services. We would recommend establishing rules of when it is “on”.
If the family member disagrees then it would be considered an invasion of privacy.
We a have had some issues around this and in fact we discontinued services with an individual because his guardian wanted to have a camera in the home. This comes down to the comfort of the provider working under the scrutiny of the camera and for what purposes. We were directed by the guardian to hire staff and not tell them that they were being WATCHED by the guardian. The issue here is the staffs right to know they are being watched by a camera. We are obligated to tell staff and that lead to staff not wanting to work in the home, because the guardian made it so unpleasant and interfered with the work we knew needed to be done. On the other hand, we have a home where we have a camera the guardian made it known and it is to see and hear the individual when we are not in the room. It works out as a win for everyone and no one has an issue with the camera.
We have not had this particular scenario, but I can offer a bit of personal advice. We own two homes as my husband works in another state. When he is home, he covers the Ring Cameras in the home. When he leaves, he uncovers them so he can see what the pets are doing and know if the temperature drops (when he comes home) or if someone enters the home. This works well for us but on the flip side – I have NOT agreed to cameras in our Indiana home.
As to the individual, I feel this is a violation of their rights and if they already utilize FaceTime, they should continue doing so. The only way the guardian would be able to “talk” to the individual with the camera on, is if the guardian was constantly monitoring the camera already. I would suggest the Provider stand firm and contact Matt Rodway if needed.
Contact: Matt Rodway Email: Matt.Rodway@fssa.in.gov Call toll free: 800-622-4484 Call: 317-503-1217