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

Cuts Would Jeopardize Well-Being of Many Disabled Citizens

by Ana Acton
Executive Director
FREED Center for Independent Living

June 22, 2009, marked the 10th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Olmstead decision. In its 1999 ruling, the high court affirmed the right of individuals with disabilities to live in their community of choice, and rejected the state of Georgia's appeal to enforce the institutionalization of individuals with disabilities. This single decision was a defining moment in the lives of millions of Americans with disabilities and aging individuals.

The "integration mandate" of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public agencies to provide services "in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." The Olmstead decision upheld that mandate, ruling that Georgia's department of human resources could not segregate two women with mental disabilities in a state psychiatric hospital - long after the agency's own treatment professionals had recommended their transfer to community care.

Ten years later, we recognize that California has made progress in providing safe and affordable community-based care for people with disabilities. This is largely a result of innovative programs such as In-Home Supportive Services, and organizations such as Independent Living Centers, which together provide a continuum of community-based services to enable persons with disabilities to live in the community.

The governor's May 2009 budget revision proposed cuts to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) that would have caused 360,000, or 90 percent, of current participants to lose services. On June 16, 2009, the Senate Budget Committee rejected this and recommended cuts that would impact 10-15 percent of participants.

Whether 360,000 or 40,000 people are impacted, the consequences of these cuts are devastating to people of all ages with disabilities who rely on in-home services to ensure their independence. There are few substitutes for these services, therefore many individuals could be forced into institutions such as nursing homes.

The obvious impacts of such cuts include jeopardizing the health and well-being of individuals with disabilities, including seniors, many of whom have serious medical conditions. Another consequence is the compromising of an effective system (IHSS) that was painstakingly created to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities and ensure their basic civil rights.

A less obvious, but very real consequence is the immediate negative impact to the California state budget. According to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, the state pays $59,000 for every Medi-Cal nursing home resident per year. This is more costly than the maximum $12,300 the state pays annually for each In-Home Supportive Services participant. Cuts to the IHSS program also affect the employment and health benefits of personal care providers in Yuba and Sutter counties, in addition to the individuals with disabilities and/or seniors who are unable to work without the benefit of in-home services.

We recognize that the State of California is in desperate straits and it is time for every individual, organization, and business to make sacrifices and compromises to close the budget gap and contribute solutions to the problem. However, the budget cuts under consideration by the state Senate Budget Committee and Legislature come at too high a cost for the nearly half a million individuals with disabilities in California that rely on In-Home Supportive Services and other programs for their daily life activities.

The 10th anniversary of the Olmstead decision is a time to acknowledge all of the progress that has been made and move toward greater realization of the independence and full civil rights of all people with disabilities. Cutting the essential resources that allow people with disabilities to get out of bed, get dressed, eat breakfast and get on with the daily tasks of living is in direct opposition to the spirit and letter of the Supreme Court Olmstead decision.

Ana Acton is executive director for FREED Center for Independent Living. E-mail her at ana@freed.org or call 742-4474.

Posted on July 03, 2009

Comments

Also the cuts in SSI payments and no more help with property tax are causing a lot of grief to the elderly and disabled. Food prices keep going up and the cut now in an individual SSI payment of almost $50 a month is a travesty. The cost of living all together continues to climb and the beaurocrats are now taking away that little bit that may mean the difference of paying a utility bill or buying groceries for a full month.

If changes are to be made please allow the elderly and disabled to live in dignity. There are many other ways to cut expenses without harming the most needy and vulnerable citizens.

Posted by: peggy at July 3, 2009 08:35 AM

GREAT ARTICLE; HAS ANYONE FIIGURED THE CUTS AFFECTS,VERSUS THE CURRENT 'RULES' OF THESE SOCIAL PROGRAMS?
CONSIDER THE
'80 DOLLARS A MONTH'CRITERIA THAT DOESN'T NEED-BE 'REPORTED',OF ASSORTED INCOME OF FOLKS,NOW-DESPERATE TO MAKE UP THE CUTS,VIA SOCIAL SERVICES,MIGHT GARNER. SINCE MANY ARE NOW-MONTHLY, 80-90 DOLLARS-SHORT,VIA NEW CUTS,WOULD-NOT... THE ABOVE MENTIONED SO-CALLED 'LIMIT' NEED TO BE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALY? AT LEAST IT WOULD GIVE DESPERATE FOLKS A BIT OF EXTRA INCOME,THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY MAKE,BY SELLING THEIR LEGALY-ALLOWED, POSSESIONS AND NOT BE 'PENALIZED'?
AND CONSIDER THE 'LIMIIT' OF 2 THOUSAND A MONTH IN 'POSSESIONS,SOME CASH / HOUSHOLD ITEMS,LEST THE PERSON GO OVER THE LIMIT AND GET CUT-OFF FROM MONTHLY PAYMENTS.SHOULD NOT THIS LIMIT BE RAISED,IF THE STATE IS CONTINUING TO 'CUT'THE MONTHLY AMOUNT-PAID? IT (IS) THEIR ONLY SAFETY NET,FOR RECIEPIENTS AS SAVINGS,SO THIS ALSO LEAVES FOLKS SHORT.
THE LAWMAKERS,IN DESPERATE STRAITS,ARE NOW DROPPING THE 'BALL',YET-AGAIN,BY NOT SEEING THAT CUTS EQUAL THE 'LEGAL-LIMITS',LEAVING FOLKS ON SOCIAL SERVICES-PAYMENTS,JUST THAT MUCH MORE VUNERABLE!!
IT'S LIKLEY STATE LAWMAKERS COULLD CARE-LESS,AND-YET, ALL THATS NEEDED IS SIMPLE-RULE CHANGES.
SUCH STATE-INEQUITY OF A PROMISE TO PAY,THEN RECEND THAT PROMISE,CAUSES ENOURMOUS RIPPLES OF DIS-TRUST AND SUFFERING.MANY HAVE PAYMENTS ON A CAR OR CONSUMER ITEM,AND THEY NEVER ANTICIPATED THESE CUTS,LIKLEY ARE SELLING THESE ITEMS FOR FOOD,LEST THEIR GOOD CREDIT COULD ALSO BE RUINED! THAT TAKES AWAY THEIR ONLY PERSONAL SAFETY NET,GOOD CREDIT. IT'S IRONIC THAT THE STATE HAS ALREADY RUINED THEIR OWN GOOD CREDIT,BUT NOW...SOCIAL SERVICE RECIEPIENTS ARE LIKLEY TO HAVE THEIR OWN GOOD CREDIT/SAFETY NET,RUINED-PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THEM!IT'S IRONIC,THAT THE BANKS ARE GETTING BILLIONS FROM THE FED,AND STATE POOR FOLKS-ELDERLY ARE LOSING THEIR GOOD CREDIT,THUS CAUSING MORE RIPPLES OF FAILURE,THESE BANKS ARE BEING BAILED OUT FOR!!
SHOULD-NOT....SOCIAL SERVICE FOLKS NEED TO ATTEND TO CHANGING/LOWERING OF PAYMENTS AND ADJUST/LIGHTEN THE BURDEN VIA THE CURRENT STRINGENT RULES FOR SOCIAL SERVICES,AS THE COST IS MOSTLY ADMINISTRATIVE,AND IN PLACE? WHERE IS THE JUSTICE? THIS IS GETTINNG BRUTAL,AND ALL BECAUSE THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE A 50% VOTE TO FIX THE BUDGET? WE NEED CHANGE,LIKE OBAMA SAID,AND IT'S TIME STATES GET A BAIL-OUT FROM THE FED.

Posted by: DAWK at July 4, 2009 09:25 AM

Dawk, why are we yelling?

Ana, very nice article. I have a quick question. My understanding is that the programs already mandated by the federal government are to continue unchanged. Programs that were designed purely to augment one's own retirement.

So isn't it just state programs that are to be cut? Programs that are supplemental to the federal supplemental plan?

Many states either never had such programs, or already have cut them due to budget constraints. Why should California be different?

Posted by: Guy Montag Doe at July 4, 2009 10:51 AM

GUY-DUDE; YOUR IGNORANT-NEGATIVE COMMENT FAILLS TO ANSWERS ANY OF MY PERFECTLY WRITTEN('ALL CAPS',BECAUSE I AM KEYBOARD DISABLED-NOT 'SHOUTING',BUT SHOULD-RIGHTFULLY-SO BE.... SINCE IT TAKES ME TEN TIMES LONGER TO TYPE IN LOWER CASE,FROM PARKINSONS HAND MOVEMENT TREMMORS,SUCH AS THE EXCESS LETTERS,LEFT UNEDITED SO DOLTS LIKE YOU CAN REALIZE,IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO BE THE 'ALL-CAPS POLICE'.AND, YES....NOW I'M SHOUTING!!!!)QUESTIONNS PROPOSED TO LAWMAKERS.
I SEE, YOU-'GUY' HAVEN'T A CLUE,LEST YOU ARE-PERHAPS RUTHLESS RICH- A REPUB. WHO WANTS ALL SOCIAL SAFETY NETS BOTH STATE AND FED 'REMOVED' FOR YOUR $$$$ ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTRESTS.

Posted by: DAWK at July 5, 2009 10:43 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