Our History

In Massachusetts, before BPI, relationships between adult protection, disability services and law enforcement were not well-developed. In fact, with a few exceptions, there was no working relationship.  In addition, the lack of an established system of reporting created a situation where cases fell through the cracks.  No where were these issues more apparent than in the House of Horrors, a case that shook Massachusetts to its core.   

In the mid-1990s, the House of Horrors and several other high-profile cases became the subject of a Massachusetts House Post Audit and Oversight investigation that culminated in a scathing legislative report. The report found serious problems with the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) [then-Department of Mental Retardation (DMR)] investigations, responses to abuse and client mortality, and deficiencies in communication. Are you sure about this guy? Report on the Department of Mental Retardation: An Investigation by the House of Representatives Post Audit and Oversight Bureau, 1997. 

In June 1997, in response to the report, a statewide panel in Massachusetts reviewed and evaluated the Department of Disability Services Investigations Unit and its practices and procedures, including those regarding notification and coordination with local police and prosecutors. The panel, which included representation from law enforcement, the judiciary, academia, and families with individuals in the disability system, developed a series of recommendations focusing on the screening and investigation of crimes committed against persons with a disability. The recommendations prioritized a strong risk assessment and protective services capacity to move swiftly, compassionately and effectively to provide services to persons with a developmental disability who were in at-risk or established risk situations. Shortly thereafter, the recommendations were expanded to include, not only cases involving victims with a developmental or intellectual disability, but also victims with a mental illness and victims with a physical disability.

In 1997, in Massachusetts, a case of long-term abuse and neglect of two men with a developmental disability made headline news in print and broadcast media. The story began in 1989, when Tim, a 19-year-old man with a developmental disability was placed by his mother alone on a bus in Louisiana. His destination was Massachusetts. Tim, whom professionals in both Louisiana and Massachusetts described as compliant, shy, lacking self-esteem and eager to please, was departing a life of sexual and physical abuse, and deprivation.  He was about to enter a world of torture, torment, and financial exploitation.  

Tim arrived in Raynham, Massachusetts and, together with Al, an older man with a developmental disability, moved in with two brothers, Harold and Karol Simonton, self-designated caregivers. Over the next seven and one-half years, the Simonton brothers sexually and physically abused Tim and Al. In addition, they used Tim’s and Al’s social security checks for their personal use. For several years, despite questions and concerns about Tim’s and Al’s safety and well-being, the brothers managed to evade legitimate inquiries by authorities.

While numerous calls were placed to a hotline, as well as to state and local law enforcement about potential abuse occurring at the Simonton residence, and school, banking and community members observed indicia of abuse and fraud, the abuse allegations were never substantiated. The physical abuse included being tied to a hot radiator, struck with a thorned stick, hammer and a motor chain that caused blindness in one of Al’s eyes, and burned with boiling water. 

After many years of abuse, Tim went missing. While he had run away, that fact was not immediately known. Law enforcement officers were notified of Tim’s disappearance and, subsequently, officers were able to obtain a search warrant for the Simonton house. There, they found Al, who exhibited signs of long-term abuse. The brothers were arrested, charged with several crimes, convicted and sentenced to prison.

When the case broke in 1997, little did anyone know that a review of how the system failed Tim and Al would become the impetus for significant systemic change in Massachusetts. The House of Horrors and several other high-profile cases led to a scathing Massachusetts legislative report about the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) [then-Department of Mental Retardation (DMR)]. The report highlighted serious problems with the agency’s investigations, response to abuse and client mortality, and deficiencies in communication. Are you sure about this guy? Report on the Department of Mental Retardation: An Investigation by the House of Representatives Post Audit and Oversight Bureau, 1997. 

In June 1997, in response to the House Post Audit and Oversight report, the then-recently hired commissioner of DDS, Gerald Morrissey created an Investigations Advisory Panel (Panel), with representation from law enforcement, the judiciary, academia and families of clients throughout the commonwealth. The Panel, chaired by then-Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth D. Scheibel, was charged with reviewing and evaluating DDS’s Investigations Unit and its practices and procedures, including those regarding notification and coordination with local and state police.

The panel concluded that most of the problems hampering the effectiveness of DDS’s Investigations Unit were systemic in nature and included such issues as poor relationships between agencies, the lack of a layered system prioritizing the most serious cases and the insufficient, untimely and, in some cases, complete lack of referrals to appropriate law enforcement and criminal justice authorities. There was an absence of formal procedures and cooperative agreements with law enforcement agencies for the management and investigation of complaints of criminal conduct. This appeared to be due to a lack of awareness, lack of effective coordination between human service agencies and law enforcement, and reluctance by police, prosecutors and judges to rely on the testimony of a person with a disability. When crimes committed against persons with a disability were reported to law enforcement, they were often reported days or even weeks after the crime occurred. Crime scenes and physical evidence were destroyed, and witness testimony was often compromised by multiple interviews with the victim, witness(es) and the perpetrator.

These problems contributed to low arrest and prosecution rates for persons who committed crimes against persons with a disability. In 1997, in Massachusetts, the Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC) referred to law enforcement for criminal investigation statewide only 32 cases, none of which resulted in a prosecution. Arguably, crime victims with a disability did not have equal access to the criminal justice system.

The Panel’s recommendations focused on both the screening and investigation of crimes committed against persons with a developmental disability. The recommendations presumed a strong risk assessment and protective services capacity to provide emergency protective services to persons with a developmental disability. The Panel’s recommendations for strengthening screening protocols included: 

• Establishing the specific information needed for a referral or complaint;
• Referring suspected felony abuse to law enforcement in a consistent and timely manner; 
• Creating criminal liaisons within the DDS Investigations Unit to conduct joint investigations with law enforcement;
• Requiring DDS adult protective service investigators to complete basic and advanced criminal investigation training; and 
• Requiring law enforcement to receive adult protective service and other disability-related training.

While the scope of the Panel involved the DDS Investigations Unit, it became clear that the Panel’s recommendation should and could be extended to cover all the human service agencies providing services to persons with a disability. Then Massachusetts Secretary of Health and Human Services, William O’Leary coordinated that effort with representatives of the human service agencies and law enforcement, resulting in BPI’s creation.

May 1999 marked the first time in Massachusetts that adult protection and law enforcement agreed to a partnership to more effectively address crimes committed against persons with a disability. In that historic moment, representatives from the eleven district attorneys’ offices and the attorney general’s office, Massachusetts State Police, and adult protection and human service agencies developed a formal written protocol that would ensure the swift and effective reporting, investigation and prosecution of crimes committed against persons with a disability. The partnership became known as the Building Partnerships for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities initiative (BPI). Since its creation, BPI has expanded its partners to be more inclusive and far-reaching.