Can you spare a dime?
Through the help of some key
Assembly-members and advocates key increases in California’s funding for people
with disabilities were achieved during the 2006-2007 budgetary debate. Consumers receiving services from community
programs received an increase of about $245 million dollars. This is a 13 percent increase over last
year’s level of spending. Much of this
increase was from the natural growth in caseload, costs, and utilization of
regional center services. However,
about $47 million was allocated to provide a 3 percent rate increase
to providers of specified regional center services. Another $19 million was allocated to increase wages for
direct care staff in certain day programs and work activity programs, as well
as to increase funding for supported employment programs. In total people with disabilities got an
increase of over 70 million dollars above and beyond the natural growth and
increases in caseload. This is almost a
4% above and beyond natural growth.
Advocacy efforts are certainly showing returns.
What was not achieved during
California’s last budget debate was an end to various “cost containment”
measures. These will save California
about 14 million dollars this year. One
“cost containment” measure stands out amongst the others. Sui generis is a prospective application§ of new and more stringent eligibility requirement
for Regional Center services. Using the
most liberal estimations this change will save California 10 million dollars
this year. This represents a mere ½ of
1% of total spending on Community services and roughly 4% of the 245 million
dollars infused into Regional Center services this year.
Because of these changes
between 400-1000 individuals a year are completely denied regional center services. These individuals would have qualified for
services under the old eligibility requirements. These people with disabilities do not have to contend with rate
freezes, rate reductions, or the threat of Purchase of Service Standards. They will receive NO services brokered
through the regional center. This
reality portends an important rhetorical question.
If all the issues and
advocacy that affect people with disabilities are treated equally,ª then how is it that people already receiving
services from the Regional Centers are able to achieve a 13% increase in
funding to the existing services while 400-1000 people continue to go WITHOUT
services?
It is human nature to
advocate close to home, and to look out for me and mine. When we take our children to swimming pool
how teach them how to swim it is not the neighbor’s child that draws our
concern, efforts, and attention, it is our child. However, where do we draw the line? When my neighbors little girl begins to drown is it not unethical
for me to continue to improve upon my son’s backstroke in lieu of extending my
hand to my neighbors little girl?!
We are upon just such a
threshold!
Are we going to allow the
neighbors child to receive NO services in favor of improving upon my child’s
supported employment, or day programming services? There comes a time to take a moment and pen a letter and make a
call that does NOT directly benefit us.
To do otherwise is to perpetuate the sad, but unspoken reality, of
California’s disability advocacy, that Darwin’s rules prevail.
Many groups and individuals believe that to establish
narrow and specific goals that benefit a narrow populous is the most prudent
direction to advocate. In the short
haul it is difficult to argue against these strategies. However, to begin to do GREAT things for
everyone in lieu of good things for a few we must take a different tact. Otherwise, we will be forever stuck inside
our Prisoner’s Dilemma that portends only the survival of the fittest.
Will we spare a dime from our dollar and give SOME
services to those that now have NONE?
Please keep these thoughts in mind as next years
budget approaches.
§ A grandfather clause allows for current consumers to evaluated via the older, and less liberal eligibility standards.
ª That is, the attention that any given issue receives
is proportional to the effect it has on people with disabilities as compared to
the cost or savings it provides for within the Budget