Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Hundreds of Disabled and Seniors at Capitol to Protest California Budget Cuts to Life Sustaining Services and Income

Reductions in home care and income will leave thousands struggling to survive

By Jovan Agee

After the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office today released its report on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed 2008-09 state budget, hundreds of Californians—all people who use or advocate for the state’s In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program—criticized the unnecessary and drastic proposal for 18 percent cuts in vital domestic services. Those cuts would mean that low-income people with disabilities and seniors lose precious hours of help with meal preparation, clean-up, housekeeping, laundry, and food shopping, all of which make it possible for them to avoid or delay costly and unnecessary institutional care.

“Which day of the week should I go without my meals, Mr. Governor? That’s what you and other lawmakers are asking me to decide if you go forward with these cuts,” said Herb Meyer, 76, a disabled consumer of IHSS services in Marin County.

Individuals eligible for IHSS services have disabilities, are 65 or older, or blind, and are unable to live safely at home without help. The IHSS program uses state, county and federal funding to enable IHSS consumers to hire a caregiver. Most of the people who use IHSS also rely on federal funds called Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and state funds called State Supplementary Payments (SSP). They are among the 1.2 million blind, aged and disabled Californians who, who rely on this income for all of their living expenses; they cannot afford to pay for the home care services the state is proposing to cut.

People who rely on IHSS for home care and SSI/SSP are the targets of multiple cuts in the proposed state budget: the IHSS cut, no Cost of Living Adjustment for SSI; elimination of crucial Medi-Cal services; and cuts to other services and programs they rely on, including Adult Day Health Centers, and Adult Protective Services, among others.

Budget system must change to protect the poor

The coalition of home care supporters who rallied today at the state Capitol spoke out against the domino effect of multiple cuts and the unfair targeting of the poorest Californians.
“We need a fair balancing of this avoidable deficit crisis with a combination approach that includes raising revenue,” said Frances Gracechild, Co-Chair of the Quality Homecare Coalition and Executive Director of Resources for Independent Living. “These across-the-board cuts are callous. When it comes to valuable programs like IHSS, state officials should stop blaming it on overspending. Increases in IHSS are largely pushed by demographic changes – California is growing and more people are living longer.”

“For all those lawmakers who preach about performance-based budgeting, take a look at the IHSS program,” said Joan Lee, Gray Panthers Statewide Liaison. “It saves the state money. It is not only a program that fits with what Californians expect for the most vulnerable residents of our state, but is responsibly managed and a good deal.”

“Some of the tax relief that was prematurely given during the early Schwarzenegger administration should be returned by Californians who can afford yachts and expensive, luxury cars,” said Bill Powers, Vice President of the California Alliance of Retired Americans.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cut taxes when he first came into office by what is now nearly $5 billion annually, and has never made up the revenue lost. Reinstating the "car tax" at the center of the Governor’s first election in 2003 would have produced more than $20 billion for the state coffers by 2008.

Previous attempts to cut IHSS failed

Since elected in 2003, Schwarzenegger has made other proposals to cut funding to the state’s IHSS program, all of which lawmakers have rejected. IHSS routinely earns bipartisan support because of the savings it produces—keeping people safely in their homes and avoiding costly institutional care. The Legislative Analyst has estimated in past years that the annual average IHSS cost per person is $9,924, whereas the annual average cost of nursing home care is about $60,000.

“The IHSS program has always received bipartisan support, and is widely praised as a model state program for helping the elderly and disabled live independently,” said Tyrone Freeman, President of SEIU United Long-term care Workers Union and Chair of the California Homecare Council. “So why attack the funding for this program now? Lawmakers should lead state residents to understand why raising revenue would uphold our nation’s and California’s values? It makes no sense.”

Violation of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision
The cuts to IHSS and Medi-Cal and SSI/SSP also undermine California’s compliance with the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead, in which the Court told the states that unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“How can the governor say he upholds the state’s responsibilities to comply with Olmstead and at the same time cut the services which are at the very heart of any compliance?” said Deborah Doctor, Legislative Advocate at Protection and Advocacy, Inc. (PAI).

The cuts also harm workers who provide home care.
“We object to the Administration’s prediction that IHSS providers will continue to provide these for free,” said Senior Assembly Member Lola Young. “Home care is work and deserves to be compensated. We’ll see a higher rate of worker turnover, a loss of services, and a reduction in their quality of life. Workers in the IHSS program already live in poverty and many are eligible for food stamps. Few have access now to health insurance.”

“The Governor believes that family providers will continue to do the work for free,” said Laura Reyes, President of United Domestic Workers/AFSCME. “I have two problems with that assumption: First, almost half of all providers in this state are not family providers, but they too will be uncompensated for their work. Second, family providers help the state achieve savings through the IHSS program just like non-family providers so why is the Governor trying to target this group of workers. If there were no family and non-family providers the IHSS program would fail to exist and we would see budget deficits like the one this year every year because you would have over 400,000 elderly and disabled people receiving care at a much high cost.”

“The cut in IHSS hours means consumers will have a more limited supply of home care providers, making it difficult to remain safely in their homes and possibly forcing them into institutions such as nursing homes,” said Gary Passmore, Executive Director of the Congress of California Seniors.

The 2005 report, ‘Living Wages and Retention of Homecare Workers in San Francisco’ by Candace Howes, shows that wages and especially benefits have a significant impact on the retention of providers. In San Francisco, when wages increased to $9 per hour and comprehensive health insurance was added in 1999, the one-year retention rate for new providers increased from 33 percent to 61 percent between 1998 and 2003.

Because of the Governor’s cuts, some IHSS providers will lose their crucial health benefits; the cut in just a few hours of work could put them below the eligibility limits set by the Public Authorities to qualify for health benefits (San Francisco requires 25 hours of service per month and Marin requires 85 hours of service per month).

Background on IHSS

County social workers assess people for IHSS and can authorize up to 283 hours per month of services. Services include housecleaning, meal preparation, laundry, grocery shopping, personal care services (such as bowel and bladder care, bathing, grooming, paramedical services, accompaniment to medical appointments, and protective supervision for individuals whose mental status or cognitive functioning poses a threat to their safety and well-being). IHSS is the largest publicly funded nonmedical program in the nation designed to help impoverished people with disabilities, the elderly, and blind live safely at home.

The proposed cut is a double-hit on consumers in shared living arrangements who have already had their hours reduced. When IHSS consumers live with a roommate or attendant, the assessment of need for domestic and related services related to their safety is pro-rated and reduces the number of hours approved under the program.

Many consumers receive the maximum number of hours authorized for domestic and related services through the IHSS program:

Meal Preparation 8.68 hours/week
Meal Cleanup 1.75 hours/week
Laundry 2.50 hours /week
Shopping For Food 1.00 hours/week
Other Shopping Errands 0.50 hours/week
Total Hours per Week 14.43 hours/week
Total Hours per Week Cut at 18% Equals -- 2.60 hours/week

“The growth occurring in the IHSS program while partially due to changing demographics, is a positive indication that more people are receiving services in the community instead of being placed in nursing homes,” said Ed Andreas, Chair, Nevada Sierra Regional IHSS Governing Board.

Proposed cuts contradict state’s expensive IHSS Quality Assurance initiative; endanger safety
The Administration’s IHSS Quality Assurance Initiative required the State Department of Social Services to develop Hourly Task Guidelines (HTGs), a standard guide and tool for county social workers to accurately and consistently assess service authorizations on a statewide basis and authorize services and time more equitably throughout the state. The HTGs established a normal range of time for certain tasks and a guide for granting time inside and outside the guidelines as appropriate to meet the unique needs of IHSS recipients.

The proposed cuts contradict those Quality Assurance Hourly Task Guidelines

“This proposed 18 percent cut to domestic and related services completely undermines the entire concept of conducting individual assessments to provide sufficient hours to—as the law requires—‘ensure the health, safety, and independence of the recipient,’” said John Wilkins, an IHSS consumer in Fresno County and Co-Chair of the Quality Homecare Coalition.

Jovan Agee is the political and legislative director for the United Domestic Workers of America in Sacramento.

Posted on February 20, 2008

Comments

Why does it seem like the governor consistently targets the most vulnerable people whenever there is a budget shortfall. Why is he so intent on never instituting things like yacht taxes or plugging corporate loopholes, while repeatedly targeting the poorest of the poor. This "survival of the fittest" attitude is really inhumane, and unbecoming of a great state like California. Besides the fact that institutionalization would cost a great deal more, I can't understand why the Governor who has already cut the cost of living allowance for people trying to survive on $856 a month would try to deprive them of food and living in a healthy clean environment. I am baffled as to why The Governor never asks the most wealthy share in the sacrificed, but only the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens. What could he be thinking?

Posted by: Nancy Becker Kennedy at February 23, 2008 12:22 AM

The above commentor asks: Why does it seem like the governor consistently targets the most vulnerable people whenever there is a budget shortfall?
Answer: Because he can.

Why is he so intent on never instituting things like yacht taxes or plugging corporate loopholes, while repeatedly targeting the poorest of the poor.
Answer: Many powers that be still hold beliefs that the poor and unemployed deserve punishment and the well off deserve reward.

Here's something that seems so unfair to people surviving on Supplimental Security.

Retirees on SSI are not eligible for the social security stimulus payment. While my neighbor who is on Social Securiy (by the way, it was her husbands .. she has not worked a day in her life) is entitled to a $300.00 rebate, though she does not customarily file an income tax return - she will this year for the return. I, 70 ys old and not well, worked many years but not quite enough, was stunned when I received a negative response to my filing. Apparently, the disabled who receive payment through Social Security Disability may receive this payment - the disabled who receive payment through SSI, may not.
Huh??
If the Social Security Stimulus Payment is for those on Social Security - then why not for seniors of retirement age and the disabled who are on SSI?

There is nothing so cold as an uncaring government. Is it any wonder millions of Americans suffer depression? Have deep emotional, gambling, drinking, drug problems? Commit mass crimes?

And do people really believe that being gay is the worst problem of all?? Give me a break.

No, nothing surprises me anymore. I have run out of steam trying to get a fair shake. The future is bleek for me. I will need household help. Where will I get it? You have to be a millionaire to afford to keep your car these days. Seniors I know are slowly getting rid of there's due to high cost of gas, insurance, maintaining a car. No where to go anymore. Not even pocket change.

Ethel B.

Posted by: Ethel B at March 14, 2008 02:56 AM

Please look at the web site www.standupforme.com
and sign the petition. Let's work together to stop the cuts to MediCal services for the disabled.
Joann Cook

Posted by: Joann Cook, R.N. at June 6, 2008 06:15 PM

I don't think anyone wants to go to a rest home. Maybe if you can afford a really nice one, $3,000 or more a month then it's ok.

People should be allowed to keep their homes and live there with some help from the government.
I'd like to know why every time there's a cut in the state budget it's the poor who get hurt.

And look at welfare, a single person gets only about $400 a month (cash & food card). How can they expect you to find a job if you don't have a place to shower every day and change into clean clothes?

Posted by: bj at June 22, 2008 01:22 PM

It is inhumane to take from a person who can't take care or help themselves.

The budget cuts should come from people that already have employment, or people that can recover financially.

Unfortunately, our children and clients will be the ones to suffer in the end.

The Governor really needs to listen to the cry of the people, instead of what looks good on paper.

Posted by: Christene E. at June 30, 2008 09:07 PM

I agree with most of what was said. However, we have to take into consideration there are also many receiving SSI and disibility income, who are not leagally qualified to receive it. I have seen it with my own eyes. Illegals go to the Social Security office applying the themselves or their parents, who can't even speak a word of english. If they have worked any length of time and paid into Socical Security, they should be able to speak some english for themselves. They walk out of the office laughing at how easy it is to use the US and get more than they ever had in their lives. They are even being trained on how to use our system. We need a program to clean out the fraud waste and abuse of our government agencies. Also drug addicts playing crazy receiving benefits and the spending money on drugs. Like I said I've seen this done with my own eyes. Even doctors writing false medical reports for people.

Posted by: Lora Hudson at October 3, 2008 06:14 PM

Why don't we just put people to sleep that are over 65, or have serious disabilities, that way we won't have to pay anyone to help these people with making their meals, dressing them, taking them to the doctor or anything else and we can save boodles of money that the government can waste elsewhere. Also we can close the schools and save money there, or cut the money to schools so we can graduate stupid students that will someday be operating on us.

If we stop the wasteful spending that the politicians spend with our hardworking taxes, we can save enough money that will balance the budget for years to come.

Posted by: riversiderca at January 3, 2009 07:43 PM

Why do legislators get a $200 per diem per day, yet cutting the disabled is a consideration?? The politicians are already overpaid for the inferior job performance, maybe they need to have a salary reduction and definetely NO PER DIEM!!

Posted by: Arbella at February 20, 2009 12:07 AM

This is the saddest state of affairs I have ever seen in my life. I don't even know where to begin. What is this about honestly? Money? The federal government can print it whenever they want on their glorified copying machines, so why punish the people in our society who have been punished the most, why not punish those who do the punishing? The very people that work so dilligently in their offices, on the phone, designing schemes to rip off whoever they so desire. You know Arnold i used to think you were cool. As a child I saw all your movies, and thought to myself, wow maybe you are a "last action hero". Arnold, this is not germany or your fathers image of it my friend. I know you are such a self reliant muscle man that feels he needs to pick on those weaker then him, in the United States people like that are referred to as bullies or cowards, reguardless of their self infatuating personal lives. I'm not here to chastize you though. If you want to solve the mess in your state I have some suggestions that may help. But let it still be known that "IN GOD WE TRUST" is still on your money, and don't ever forget that. So for starters increase the personal income tax rate on the top 1% of your states earners to 66 percent. Increase the price of toll roads. Survival of the fittest in America isn't what is seems arnold. I appreciate your attempts to turn california into a hydrogen state, but it doesn't mean that those who have been disenfranchised by all this political and economic meandering over the last 30 years should pay the price. Legalize gay marriage, I'm sure you'll love that because you want everyone to be terminated anyway, and legalize the use of marijuana in coffee shops as in Holland. After all Arnold you do believe in a green economy don't you? JFK would roll over in his grave if he knew what you were trying to do right now arnold. This is not a science fiction movie, this is real life.

Posted by: john at July 8, 2009 05:17 PM

If a person that is on IHSS can cook food,wash dishes, do Laundry, take out trash, drive a car, and do not need Bowel and Blader Care or move In/Out of bed,Feeding, Dressing, why are they on the IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES because there is two people that live in same apartment building that are receiving it. "looks like fraud"

Posted by: darryl wilson at July 11, 2009 01:03 AM

Many years ago if a person needed help then the family took it in stride and all pitched in to helpthat person. GO BACK TO IT BEING LIKE THAT AND STOP TAKING MY TAX MONEY TO PAY FOR THE CARE OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ALWAYS DESERVE IT.

Posted by: gw at July 29, 2009 03:40 PM

why is our governorattacking the sick and the elderly. he does not care because he is rich.his parents dodnt have to suffer.he is a low life person who thinks only of himself for power.to attack the poor is unfair.who made this country in poverty it was republicans. democrats are sppose to help us but they stuck the knife in our backs too.all poloticians are dirty. ihope that things will change for ca.iam one of the people that is being hurt by the cuts.

Posted by: laura graves at July 30, 2009 09:03 AM

Posted by: laura graves at July 30, 2009 09:04 AM

California has spent 50 billion dollars on
prisons in the last 10 years. Amerika has
2.5 million people in prison. If we had
500,000 people in prison that would be the
world's average prison population. So
California could have saved 40 billion dollars
in the last 10 years on prisons alone.
Vallejo filed bankruptcy blaming the police
and fire budget. Are we going to keep imprisoning
people at 5 times the world average and still
not be safe? It would be one thing to be
safe and bankrupt. We are unsafe and bankrupt
and they keep putting people in prison. And
paying police to keep us UNsafe.

Posted by: james mattson at August 14, 2009 08:28 AM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker