Group home settlement leaves serious questions unanswered

THERE ARE many questions surrounding the D.C. group homes owned by Individual Development Inc. (IDI), a nonprofit whose officers number among the city's most politically connected. Such as: How did the group take in millions of government dollars, hand out handsome salaries and deliver substandard care? And: Why did it take two years and the deaths of three people before the District took any action? Most of all: Is the city right to give the group yet another chance to keep its promises about improving care?

Tough action against IDI, which operates 11 group homes that serve people with physical and developmental disabilities, was initiated last month by Attorney General Peter Nickles. He went to D.C. Superior Court seeking to place two of the nonprofit's most troubled homes in receivership, while halting all referrals to any home operated by IDI. The action, as The Post's Henri E. Cauvin reported, came two years after the city became aware of issues such as inadequate health care. A confidential report in September detailed egregious cases of neglect and abuse. IDI has been paid more than $35 million in the past three years.

Advocates for those with disabilities hailed the action. Yet just weeks later, Mr. Nickles dropped the bid for receivership in favor of a settlement that commits IDI to making improvements. Given the group's track record of unkept promises, it's understandable for skeptics to question the decision -- and to wonder whether the political prominence of IDI officials David W. Wilmot, A. Scott Bolden and Frederick D. Cooke Jr. was a factor. Mr. Wilmot recently helped host a fundraiser for Mayor Adrian F. Fenty (D).

Mr. Nickles denies any political considerations. After all, he didn't shy away from embarrassing Mr. Wilmot by highlighting his $300,000 salary in court papers. The attorney general argues that the settlement is the better outcome for residents of the homes. It requires IDI to hire an outside monitor chosen by the city to oversee care. It avoids lengthy, and uncertain, litigation. And it covers all 11 IDI homes, not just the two originally proposed for receivership. Even more significant, Mr. Nickles points out, the agreement has the force of law. If improvements are not made, IDI could be assessed severe penalties and face the loss of its licenses.

These are persuasive arguments. But the District was remiss in not acting sooner, so the onus is on Mr. Nickles and the mayor to ensure that the settlement leads to rapid improvements in the homes or tangible consequences for their operator. For the safety and well-being of the 75 vulnerable adults placed in IDI's care, officials must be more vigilant in their scrutiny.