I got the fellow email
CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT
#228-2010 – NOVEMBER 29, 2010 – MONDAY
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: Advocacy Without Borders: One Community – Accountability With Action - California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com WEBSITE: www.cdcan.us TWITTER: www.twitter.com - “MartyOmoto”
REMEMBERING THE LIFE AND WORK OF LAURA HERSHEY
Upcoming Public Meetings & Hearings:
Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver Stakeholder Meeting 12/8
Disability Access Commission Meeting 12/9
Legislature To Reconvene For Swearing In 12/6
Legislature Will Also Convene Special Session Called by Governor – Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver Proposal Approved by Federal Government November 2nd – Will Mean Sweeping Changes to Medi-Cal Program in California for Hundreds of Thousands of Children and Adults With Disabilities, Mental Health Needs & Seniors
SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 11/29/2010 Monday 04:20 PM (Pacific Time)] - The following is a listing of some of the major public meetings or hearings that will or should have some impact on people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors, their families, community organizations, facilities, and workers who provide or coordinate services and supports, including a very important meeting on December 8th of the Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver Stakeholder Advisory Committee on the latest status of the Medicaid proposal submitted by California earlier this year that the federal government approved November 2.
Section 1115 Waiver Will Result in Sweeping Changes to Medi-Cal Program
That proposal will – when fully implemented – result in sweeping changes to the State’s Medi-Cal program, impacting hundreds of thousands of children and adults with disabilities – including developmental disabilities – people with mental health needs, the blind and seniors across the State.
“Section 1115” refers to a specific section of the federal Social Security Act - the law that Medicaid falls under – which allows the federal government to authorize a state to try out an idea in a demonstration project, waiving existing Medicaid rules that otherwise would not allow it. The only catch is that the demonstration project cannot cost more Medicaid dollars (referred to as “budget neutrality”) then if there was no waiver in place.
The proposal that California submitted was authorized as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009. The Schwarzenegger Administration proposed the renewal and expansion of the existing Medicaid Section 1115 (which largely dealt with hospital financing issues), that was due to expire in August 2010 – and to expand it to cover hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors among other populations.
The Legislature passed in the closing days of the 2009-2010 Legislative session in August (after holding hearings earlier), two bills – SB 208 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (Democrat – Sacramento) and AB 342 by Assembly Speaker John Perez (Democrat – Los Angeles), that added certain other requirements to the waiver proposal. The Governor signed those two bills into law – which were part of the 2010-2011 State Budget in October.
The Schwarzenegger Administration pushed the renewal and dramatic expansion of the Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver proposal saying it would be a way to contain and control dramatically rising costs in the Medi-Cal program specifically among the population of people with disabilities and seniors – the population that the State says most of the Medi-Cal program dollars are spent. The Schwarzenegger Administration has said that the waiver proposal will also result in better quality health care.
Many advocates for people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors however remain deeply concerned – or in some cases, outright opposed – to all or certain parts of the approved proposal.
Persons who are considered “dual eligible” for both Medicare and Medicaid (called Medi-Cal in California) were part of the original proposal submitted to the federal government – but due to changes resulting from the health care reform act and other issues, will be phased in at a later point in the California Section 1115 waiver. See separate CDCAN Report tomorrow for more details about the Section 1115 Waiver.
For more information about the waiver and to view documents including the proposal, various presentations and reports, go to the Department of Health Services website specifically on the Medicaid Section 1115 waiver proposal at:
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/WaiverRenewal.aspx
Final Legislative Hearing for 2009-2010 Legislative Session
On Tuesday is what is the final committee informational hearing of the 2009-2010 Legislative session, which officially ends at midnight Tuesday night. At that time, the terms of office officially ends for all 80 Assembly seats and 20 of the State Senate seats. Newly elected members or those re-elected will be sworn in on December 6th, Monday.
Statewide elected officials, including the Governor, serve until January (the new Governor takes office officially on the first Monday after January 1st – in this case, January 3, 2011).
Meanwhile, in Washington, DC, the out-going US Congress is continuing its “lame duck” session in order to resolve issues – even if only temporarily – dealing with delaying again the implementation of a major reduction in reimbursements to Medicare doctors; extension of the “Bush tax cuts”; and authorization for a certain period of time to continue some level of spending of the federal government until (and if) a federal budget is passed to avoid a government shutdown.
CDCAN SUMMARY OF UPCOMING PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS:
The following public meetings and hearings this week and beyond – in date order that have some impact (indirect or direct) to infants, children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, people with traumatic brain and other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, people with MS, Alzheimer’s disease and disorders, the blind, seniors, state and local government agencies, community organizations, facilities and individual workers who provide supports and services.
Please note that the various designations of the “priority” of the meetings listed is not a forecast of the importance of what will actually be discussed or is on the agenda of a particular meeting – but an indication that this particular legislative haring or committee or commission meeting could or should be at a certain level of importance or relevance to advocates – including critical issues not on an official agenda):
NOVEMBER 30, 2010 - TUESDAY
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
TIME AND PLACE: 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM - State Capitol - Room 112
WHAT: Informational Hearing – Subject: “As Local tax dollars disappear, can the end of mutual aid agreements be far behind?”
CDCAN COMMENT: This joint committee, chaired by State Sen. Christine Kehoe (Democrat – San Diego), and composed of 7 state senators and 7 assemblymembers, has been in continuous existence since 2004 and was originally known as the Joint Legislative Committee on Emergency Services and Homeland Security to help oversee the two state government agencies dealing with both issues. In 2007 the joint committee’s name was changed to :Committee on Emergency Management” to reflect the merger of the two state agencies dealing with emergency services and homeland security – and was authorized to continue through the 2009-2010 session, ending (unless continued during the 2011-2012 Legislative session ) at the end of the day on November 30, 2010.
WHO THIS IMPACTS
The issue is critically important on how the State and federal government coordinates and actually responds to local or statewide emergencies, including natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes and has impact on children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, the blind, people who deaf, people with traumatic brain and other injuries, people with Alzheimer’s, MS and other diseases and disorders, and seniors, state local government, community based organizations and facilities and workers who provide supports and services
The focus of the November 30th informational hearing is focused on over arching issues related to emergency management – but advocates and policymakers should always remember the issues critical to emergency management and all parts of a community that will need help in the event of an emergency.
PRIORITY: IMPORTANT
DECEMBER 6, 2010 – MONDAY
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
TIME AND PLACE: 12 noon – State Capitol – Senate and Assembly Chambers
WHAT: Newly elected members sworn into office and official convening of the first day of the 2011-2012 Legislative session – and the official convening of the special session of the new Legislature to deal with the budget crisis called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
CDCAN COMMENT: Normally, the first day of the new Legislative session is fairly brief, consisting of swearing in new members elected the previous November – and officially electing officers (such as the Assembly Speaker, the new Assembly Majority and Minority – Republican – Leaders ) in the Assembly and officers (such as the President Pro Tem, the new Senate Majority and Minority – Republican - Leaders ) in the State Senate. While some new committee chairs have been previously announced – and more could be announced on this day, the bulk of the new committee chair and committee assignments will likely be announced in January and perhaps not completed until early February. The Legislature will – as required by the State Constitution – convene the first special session of the 2011-2012 Legislative Session as called by Governor Schwarzenegger regarding the budget crisis, with the State facing a staggering $25.4 billion projected budget shortfall – over $6 billion projected by June 30, 2011 unless the Legislature and Governor act.
However the Legislature – controlled by Democrats – will not likely take any specific action on the crisis until next month, when the new governor – Jerry Brown – assumes office the first week of January. That could change if State Controller John Chiang reports in early December of an imminent cash crisis where the State would be unable to pay its bills – the main reason which underscored the urgencies and resulting major cuts made in the special sessions in late 2008 and early 2009 and in July 2009.
PRIORITY: HIGH
DECEMBER 8, 2010 - WEDNESDAY
MEDICAID SECTION 1115 STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC MEETING
WHEN: December 8, 2010 – Wednesday morning
TIME: 09:30 AM to 12:30 PM
WHERE:
Sacramento Convention Center
1301 L Street, Room 204 [13th and L Streets near State Capitol]
Sacramento, CA 95814-3900
TOLL FREE LINE: None yet announced or listed
WHAT: This will be the 7th public meeting of the full Medicaid Section 1115 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (the first one was held January 7, 2010 and the most recent one was held September 29th)
WHO THIS IMPACTS: Children and adults with disabilities – including those with developmental disabilities, people with mental health needs, the blind, seniors currently in the Medi-Cal program or those who are seeking eligibility in the coming years, their families; counties that determine eligibility; community organizations who provide organized systems of care currently; community organizations, facilities and workers who provide supports and services
CDCAN COMMENT: Hopefully there will be a toll free phone line available – as there was for the other public meetings of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee – that will allow public comment over the phone.
This will be the first meeting of the stakeholder committee since the federal government approved California’s Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver proposal in November.
PRIORITY: VERY HIGH
DECEMBER 9, 2010 – THURSDAY
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ACCESS (CCDA)
WHEN: December 9, 2010 – Thursday
TIME: 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
WHERE:
Department of Consumer Affairs
1625 North Market Blvd – First Floor Hearing Room
Sacramento, CA 95834 (in North Natomas area of Sacramento)
WEBCAST ACCESS: http://www.dca.ca.gov/stream/audiocast.asx
TOLL FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1-877-953-8408
PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: 2698
AGENDA:
Notice is hereby given that the California Commission on Disability Access (CCDA) will hear, discuss, deliberate and/or take an action upon the following items listed in this notice. The public is invited to attend and provide their input or comments.
1. Call to Order/ Roll Call/ Pledge of Allegiance/Housekeeping Items
2. Comments from the Public on Issues not on this Agenda: The Commission will receive comments from the public at this time on matters not on the agenda. Matters raised at this time may be briefly discussed by the Commission and/or placed on a subsequent agenda.
3. General Business Items
a. Staffing
i. Executive Director position
ii. Staff Services Analyst & Executive Assistant
b. Space and services
c. CCDA [California Commission on Disability Access] “By-Laws”
d. Accessible websites for California state agencies
e. Discussion responsibility of and oversight by “sister agencies” in matters such as the Cal Trans building located in Los Angeles
4. Budget
a. Fiscal Year 2010/2011 budget
b. Status of Budget Change Proposal (BCP) for Fiscal Year 2011/2012
c. Contracts with Department of General Services (DGS)
5. Committees
a. Committee Meeting Dates
b. Committee Reports by Committee Chairpersons
* Accessibility Checklist Committee
* Administration Committee
* Accessibility Enhancement Committee
* CASP [Certified Access Specialist Program] & Education Committee
* Civil Enforcement Committee
6. Disabled Access Legislative and Regulatory Developments
7. Future Agenda Items: The Commission may discuss and set for action on future agendas, procedural and substantive items relating to Commission mandates, projects, responsibilities, Commission policy, and administrative matters.
8. Adjournment of CCDA Meeting
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS:
Requests for accommodations for individuals with disabilities (sign-language interpreter, assistive listening device, Braille, or any other accommodation needed by an individual) should be made to the Commission office no later than 10 working days prior to the day of the meeting.
QUESTIONS ABOUT MEETING OR AGENDA:
Stephanie Davis, Assistant to the director, California Building Standards Commission, at (916) 263-0916 or at 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130, Sacramento, California 95833.
For latest information on the status of the meeting, check the California Building Standards Commission website at:
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/ and then click on the CCDA tab
WHO THIS IMPACTS: Children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors and their families, community organizations, facilities, workers who provide advocacy and/or supports or services, and businesses, and state and local government agencies responsible for access related issues.
PRIORITY: VERY HIGH
JANUARY 1, 2011 – SATURDAY
Bills (non emergency or “urgency” bills, which take effect immediately) passed by the Legislature in 2010 and signed into law by the Governor take effect on this day.
JANUARY 3, 2011 – MONDAY
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
TIME AND PLACE: 12 noon – State Capitol – Senate and Assembly Chambers
WHAT: Reconvenes the 2011-2012 Legislative session – and also (likely) the special session originally called by Governor Schwarzenegger.
CDCAN COMMENT: Not much will likely happen on the first day of the new session – though the week itself will be filled with major events – including the public swearing in ceremonies of all the statewide elected officials, including Governor-elect Jerry Brown.
Also this week the new Governor is likely to address the Legislature formally in his first “State of the State” message – and then on January 10th, release his proposed 2011-2012 State Budget.
Governor-elect Brown officially takes office (Article 5 Section 2 of the State Constitution provides that the “…Governor shall be elected every fourth year at the same time and places as members of the Assembly and hold office from theMonday after January 1 following the election until a successor qualifies.” The ceremonial inauguration usually takes place later.
PRIORITY: N/A
JANUARY 10, 2011 – MONDAY
Governor is required to submit a proposed State budget (in this case for the State budget year that begins July 1, 2011 and ends June 30, 2012) on this day for the Legislature to consider.
VERY URGENT!!!!!
PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!
Your help is needed – now this month (November 2010)!.
CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot continue without your help. To continue the CDCAN website, the CDCAN News Reports. sent out and read by over 50,000 people and organizations, policy makers and media across California and to continue the CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings which since December 2003 have connected thousands of people with disabilities, seniors, mental health needs, people with MS and other disorders, people with traumatic brain and other injuries to public policy makers, legislators, and issues.
Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or "California Disability Community Action Network):
CDCAN
1225 8th Street Suite 480 - Sacramento, CA 95814
paypal on the CDCAN site is not yet working – will be soon.
MANY, MANY THANKS TO BOB BENSON, EASTER SEALS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , the Pacific Homecare Services, California Association of Adult Day Health Centers, Valley Mountain Regional Center, Toward Maximum Independence, Inc (TMI), Friends of Children with Special Needs, UCP of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, Southside Arts Center, San Francisco Bay Area Autism Society of America, Hope Services in San Jose, FEAT of Sacramento (Families for Early Autism Treatment), RESCoalition, Sacramento Gray Panthers, Bill Wong, Easter Seals of Southern California, Tri-Counties Regional Center, Westside Regional Center, Regional Center of the East Bay, UCP of Orange County, Alta California Regional Center, Life Steps, Parents Helping Parents, Work Training, Foothill Autism Alliance, Arc Contra Costa, Pause4Kids, Manteca CAPS, Training Toward Self Reliance, UCP, California NAELA, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc (CDR) including CDR chapters, CHANCE Inc, , Strategies To Empower People (STEP), Harbor Regional Center, Asian American parents groups, Resources for Independent Living and many other Independent Living Centers, several regional centers, People First chapters, IHSS workers, other self advocacy and family support groups, developmental center families, adoption assistance program families and children, and others across California.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Last meeting
I just got this email. The following this come.
CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT
#223-2010 – NOVEMBER 17, 2010 – WEDNESDAY
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: Advocacy Without Borders: One Community – Accountability With Action - California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com WEBSITE: www.cdcan.us TWITTER: www.twitter.com - “MartyOmoto”
State Budget Crisis:
Schwarzenegger Administration’s Final Olmstead Advisory Committee Public Meeting 11/18 – Update on Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver & Other Issues
Toll Free Line Available for People to Call In - Advisory Group Formed in 2005 by Governor’s Executive Order On State’s Compliance and Implementation of Landmark US Supreme Court Decision Regarding Rights of People With Disabilities, Mental Health Needs & Seniors – Could Continue Under Brown When He Takes Office In January
SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 11/17/2010 11:30 AM (Pacific Time)] - The Schwarzenegger Administration’s advisory committee on California’s implementation and compliance of the landmark 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead Decision [photo of Elaine Wilson (seated) and Lois Curtis – the two women with disabilities who filed the lawsuit] regarding the rights of children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors to live in their homes and communities will hold its final Thursday, November 18, 2010 from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM at the Department of Rehabilitation building in Sacramento, two blocks from the west steps of the State Capitol. A toll free line is available for any person who cannot attend the meeting (see below for details). The committee is meeting under the cloud of an enormous and on-going budget deficits for the State projected next year at over $25 billion – and under the transition of an outgoing and incoming Governor.
Public comment is taken after each agenda item throughout the committee meeting from those physically attending and from those participating via the toll free line. The full text of the committee agenda is re-produced in this report below.
NOVEMBER 18, 2010 – THURSDAY
TIME: 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
WHAT: Olmstead Advisory Committee Meeting
WHERE: Department of Rehabilitation building in Room 242, 721 Capitol Mall (corner of Capitol Mall and 8th Streets), Sacramento, two blocks from west steps of State Capitol.
TOLL FREE LINE: 1-888-232-0362, and passcode: 785453
REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS:
In consideration of those who will be attending and who are sensitive to environmental odors created by chemicals and perfumes, the Olmstead Advisory Committee asks that people consider restricting the use of fragrances at this meeting.
American Sign Language interpreters will be available at the meeting.
If disability-related accommodations are required or a person needs materials in alternate formats, please make the request at least five days prior to the meeting date to:
Megan Juring, Assistant Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency – Olmstead and Long Term Care
Phone: (916) 654-0662, TTY (916) 558-5807, or
Email: mjuring@chhs.ca.gov
MORE INFORMATION INCLUDING MEETING MATERIALS:
http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/Olmstead/Pages/FullAdvisoryCommitteeMeetingsCY2010.aspx
PRIORITY: VERY HIGH
Committee Officially Known As “Olmstead Advisory Committee”
The committee is officially known as the “Olmstead Advisory Committee” established in 2004 by executive order issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and first met officially in March 2005. The Governor later issued an executive order in 2008 that replaced his previous order (see below for text of both orders). In theory, the advisory committee continues under Governor-elect Jerry Brown, when he takes office in the first week of January, unless his Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency – or a new executive order by the new governor decides not to continue the committee, or to establish an entirely new committee.
The issues that the Olmstead Decision covers has sweeping impact to children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, their families, community organizations, state hospitals and developmental centers, other health facilities – made more difficult by enormous State budget shortfalls – with more grim news earlier this month of staggering projected State budget deficits next year and in the coming years.
Update on Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver That Will Have Sweeping Impact on Medi-Cal Program
One key issue that committee members will be updated on at the meeting is the proposal – recently approved by the federal government – that will have sweeping impact on children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, the blind, seniors and others in the State’s Medicaid (called “Medi-Cal” in California) program. The proposal – called the “Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver” will begin to go into effect next year. The Schwarzenegger Administration was given authority to develop and submit a proposal to the federal government, as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009.
Two bills – SB 208 by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (Democrat – Sacramento) and AB 342 by Assembly Speaker John Perez (Democrat – Los Angeles) that were passed as part of the 2010-2011 State Budget in October, made other specific requirements in how the Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver proposal is to be implemented. “Section 1115” refers to a specific part of the federal Social Security Act – the federal law that governs Medicaid – that gives the federal government authority to exempt certain Medicaid rules to allow a state to test out or demonstrate certain ideas in how their Medicaid program is delivered in their state.
For more information on this issue see previous CDCAN Reports (dating from summer 2009) on this or go to the Department of Health Care Services website page that is specifically focused on this proposal (including documents, meeting agendas and minutes from various stakeholder advisory committee meetings, workgroup meetings and reports:
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/WaiverRenewal.aspx
Olmstead Decision Required States To Steps to Avoid Institutionalization
The federal lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the State of Georgia in 1995 by Wilson (who passed away December 5, 2004 at age 53) and Curtis - who filed a lawsuit against then Georgia state commissioner of Human Resources Tommy Olmstead. Both women had disabilities – including developmental.
[CDCAN Note: Lois Curtis appeared May 27, 2009 at the Disability Capitol Action Day at the State Capitol organized by the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and other advocacy groups. Marty Omoto introduced and interviewed Curtis on-stage before the crowd of about 2,000 persons gathered on the West Steps of the State Capitol].
In June 1999 the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court rulings in favor of Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, in a landmark decision.
Since that decision, advocates across the nation and in California have criticized the slow pace of implementation and compliance by the federal government and in various states. Compliance and implementation was made more difficult due to on-going budget deficits in nearly all the states that resulted in major budget reductions to health and human services. An Olmstead Advisory Committee was created by executive order of Governor Schwarzenegger in September 2004 (that order was later revised last year)
California state officials have said that the state, given the fiscal and other budget problems since 2002, is moving as fast as it can toward compliance.
The Olmstead Advisory Committee was originally established in 2004 by executive order of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (which was revised in a second order issue in 2008) that underscores California’s “…commitment to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting, and to adopt and adhere to policies and practices that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.”
The California Health and Human Services Agency stated on its Olmstead Advisory Committee website that the “Governor places a high priority on providing services for people with disabilities and seniors in the most integrated setting possible and adopting policies and practices that make it feasible to remain in the community” and that the Olmstead Advisory Committee underscores this commitment by “…insuring the involvement of people with disabilities and other system stakeholders in making recommendations on actions to improve California's long term care system. “
Brenda Premo, director of the Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions at Western University of Health Sciences and a former director of the California Department of Rehabilitation, serves as chair of the committee.
The Olmstead Advisory Committee advises Kim Belshe, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, – the state agency that oversees several departments that administer statewide a wide range of services and supports for children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, the blind, people with MS, Alzheimer’s disorders and diseases, people with traumatic brain and other injuries, and seniors. The committee is responsible, according to the California Health and Human Services website “…for providing input to [the California Health and Human Services] Agency on its efforts to implement the California Olmstead Plan, recommending actions to improve California's long-term care system and creating opportunities to fund expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community. “
Committee Has Been Praised and Criticized Regarding Olmstead Compliance
Like other government related advisory committees, the Olmstead Advisory Committee has no actual decision making authority. It does receive important updates from the Secretary of the Health and Human Service Agency and the heads of the major departments and Belshe has stated several times over the years that the committee members input and concerns are taken into consideration during internal policy discussions – including those on the state budget – by the Schwarzenegger Administration.
The committee has its supporters and critics – some who say the committee has been a good vehicle to get information and updates, and to help shape some major important policy initiatives dealing with long term care, community-based services and other issues, including various major proposals that have drawn down more federal matching dollars in support of those programs. Supporters of the committee say the near constant presence and participation at virtually every committee meeting since it was established by Secretary Belshe, and also the various department heads has been important in understanding or influencing State policies regarding implementation of the Olmstead Decision.
Critics however contend the committee has not been effective in changing the Administration’s or Legislature’s approach in solving the enormous budget shortfalls over the past several years that they argue have undermined or even reversed previous progress in the State’s implementation of the Olmstead Decision. They point to sweeping cuts and even outright program eliminations that were proposed and deep cuts that were actually enacted since 2002 impacting thousands of people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors.
Similar concerns have been raised in other states that have a similar advisory committee – and virtually all of the other 49 states have made major reductions and changes in eligibility – many permanent that impact people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors.
NOVEMBER 18, 2010 OLMSTEAD ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA
Olmstead Advisory Committee Meeting
Meeting Notice and Agenda
November 18, 2010: 10 am – 4 pm
Department of Rehabilitation, Room 242
721 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California
Toll-Free Call-In Number: 1-888-232-0362 Passcode: 785453
AGENDA (public comment time between each item)
Please note: The order in which the agenda items are considered may be subject to change. Opportunities for public comment will be provided throughout the agenda.
1. Welcome and Introductory Remarks: Brenda Premo [Chair - Olmstead Advisory Committee]
2. Secretary’s Comments: Kim Belshe [Secretary, California Health and Human Services Agency]
An opening discussion by the Secretary, department directors and others reflecting on Olmstead-related achievements as well as policy/program objectives that were not attained or realized fully during this Administration. A brief discussion of changes in Congress and the State administration transition will help inform discussions throughout the agenda. Willis Morris will provide a D.C. [Washington, DC – federal] update.
3. Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Opportunities Under Health Care Reform
In addition to major tasks of improving access to healthcare for individuals with pre-existing conditions, establishing a health insurance exchange, conforming insurance rules and regulations, and implementing wellness and prevention initiatives, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) includes several initiatives for long-term care services and supports. Long-term care opportunities may include: the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program, Community First Choice Option, modifications to existing programs including the 1915(i) Medicaid State Plan Amendments, Aging and Disability Resource Centers and Money Follows the Person demonstration funding extensions, and requirements for states to extend income and asset protections for spouses of HCBS as well as for beneficiaries in nursing homes. Discussion will address California’s current implementation efforts and what may be ahead relating to implementation at a federal level.
4. Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver as a Bridge to Reform
Implementation on the 1115 Waiver as a bridge to comprehensive reform. Approved by CMS [federal Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services] on November 2, 2010, changes under the waiver involve expanding coverage today for those who will become “newly eligible” in 2014 under health care reform, implementing models for more comprehensive and coordinated care for some of California’s most vulnerable residents, and testing various strategies to strengthen and transform the state’s public hospital health care delivery system to prepare for the additional numbers of people who will have access to health care once health care reform is fully implemented. Discussion will include implementation plans, on-going stakeholder involvement, and future steps.
5. Working Lunch
6. Human Service Transportation Coordination
The Mobility Action Plan, Strategic Implementation Plan identifies priority recommendations for action around: Strengthening Existing State Program and Funding Guidelines and Regulatory Requirements; Research and Evaluation of Coordination Concepts; Information and Education; and State Level Strategic Planning and Policy Development.
7. California Alzheimer’s Disease [State] Plan
Goals, recommendations and strategies of the California Alzheimer’s Disease Plan will be discussed in relation to Olmstead and long-term service capacity broadly.
8. Priorities of the Olmstead Advisory Committee:
Facilitated by Bobbie Wunsch, Pacific Health Consulting Group
Olmstead Advisory Committee members will identify priority recommendations to advance to the [Governor-elect Jerry] Brown Administration as part of a transition report of the Olmstead Advisory Committee.
KEYACTIONS BY FEDERAL COURTS & PARTIAL LIST OF STEPS BY THE STATE LEADING UP TO FIRST OLMSTEAD MEETING
Following is a CDCAN summary key actions of federal court actions and a partial list of some steps taken by the federal government and the State leading up to the 2004 establishment of the California Olmstead Advisory Committee. Not listed during this time period – from 2002 on – are the State budget cuts both proposed and enacted that had major impact regarding the State’s implementation of the Olmstead Decision.
It should be noted that several subsequent federal and state court rulings and decisions since 2004 have been issued referencing the Olmstead Decision and that during this same time period there were several other important proposals or initiatives (some that advocates viewed as positive – and others as negative) advanced by the State and federal government that had impact on compliance and implementation.
1995
· Lois Curtis (“L.C.”) in federal district court in Georgia, seeking placement in the community, against Georgia state officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Title II of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, that claimed that Georgia violated Title II in failing to place her in a community-based program once her “treating professionals” determined that such placement was appropriate. Elaine Wilson or "E. W." joined the lawsuit, making a nearly identical claim as Lois Curtis.
· Both women were originally voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital in Atlanta, where they were confined for treatment in a psychiatric unit. Although their treatment professionals eventually concluded that each of the women could be cared for appropriately in a community-based program, the women remained confined at the Georgia Regional Hospital.
· The federal district court in Georgia granted a partial summary judgment [ruling or court order] for the women, ordering their placement in an appropriate community-based treatment program.
· The federal district court rejected the State of Georgia's claim that inadequate funding, not discrimination against Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson“…by reason of [their] disabilit[ies],” accounted for their retention at the state institution. The federal district court concluded that under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, unnecessary institutional segregation constitutes discrimination per se, which cannot be justified by a lack of funding. The federal district court also rejected Georgia's claim that requiring immediate transfers of persons (such as Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson) in such cases would "fundamentally alter" state funded programs.
NOVEMBER 1997
· The US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld (agreed with) the lower federal district court's ruling, but ordered the district court to look again at the State of Georgia's claim that community-based care would be "unreasonable" given the demands of the state's health and human services budget.
· The US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in their decision, cited a US regulation adopted by the US Department of Justice to enforce Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act that states "...A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R.§ 35.130(d)." The US Department of Justice had interpreted this regulation as requiring the community placement of people in institutional settings when the state's own “treating professionals” have recommended such placement.
· The State of Georgia appealed the decision of the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court, asking the nation’s highest court to decide "[w]hether the public services portion of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act compels the state to provide treatment and habilitation for mentally disabled persons in a community placement, when appropriate treatment and habilitation can also be provided to them in a State mental institution."
APRIL 21, 1999
· Case was heard before the US Supreme Court – and was the first such case heard before the court involving the “integration mandate” or requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
· By this point both Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson were now living in and receiving community-based services, but the case continued because Georgia had not changed its policies.
JUNE 22, 1999
· The US Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, concluded that, under Title II of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, the states are required to place persons with disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with disabilities.
· The US Supreme Court held that "...unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination" under the Americans With Disabilities Act and that "...institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life" and that "confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, and cultural enrichment."
· The US Supreme Court further held that "by definition, where, as here, the State confines an individual with a disability in an institutional setting when a community placement is appropriate, the State has violated the core principle underlying the ADA's [Americans With Disabilities Act] integration mandate."
· The US Supreme Court gave the states general guidance on how they might demonstrate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act if it had "a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State's desire to keep its institutions fully populated."
· Some advocates of people who reside in developmental centers and other state owned facilities, said that the Olmstead Decision – as it became widely known even though it references the name of the person sued and not the people who filed the lawsuit - offered important flexibility for the States, pointing to a concurring opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy who held that "...It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that States had some incentive, for fear of litigation, to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance and supervision...It is careful, and quite correct, to say that it is not “the ADA’s mission to drive States to move institutionalized patients into an inappropriate setting, such as a homeless shelter . . . .”
1999
· In California, in a step that was not directly in response to the US Supreme Court decision on Olmstead v. Lois Curtis (L.C.) and Elaine Wilson (E.W.), but moved in that direction, AB 452 was passed and signed into law by then Governor Gray Davis, that created a Long-Term Care Council, chaired by secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. The Council (now no longer in existence) was directed by AB 452 to coordinate long-term care policy development and program operations and to develop a strategic plan for long-term care policy.
JULY 11, 2000
· Final settlement agreement was signed in federal district court, before Judge Marvin Shoob, bringing a formal close to Olmstead v. Lois Curtis (L.C.) and Elaine Wilson (E.W.) lawsuit – but was the beginning of the long road toward compliance and implementation of the decision across the country.
JANUARY 2000
· The US Department of Health and Human Services under President Clinton, issued a letter to the states advising that "...no one should have to live in an institution or a nursing home if they can live in the community with the right support. Our goal is to integrate people with disabilities into the social mainstream, promote equality of opportunity and maximize individual choice" and recommended that states develop comprehensive working plans, as described in the Olmstead opinion including steps to obtain input from people impacted by the decision, and to prevent unjustified or unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors, and to ensure appropriate community-based services and to provide quality assurances.
FEBRUARY 2001
· President George W. Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative, stating that "...though progress has been made in the last decade, too many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in bureaucracies of dependence, denied the tools they need to fully access their communities." The intent of the New Freedom Initiative includes promoting increased access into daily community life including through "swift implementation” of the Olmstead v. Lois Curtis(L.C.) and Elaine Wilson (E.W.) 1999 US Supreme Court decision.
SPRING 2002
· Assemblywoman Dion Aroner (Democrat -Berkeley) held an informational hearing on status of California's compliance with the Olmstead Decision, with many persons registering concerns or complaints about the delay in a state Olmstead Plan - three years after the original Supreme Court ruling.
SEPTEMBER 2002
· Governor Gray Davis signed into law AB 442 (Chapter 1161, Statutes of 2002 - one of the 2002 budget trailer bills), which directed the California Health and Human Services Agency to develop and submit to the Legislature by April 1, 2003, a comprehensive plan identifying the actions the state could take to improve its long-term care system and develop an array of community-based programs and services that would enable people with disabilities to avoid unnecessary institutionalization and receive the services they need in the most integrated setting appropriate, using the guidelines established by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for development of a state "Olmstead Plan."
FALL 2002
· California Health and Human Services Agency held series of public forums and meetings in various parts of the state for public input to develop a draft Olmstead State Plan.
MAY 2003
· The California Health and Human Services Agency, under then Governor Gray Davis, released the California Olmstead State Plan that said "...the state commits to providing services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting. The state commits to adopting and adhering to policies and practices that will provide a full array of services and programs that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization. This commitment involves making changes in current state policies and will require changes in federal policies that are biased towards institutionalization."
· The plan lays out strategies to implement the Olmstead Decision, including data collection, providing comprehensive service coordination, and reviewing community service capacity.
· The California Health and Human Services Agency announced it would be establishing an Olmstead Advisory Council - though there was no law requiring it to do so. The Council however never met in part because funding for the office of the Health and Human Services Agency was substantially reduced in the budget passed by the Legislature last year and approved by then Governor Davis - just months before the recall election.
AUGUST 2004
· The California Legislature passed SB 1365 by then State Sen. Wes Chesbro (Democrat - Arcata) that called for the creation of an Olmstead Advisory Council and made other requirements. The bill was widely supported by disability and senior organizations and advocates across the state.
SEPTEMBER 2004
· Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 1365, disappointing many advocates across the state, but signed an executive order, that called on the state to comply with the US Supreme Court decision, and also called for the creation of an Olmstead task force - though not created through state law. Some advocates still believed that the veto of SB 1365 indicated that the Schwarzenegger Administration would not seriously move to comply with Olmstead. [see text of veto message below[
NOVEMBER 2004
· Advocates push then Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (Democrat - Los Angeles) to authorize the continuation of the special (select) Assembly committee on Olmstead implementation through the 2005-2006 session. The Assembly Speaker declined to continue that select committee and it officially went out of existence as of November 30, 2004. [The State Senate had no specific select committee on Olmstead – but did have a select committee on people with disabilities and mental health needs that was chaired by then Sen. Wes Chesbro that covered Olmstead related issues]
JANUARY 2005
· California Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Belshe, on January 27, announces appointments to the 30 member Olmstead Advisory Committee.
MARCH 2005
· First Olmstead Advisory Committee meeting under the Schwarzenegger Administration, at the California Secretary of State’s building in Sacramento.
GOVERNOR’S 2008 ORDER REGARDING OLMSTEAD COMMITTEE
CDCAN Note: Governor Schwarzenegger issued two executive orders regarding the establishment of an Olmstead Advisory Committee – the first in September 2004 (see below for complete text), and the second (which replaces that original order) issued in September 2008.
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-10-08
09/24/2008
WHEREAS unnecessary institutional placement of individuals with disabilities adversely affects the everyday life activities, family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, and cultural enrichment of those institutionalized persons; and
WHEREAS the state has a responsibility to protect against the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities; and
WHEREAS the opportunity to direct one's own affairs, live independently, and attain economic self-sufficiency is an essential component of developing self-worth and personal responsibility; and
WHEREAS direction has been provided to states under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C.; and
WHEREAS community-based care and services can be more cost effective than institutional care, and result in a higher quality of life that promotes the values of community participation, inclusiveness, and respect for diversity; and
WHEREAS the active involvement of people with disabilities and their representatives in the development and implementation of activities designed to move people into, or allow them to remain in, community-based settings is critical to insuring effective strategies; and
WHEREAS California has a demonstrated record of success in providing services that support the full integration of persons with disabilities in community life through such programs as In-Home Supportive Services, Medi-Cal, community mental health, and the comprehensive array of services defined under the Lanterman Act; and
WHEREAS it is possible to build upon California's previous success to improve procedures and implement new tools that will enable more people to fully access their communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue this order effective immediately:
1. The state affirms its commitment to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting, and to adopt and adhere to policies and practices that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
2. The California Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) shall do all of the following:
A. Assess the state's ability to reasonably accommodate new and improved efforts to prevent unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and to facilitate or expand community-based services and supports.
B. Continue to evaluate the May 2003, California Olmstead Plan and make revisions as necessary to insure that it will result in positive action toward the objectives of providing services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting possible, and enabling persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
C. Identify additional strategies to identify Californians who could be served successfully in non-institutional settings and the barriers to these individuals moving at a reasonable pace from, or avoiding admittance to, institutional long-term care facilities.
D. Research funding opportunities to support expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their communities.
E. Develop recommendations for changes in state policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and increase opportunities to utilize community-based services.
F. Develop recommendations for changes in federal policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and explore options for expanding or modifying the state Medicaid plan or Medicaid waivers.
3. In order to inform the Administration's understanding of the current system and future opportunities and insure the involvement of persons with disabilities and other system stakeholders, the Secretary of HHSA [California Health and Human Services Agency], at his or her discretion, is authorized to form an advisory group to provide input to the HHSA on its efforts to evaluate, revise, implement, and monitor the Olmstead Plan, on recommended actions to improve California's long-term care system, and on opportunities to fund expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community. The Secretary should take into account the diversity of California's citizenry with respect to culture, language, geography, and disability in formulating the membership of his or her advisory group.
4. All state agencies and departments are hereby directed to cooperate with and assist the HHSA in carrying out its duties under this Executive Order.
CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT
#223-2010 – NOVEMBER 17, 2010 – WEDNESDAY
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: Advocacy Without Borders: One Community – Accountability With Action - California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com WEBSITE: www.cdcan.us TWITTER: www.twitter.com - “MartyOmoto”
State Budget Crisis:
Schwarzenegger Administration’s Final Olmstead Advisory Committee Public Meeting 11/18 – Update on Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver & Other Issues
Toll Free Line Available for People to Call In - Advisory Group Formed in 2005 by Governor’s Executive Order On State’s Compliance and Implementation of Landmark US Supreme Court Decision Regarding Rights of People With Disabilities, Mental Health Needs & Seniors – Could Continue Under Brown When He Takes Office In January
SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 11/17/2010 11:30 AM (Pacific Time)] - The Schwarzenegger Administration’s advisory committee on California’s implementation and compliance of the landmark 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead Decision [photo of Elaine Wilson (seated) and Lois Curtis – the two women with disabilities who filed the lawsuit] regarding the rights of children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors to live in their homes and communities will hold its final Thursday, November 18, 2010 from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM at the Department of Rehabilitation building in Sacramento, two blocks from the west steps of the State Capitol. A toll free line is available for any person who cannot attend the meeting (see below for details). The committee is meeting under the cloud of an enormous and on-going budget deficits for the State projected next year at over $25 billion – and under the transition of an outgoing and incoming Governor.
Public comment is taken after each agenda item throughout the committee meeting from those physically attending and from those participating via the toll free line. The full text of the committee agenda is re-produced in this report below.
NOVEMBER 18, 2010 – THURSDAY
TIME: 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
WHAT: Olmstead Advisory Committee Meeting
WHERE: Department of Rehabilitation building in Room 242, 721 Capitol Mall (corner of Capitol Mall and 8th Streets), Sacramento, two blocks from west steps of State Capitol.
TOLL FREE LINE: 1-888-232-0362, and passcode: 785453
REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS:
In consideration of those who will be attending and who are sensitive to environmental odors created by chemicals and perfumes, the Olmstead Advisory Committee asks that people consider restricting the use of fragrances at this meeting.
American Sign Language interpreters will be available at the meeting.
If disability-related accommodations are required or a person needs materials in alternate formats, please make the request at least five days prior to the meeting date to:
Megan Juring, Assistant Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency – Olmstead and Long Term Care
Phone: (916) 654-0662, TTY (916) 558-5807, or
Email: mjuring@chhs.ca.gov
MORE INFORMATION INCLUDING MEETING MATERIALS:
http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/Olmstead/Pages/FullAdvisoryCommitteeMeetingsCY2010.aspx
PRIORITY: VERY HIGH
Committee Officially Known As “Olmstead Advisory Committee”
The committee is officially known as the “Olmstead Advisory Committee” established in 2004 by executive order issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and first met officially in March 2005. The Governor later issued an executive order in 2008 that replaced his previous order (see below for text of both orders). In theory, the advisory committee continues under Governor-elect Jerry Brown, when he takes office in the first week of January, unless his Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency – or a new executive order by the new governor decides not to continue the committee, or to establish an entirely new committee.
The issues that the Olmstead Decision covers has sweeping impact to children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, their families, community organizations, state hospitals and developmental centers, other health facilities – made more difficult by enormous State budget shortfalls – with more grim news earlier this month of staggering projected State budget deficits next year and in the coming years.
Update on Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver That Will Have Sweeping Impact on Medi-Cal Program
One key issue that committee members will be updated on at the meeting is the proposal – recently approved by the federal government – that will have sweeping impact on children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, the blind, seniors and others in the State’s Medicaid (called “Medi-Cal” in California) program. The proposal – called the “Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver” will begin to go into effect next year. The Schwarzenegger Administration was given authority to develop and submit a proposal to the federal government, as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009.
Two bills – SB 208 by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (Democrat – Sacramento) and AB 342 by Assembly Speaker John Perez (Democrat – Los Angeles) that were passed as part of the 2010-2011 State Budget in October, made other specific requirements in how the Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver proposal is to be implemented. “Section 1115” refers to a specific part of the federal Social Security Act – the federal law that governs Medicaid – that gives the federal government authority to exempt certain Medicaid rules to allow a state to test out or demonstrate certain ideas in how their Medicaid program is delivered in their state.
For more information on this issue see previous CDCAN Reports (dating from summer 2009) on this or go to the Department of Health Care Services website page that is specifically focused on this proposal (including documents, meeting agendas and minutes from various stakeholder advisory committee meetings, workgroup meetings and reports:
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/WaiverRenewal.aspx
Olmstead Decision Required States To Steps to Avoid Institutionalization
The federal lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the State of Georgia in 1995 by Wilson (who passed away December 5, 2004 at age 53) and Curtis - who filed a lawsuit against then Georgia state commissioner of Human Resources Tommy Olmstead. Both women had disabilities – including developmental.
[CDCAN Note: Lois Curtis appeared May 27, 2009 at the Disability Capitol Action Day at the State Capitol organized by the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and other advocacy groups. Marty Omoto introduced and interviewed Curtis on-stage before the crowd of about 2,000 persons gathered on the West Steps of the State Capitol].
In June 1999 the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court rulings in favor of Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, in a landmark decision.
Since that decision, advocates across the nation and in California have criticized the slow pace of implementation and compliance by the federal government and in various states. Compliance and implementation was made more difficult due to on-going budget deficits in nearly all the states that resulted in major budget reductions to health and human services. An Olmstead Advisory Committee was created by executive order of Governor Schwarzenegger in September 2004 (that order was later revised last year)
California state officials have said that the state, given the fiscal and other budget problems since 2002, is moving as fast as it can toward compliance.
The Olmstead Advisory Committee was originally established in 2004 by executive order of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (which was revised in a second order issue in 2008) that underscores California’s “…commitment to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting, and to adopt and adhere to policies and practices that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.”
The California Health and Human Services Agency stated on its Olmstead Advisory Committee website that the “Governor places a high priority on providing services for people with disabilities and seniors in the most integrated setting possible and adopting policies and practices that make it feasible to remain in the community” and that the Olmstead Advisory Committee underscores this commitment by “…insuring the involvement of people with disabilities and other system stakeholders in making recommendations on actions to improve California's long term care system. “
Brenda Premo, director of the Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions at Western University of Health Sciences and a former director of the California Department of Rehabilitation, serves as chair of the committee.
The Olmstead Advisory Committee advises Kim Belshe, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, – the state agency that oversees several departments that administer statewide a wide range of services and supports for children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, the blind, people with MS, Alzheimer’s disorders and diseases, people with traumatic brain and other injuries, and seniors. The committee is responsible, according to the California Health and Human Services website “…for providing input to [the California Health and Human Services] Agency on its efforts to implement the California Olmstead Plan, recommending actions to improve California's long-term care system and creating opportunities to fund expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community. “
Committee Has Been Praised and Criticized Regarding Olmstead Compliance
Like other government related advisory committees, the Olmstead Advisory Committee has no actual decision making authority. It does receive important updates from the Secretary of the Health and Human Service Agency and the heads of the major departments and Belshe has stated several times over the years that the committee members input and concerns are taken into consideration during internal policy discussions – including those on the state budget – by the Schwarzenegger Administration.
The committee has its supporters and critics – some who say the committee has been a good vehicle to get information and updates, and to help shape some major important policy initiatives dealing with long term care, community-based services and other issues, including various major proposals that have drawn down more federal matching dollars in support of those programs. Supporters of the committee say the near constant presence and participation at virtually every committee meeting since it was established by Secretary Belshe, and also the various department heads has been important in understanding or influencing State policies regarding implementation of the Olmstead Decision.
Critics however contend the committee has not been effective in changing the Administration’s or Legislature’s approach in solving the enormous budget shortfalls over the past several years that they argue have undermined or even reversed previous progress in the State’s implementation of the Olmstead Decision. They point to sweeping cuts and even outright program eliminations that were proposed and deep cuts that were actually enacted since 2002 impacting thousands of people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors.
Similar concerns have been raised in other states that have a similar advisory committee – and virtually all of the other 49 states have made major reductions and changes in eligibility – many permanent that impact people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors.
NOVEMBER 18, 2010 OLMSTEAD ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA
Olmstead Advisory Committee Meeting
Meeting Notice and Agenda
November 18, 2010: 10 am – 4 pm
Department of Rehabilitation, Room 242
721 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California
Toll-Free Call-In Number: 1-888-232-0362 Passcode: 785453
AGENDA (public comment time between each item)
Please note: The order in which the agenda items are considered may be subject to change. Opportunities for public comment will be provided throughout the agenda.
1. Welcome and Introductory Remarks: Brenda Premo [Chair - Olmstead Advisory Committee]
2. Secretary’s Comments: Kim Belshe [Secretary, California Health and Human Services Agency]
An opening discussion by the Secretary, department directors and others reflecting on Olmstead-related achievements as well as policy/program objectives that were not attained or realized fully during this Administration. A brief discussion of changes in Congress and the State administration transition will help inform discussions throughout the agenda. Willis Morris will provide a D.C. [Washington, DC – federal] update.
3. Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Opportunities Under Health Care Reform
In addition to major tasks of improving access to healthcare for individuals with pre-existing conditions, establishing a health insurance exchange, conforming insurance rules and regulations, and implementing wellness and prevention initiatives, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) includes several initiatives for long-term care services and supports. Long-term care opportunities may include: the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program, Community First Choice Option, modifications to existing programs including the 1915(i) Medicaid State Plan Amendments, Aging and Disability Resource Centers and Money Follows the Person demonstration funding extensions, and requirements for states to extend income and asset protections for spouses of HCBS as well as for beneficiaries in nursing homes. Discussion will address California’s current implementation efforts and what may be ahead relating to implementation at a federal level.
4. Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver as a Bridge to Reform
Implementation on the 1115 Waiver as a bridge to comprehensive reform. Approved by CMS [federal Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services] on November 2, 2010, changes under the waiver involve expanding coverage today for those who will become “newly eligible” in 2014 under health care reform, implementing models for more comprehensive and coordinated care for some of California’s most vulnerable residents, and testing various strategies to strengthen and transform the state’s public hospital health care delivery system to prepare for the additional numbers of people who will have access to health care once health care reform is fully implemented. Discussion will include implementation plans, on-going stakeholder involvement, and future steps.
5. Working Lunch
6. Human Service Transportation Coordination
The Mobility Action Plan, Strategic Implementation Plan identifies priority recommendations for action around: Strengthening Existing State Program and Funding Guidelines and Regulatory Requirements; Research and Evaluation of Coordination Concepts; Information and Education; and State Level Strategic Planning and Policy Development.
7. California Alzheimer’s Disease [State] Plan
Goals, recommendations and strategies of the California Alzheimer’s Disease Plan will be discussed in relation to Olmstead and long-term service capacity broadly.
8. Priorities of the Olmstead Advisory Committee:
Facilitated by Bobbie Wunsch, Pacific Health Consulting Group
Olmstead Advisory Committee members will identify priority recommendations to advance to the [Governor-elect Jerry] Brown Administration as part of a transition report of the Olmstead Advisory Committee.
KEYACTIONS BY FEDERAL COURTS & PARTIAL LIST OF STEPS BY THE STATE LEADING UP TO FIRST OLMSTEAD MEETING
Following is a CDCAN summary key actions of federal court actions and a partial list of some steps taken by the federal government and the State leading up to the 2004 establishment of the California Olmstead Advisory Committee. Not listed during this time period – from 2002 on – are the State budget cuts both proposed and enacted that had major impact regarding the State’s implementation of the Olmstead Decision.
It should be noted that several subsequent federal and state court rulings and decisions since 2004 have been issued referencing the Olmstead Decision and that during this same time period there were several other important proposals or initiatives (some that advocates viewed as positive – and others as negative) advanced by the State and federal government that had impact on compliance and implementation.
1995
· Lois Curtis (“L.C.”) in federal district court in Georgia, seeking placement in the community, against Georgia state officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Title II of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, that claimed that Georgia violated Title II in failing to place her in a community-based program once her “treating professionals” determined that such placement was appropriate. Elaine Wilson or "E. W." joined the lawsuit, making a nearly identical claim as Lois Curtis.
· Both women were originally voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital in Atlanta, where they were confined for treatment in a psychiatric unit. Although their treatment professionals eventually concluded that each of the women could be cared for appropriately in a community-based program, the women remained confined at the Georgia Regional Hospital.
· The federal district court in Georgia granted a partial summary judgment [ruling or court order] for the women, ordering their placement in an appropriate community-based treatment program.
· The federal district court rejected the State of Georgia's claim that inadequate funding, not discrimination against Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson“…by reason of [their] disabilit[ies],” accounted for their retention at the state institution. The federal district court concluded that under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, unnecessary institutional segregation constitutes discrimination per se, which cannot be justified by a lack of funding. The federal district court also rejected Georgia's claim that requiring immediate transfers of persons (such as Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson) in such cases would "fundamentally alter" state funded programs.
NOVEMBER 1997
· The US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld (agreed with) the lower federal district court's ruling, but ordered the district court to look again at the State of Georgia's claim that community-based care would be "unreasonable" given the demands of the state's health and human services budget.
· The US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in their decision, cited a US regulation adopted by the US Department of Justice to enforce Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act that states "...A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R.§ 35.130(d)." The US Department of Justice had interpreted this regulation as requiring the community placement of people in institutional settings when the state's own “treating professionals” have recommended such placement.
· The State of Georgia appealed the decision of the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court, asking the nation’s highest court to decide "[w]hether the public services portion of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act compels the state to provide treatment and habilitation for mentally disabled persons in a community placement, when appropriate treatment and habilitation can also be provided to them in a State mental institution."
APRIL 21, 1999
· Case was heard before the US Supreme Court – and was the first such case heard before the court involving the “integration mandate” or requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
· By this point both Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson were now living in and receiving community-based services, but the case continued because Georgia had not changed its policies.
JUNE 22, 1999
· The US Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, concluded that, under Title II of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, the states are required to place persons with disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with disabilities.
· The US Supreme Court held that "...unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination" under the Americans With Disabilities Act and that "...institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life" and that "confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, and cultural enrichment."
· The US Supreme Court further held that "by definition, where, as here, the State confines an individual with a disability in an institutional setting when a community placement is appropriate, the State has violated the core principle underlying the ADA's [Americans With Disabilities Act] integration mandate."
· The US Supreme Court gave the states general guidance on how they might demonstrate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act if it had "a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State's desire to keep its institutions fully populated."
· Some advocates of people who reside in developmental centers and other state owned facilities, said that the Olmstead Decision – as it became widely known even though it references the name of the person sued and not the people who filed the lawsuit - offered important flexibility for the States, pointing to a concurring opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy who held that "...It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that States had some incentive, for fear of litigation, to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance and supervision...It is careful, and quite correct, to say that it is not “the ADA’s mission to drive States to move institutionalized patients into an inappropriate setting, such as a homeless shelter . . . .”
1999
· In California, in a step that was not directly in response to the US Supreme Court decision on Olmstead v. Lois Curtis (L.C.) and Elaine Wilson (E.W.), but moved in that direction, AB 452 was passed and signed into law by then Governor Gray Davis, that created a Long-Term Care Council, chaired by secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. The Council (now no longer in existence) was directed by AB 452 to coordinate long-term care policy development and program operations and to develop a strategic plan for long-term care policy.
JULY 11, 2000
· Final settlement agreement was signed in federal district court, before Judge Marvin Shoob, bringing a formal close to Olmstead v. Lois Curtis (L.C.) and Elaine Wilson (E.W.) lawsuit – but was the beginning of the long road toward compliance and implementation of the decision across the country.
JANUARY 2000
· The US Department of Health and Human Services under President Clinton, issued a letter to the states advising that "...no one should have to live in an institution or a nursing home if they can live in the community with the right support. Our goal is to integrate people with disabilities into the social mainstream, promote equality of opportunity and maximize individual choice" and recommended that states develop comprehensive working plans, as described in the Olmstead opinion including steps to obtain input from people impacted by the decision, and to prevent unjustified or unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors, and to ensure appropriate community-based services and to provide quality assurances.
FEBRUARY 2001
· President George W. Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative, stating that "...though progress has been made in the last decade, too many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in bureaucracies of dependence, denied the tools they need to fully access their communities." The intent of the New Freedom Initiative includes promoting increased access into daily community life including through "swift implementation” of the Olmstead v. Lois Curtis(L.C.) and Elaine Wilson (E.W.) 1999 US Supreme Court decision.
SPRING 2002
· Assemblywoman Dion Aroner (Democrat -Berkeley) held an informational hearing on status of California's compliance with the Olmstead Decision, with many persons registering concerns or complaints about the delay in a state Olmstead Plan - three years after the original Supreme Court ruling.
SEPTEMBER 2002
· Governor Gray Davis signed into law AB 442 (Chapter 1161, Statutes of 2002 - one of the 2002 budget trailer bills), which directed the California Health and Human Services Agency to develop and submit to the Legislature by April 1, 2003, a comprehensive plan identifying the actions the state could take to improve its long-term care system and develop an array of community-based programs and services that would enable people with disabilities to avoid unnecessary institutionalization and receive the services they need in the most integrated setting appropriate, using the guidelines established by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for development of a state "Olmstead Plan."
FALL 2002
· California Health and Human Services Agency held series of public forums and meetings in various parts of the state for public input to develop a draft Olmstead State Plan.
MAY 2003
· The California Health and Human Services Agency, under then Governor Gray Davis, released the California Olmstead State Plan that said "...the state commits to providing services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting. The state commits to adopting and adhering to policies and practices that will provide a full array of services and programs that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization. This commitment involves making changes in current state policies and will require changes in federal policies that are biased towards institutionalization."
· The plan lays out strategies to implement the Olmstead Decision, including data collection, providing comprehensive service coordination, and reviewing community service capacity.
· The California Health and Human Services Agency announced it would be establishing an Olmstead Advisory Council - though there was no law requiring it to do so. The Council however never met in part because funding for the office of the Health and Human Services Agency was substantially reduced in the budget passed by the Legislature last year and approved by then Governor Davis - just months before the recall election.
AUGUST 2004
· The California Legislature passed SB 1365 by then State Sen. Wes Chesbro (Democrat - Arcata) that called for the creation of an Olmstead Advisory Council and made other requirements. The bill was widely supported by disability and senior organizations and advocates across the state.
SEPTEMBER 2004
· Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 1365, disappointing many advocates across the state, but signed an executive order, that called on the state to comply with the US Supreme Court decision, and also called for the creation of an Olmstead task force - though not created through state law. Some advocates still believed that the veto of SB 1365 indicated that the Schwarzenegger Administration would not seriously move to comply with Olmstead. [see text of veto message below[
NOVEMBER 2004
· Advocates push then Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (Democrat - Los Angeles) to authorize the continuation of the special (select) Assembly committee on Olmstead implementation through the 2005-2006 session. The Assembly Speaker declined to continue that select committee and it officially went out of existence as of November 30, 2004. [The State Senate had no specific select committee on Olmstead – but did have a select committee on people with disabilities and mental health needs that was chaired by then Sen. Wes Chesbro that covered Olmstead related issues]
JANUARY 2005
· California Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Belshe, on January 27, announces appointments to the 30 member Olmstead Advisory Committee.
MARCH 2005
· First Olmstead Advisory Committee meeting under the Schwarzenegger Administration, at the California Secretary of State’s building in Sacramento.
GOVERNOR’S 2008 ORDER REGARDING OLMSTEAD COMMITTEE
CDCAN Note: Governor Schwarzenegger issued two executive orders regarding the establishment of an Olmstead Advisory Committee – the first in September 2004 (see below for complete text), and the second (which replaces that original order) issued in September 2008.
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-10-08
09/24/2008
WHEREAS unnecessary institutional placement of individuals with disabilities adversely affects the everyday life activities, family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, and cultural enrichment of those institutionalized persons; and
WHEREAS the state has a responsibility to protect against the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities; and
WHEREAS the opportunity to direct one's own affairs, live independently, and attain economic self-sufficiency is an essential component of developing self-worth and personal responsibility; and
WHEREAS direction has been provided to states under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C.; and
WHEREAS community-based care and services can be more cost effective than institutional care, and result in a higher quality of life that promotes the values of community participation, inclusiveness, and respect for diversity; and
WHEREAS the active involvement of people with disabilities and their representatives in the development and implementation of activities designed to move people into, or allow them to remain in, community-based settings is critical to insuring effective strategies; and
WHEREAS California has a demonstrated record of success in providing services that support the full integration of persons with disabilities in community life through such programs as In-Home Supportive Services, Medi-Cal, community mental health, and the comprehensive array of services defined under the Lanterman Act; and
WHEREAS it is possible to build upon California's previous success to improve procedures and implement new tools that will enable more people to fully access their communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue this order effective immediately:
1. The state affirms its commitment to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting, and to adopt and adhere to policies and practices that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
2. The California Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) shall do all of the following:
A. Assess the state's ability to reasonably accommodate new and improved efforts to prevent unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and to facilitate or expand community-based services and supports.
B. Continue to evaluate the May 2003, California Olmstead Plan and make revisions as necessary to insure that it will result in positive action toward the objectives of providing services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting possible, and enabling persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
C. Identify additional strategies to identify Californians who could be served successfully in non-institutional settings and the barriers to these individuals moving at a reasonable pace from, or avoiding admittance to, institutional long-term care facilities.
D. Research funding opportunities to support expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their communities.
E. Develop recommendations for changes in state policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and increase opportunities to utilize community-based services.
F. Develop recommendations for changes in federal policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and explore options for expanding or modifying the state Medicaid plan or Medicaid waivers.
3. In order to inform the Administration's understanding of the current system and future opportunities and insure the involvement of persons with disabilities and other system stakeholders, the Secretary of HHSA [California Health and Human Services Agency], at his or her discretion, is authorized to form an advisory group to provide input to the HHSA on its efforts to evaluate, revise, implement, and monitor the Olmstead Plan, on recommended actions to improve California's long-term care system, and on opportunities to fund expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community. The Secretary should take into account the diversity of California's citizenry with respect to culture, language, geography, and disability in formulating the membership of his or her advisory group.
4. All state agencies and departments are hereby directed to cooperate with and assist the HHSA in carrying out its duties under this Executive Order.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
News Cuts
There will be new cuts to the state for year likely 2011-2012. I got this in email.
CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT
#217-2010 – NOVEMBER 10, 2010 – WEDNESDAY
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: Advocacy Without Borders: One Community – Accountability With Action - California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com WEBSITE: www.cdcan.us TWITTER: www.twitter.com - “MartyOmoto”
State Budget Crisis – Breaking News:
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE REPORT PROJECTS STATE BUDGET DEFICIT NEXT YEAR AT $25.4 BILLION
Legislative Analyst Office Projects Ongoing Budget Deficits of At Least $20 Billion Through 2016 – Sweeping Cuts to State Spending Likely To Be Considered Next Year by New Governor & Legislature
SACRAMENTO, CA (CDCAN) [Updated 11/10/2010 01:10 PM (Pacific Time)] - The Legislature’s chief budget analyst – the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), released a report today that projects that California’s budget deficit will swell to $25.4 billion by the end of the 2011-2012 State Budget year that will likely mean more sweeping spending cuts to major state programs next year. It will also likely mean a special session of the Legislature early next year to take steps to confront the crisis.
The Legislative Analyst, in its report said that “…we estimate that the Legislature and the new Governor will have to address a budget problem of $25 billion between now and the time that they agree to a 2011–12 state budget plan” and projects on-going budget deficits for the State of at least $20 billion through 2016 unless “corrective” action is taken by the Governor and Legislature.
The Legislative Analyst Office project is based on State general fund spending and revenues in the current budget year that ends June 30, 2011 and the next budget year – that begins July 1, 2011 and ends June 30, 2012.
That is the budget that Governor-elect Jerry Brown will be proposing by January 10th next year when he assumes office earlier that week, who said last week when briefed on the State’s budget situation that it was “..worse than anything I have seen”.
The Legislative Analyst Office projects that – assuming no action to correct the situation by the Legislature and Governor (meaning no additional spending cuts or additional revenues), the State will end the current budget year June 30, 2011 with a shortfall of $6 billion – but face on top of that a $19 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in the 2011-2012 budget year because of the following:
* Assumes that California will be unable to secure around $3.5 billion of budgeted federal funding during the 2010-2011 state budget year that ends June 30, 2011. This assumption is a major part of the projected $6 billion year–end deficit.
* The Legislative Analyst Office also projects higher–than–budgeted costs in prisons and several other programs.
* In addition, the Legislative Analyst Office projections assume that passage of Proposition 22 will prevent the state from achieving about $800 million of budgeted solutions in in the current 2010–2011 state budget year.
* The Legislative Analyst Office projects a $19 billion hole in the 2011-2012 State budget year because of “…the temporary nature of most of the Legislature’s 2010 budget–balancing actions and the painfully slow economic recovery …”
Legislative Analyst Projects Ongoing Budget Deficits of $20 Billion Through 2016
The Legislative Analyst Office’s report gives more bad news to California in the coming years, projecting budget deficits of about $20 billion each year through the 2015–2016 state budget year.
In the 2012-2013 State budget year the Legislative Analyst Office reports that when the state must repay its 2010 borrowing of local property tax revenues and the full effect of Propositions 22 and Proposition 26 are felt, the Legislative Analyst Office projects the State’s operating deficit growing to $22.4 billion.
But that shortfall is likely larger because the Legislative Analyst Office’s projections generally assumes no cost–of–living adjustments, so the magnitude of the state’s fiscal problems during the forecast period are “understated”.
VERY URGENT!!!!!
PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!
Your help is needed. CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot continue without your help. To continue the CDCAN website, the CDCAN News Reports. sent out and read by over 50,000 people and organizations, policy makers and media across California and to continue the CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings which since December 2003 have connected thousands of people with disabilities, seniors, mental health needs, people with MS and other disorders, people with traumatic brain and other injuries to public policy makers, legislators, and issues.
Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or "California Disability Community Action Network):
CDCAN
1225 8th Street Suite 480 - Sacramento, CA 95814
paypal on the CDCAN site is not yet working – will be soon.
MANY, MANY THANKS TO BOB BENSON, the Pacific Homecare Services, Easter Seals, California Association of Adult Day Health Centers, Valley Mountain Regional Center, Toward Maximum Independence, Inc (TMI), Friends of Children with Special Needs, UCP of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, Southside Arts Center, San Francisco Bay Area Autism Society of America, Hope Services in San Jose, FEAT of Sacramento (Families for Early Autism Treatment), RESCoalition, Sacramento Gray Panthers, Bill Wong, Easter Seals of Southern California, Tri-Counties Regional Center, Westside Regional Center, Regional Center of the East Bay, UCP of Orange County, Alta California Regional Center, Life Steps, Parents Helping Parents, Work Training, Foothill Autism Alliance, Arc Contra Costa, Pause4Kids, Manteca CAPS, Training Toward Self Reliance, UCP, California NAELA, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc (CDR) including CDR chapters, CHANCE Inc, , Strategies To Empower People (STEP), Harbor Regional Center, Asian American parents groups, Resources for Independent Living and many other Independent Living Centers, several regional centers, People First chapters, IHSS workers, other self advocacy and family support groups, developmental center families, adoption assistance program families and children, and others across California.
CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT
#217-2010 – NOVEMBER 10, 2010 – WEDNESDAY
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: Advocacy Without Borders: One Community – Accountability With Action - California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com WEBSITE: www.cdcan.us TWITTER: www.twitter.com - “MartyOmoto”
State Budget Crisis – Breaking News:
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE REPORT PROJECTS STATE BUDGET DEFICIT NEXT YEAR AT $25.4 BILLION
Legislative Analyst Office Projects Ongoing Budget Deficits of At Least $20 Billion Through 2016 – Sweeping Cuts to State Spending Likely To Be Considered Next Year by New Governor & Legislature
SACRAMENTO, CA (CDCAN) [Updated 11/10/2010 01:10 PM (Pacific Time)] - The Legislature’s chief budget analyst – the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), released a report today that projects that California’s budget deficit will swell to $25.4 billion by the end of the 2011-2012 State Budget year that will likely mean more sweeping spending cuts to major state programs next year. It will also likely mean a special session of the Legislature early next year to take steps to confront the crisis.
The Legislative Analyst, in its report said that “…we estimate that the Legislature and the new Governor will have to address a budget problem of $25 billion between now and the time that they agree to a 2011–12 state budget plan” and projects on-going budget deficits for the State of at least $20 billion through 2016 unless “corrective” action is taken by the Governor and Legislature.
The Legislative Analyst Office project is based on State general fund spending and revenues in the current budget year that ends June 30, 2011 and the next budget year – that begins July 1, 2011 and ends June 30, 2012.
That is the budget that Governor-elect Jerry Brown will be proposing by January 10th next year when he assumes office earlier that week, who said last week when briefed on the State’s budget situation that it was “..worse than anything I have seen”.
The Legislative Analyst Office projects that – assuming no action to correct the situation by the Legislature and Governor (meaning no additional spending cuts or additional revenues), the State will end the current budget year June 30, 2011 with a shortfall of $6 billion – but face on top of that a $19 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in the 2011-2012 budget year because of the following:
* Assumes that California will be unable to secure around $3.5 billion of budgeted federal funding during the 2010-2011 state budget year that ends June 30, 2011. This assumption is a major part of the projected $6 billion year–end deficit.
* The Legislative Analyst Office also projects higher–than–budgeted costs in prisons and several other programs.
* In addition, the Legislative Analyst Office projections assume that passage of Proposition 22 will prevent the state from achieving about $800 million of budgeted solutions in in the current 2010–2011 state budget year.
* The Legislative Analyst Office projects a $19 billion hole in the 2011-2012 State budget year because of “…the temporary nature of most of the Legislature’s 2010 budget–balancing actions and the painfully slow economic recovery …”
Legislative Analyst Projects Ongoing Budget Deficits of $20 Billion Through 2016
The Legislative Analyst Office’s report gives more bad news to California in the coming years, projecting budget deficits of about $20 billion each year through the 2015–2016 state budget year.
In the 2012-2013 State budget year the Legislative Analyst Office reports that when the state must repay its 2010 borrowing of local property tax revenues and the full effect of Propositions 22 and Proposition 26 are felt, the Legislative Analyst Office projects the State’s operating deficit growing to $22.4 billion.
But that shortfall is likely larger because the Legislative Analyst Office’s projections generally assumes no cost–of–living adjustments, so the magnitude of the state’s fiscal problems during the forecast period are “understated”.
VERY URGENT!!!!!
PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!
Your help is needed. CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot continue without your help. To continue the CDCAN website, the CDCAN News Reports. sent out and read by over 50,000 people and organizations, policy makers and media across California and to continue the CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings which since December 2003 have connected thousands of people with disabilities, seniors, mental health needs, people with MS and other disorders, people with traumatic brain and other injuries to public policy makers, legislators, and issues.
Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or "California Disability Community Action Network):
CDCAN
1225 8th Street Suite 480 - Sacramento, CA 95814
paypal on the CDCAN site is not yet working – will be soon.
MANY, MANY THANKS TO BOB BENSON, the Pacific Homecare Services, Easter Seals, California Association of Adult Day Health Centers, Valley Mountain Regional Center, Toward Maximum Independence, Inc (TMI), Friends of Children with Special Needs, UCP of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, Southside Arts Center, San Francisco Bay Area Autism Society of America, Hope Services in San Jose, FEAT of Sacramento (Families for Early Autism Treatment), RESCoalition, Sacramento Gray Panthers, Bill Wong, Easter Seals of Southern California, Tri-Counties Regional Center, Westside Regional Center, Regional Center of the East Bay, UCP of Orange County, Alta California Regional Center, Life Steps, Parents Helping Parents, Work Training, Foothill Autism Alliance, Arc Contra Costa, Pause4Kids, Manteca CAPS, Training Toward Self Reliance, UCP, California NAELA, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc (CDR) including CDR chapters, CHANCE Inc, , Strategies To Empower People (STEP), Harbor Regional Center, Asian American parents groups, Resources for Independent Living and many other Independent Living Centers, several regional centers, People First chapters, IHSS workers, other self advocacy and family support groups, developmental center families, adoption assistance program families and children, and others across California.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
IHSS Meeting
IHSS is going to have an meeting in an few weeksa. I got the following emali.
CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT
#210-2010 – NOVEMBER 2, 2010 – TUESDAY
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: Advocacy Without Borders: One Community – Accountability With Action - California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com WEBSITE: www.cdcan.us TWITTER: www.twitter.com - “MartyOmoto”
State Budget Crisis:
IHSS Stakeholder Meeting November 19th Focus On New Additional Disqualifying Felonies To Be IHSS Worker And Process for IHSS Recipient To Waive Those Requirements
New Requirements Were Passed As Part of the 2010-2011 State Budget – New Requirements Won’t Go Into Effect Until After Mid-January 2011 – Stakeholder Meeting on Unannounced Home Visits of Targeted IHSS Recipients Still To Be Scheduled
SACRAMENTO, CA (CDCAN) [Updated 11/02/2010 11:00 PM (Pacific Time)] - The Department of Social Services, the State agency that oversees statewide the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program that provides in-home supports to over 460,000 children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors, has scheduled a stakeholder meeting on November 19, from 10:30 AM to 12 Noon, at the Department of Technology Services Training & Event Center, 9323 Tech Center Drive, Conference Room 2 in Sacramento, that will focus on the State’s implementation regarding the additional serious or violent felonies that could disqualify a person from working as an IHSS worker (provider).
A toll free conference phone line will be made available (number to be announced soon) for persons who are not able to physically attend the meeting in Sacramento. [CDCAN Note: a “stakeholder” is defined in various dictionaries, as one is involved in or affected by a course of action. It does not just refer to only certain types of advocates or lobbyists]
The new requirements, which go into effect sometime after mid-January, and were passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor as part of the 2010-2011 State Budget to close an over $19 billion deficit, in October contained in the human services “budget trailer bill”, AB 1612. That bill also includes a provision that would allow a IHSS recipient to still hire a person as their IHSS worker, by signing a waiver, even if the person’s criminal background check shows convictions that would disqualify them as required in AB 1612.
The November 19th meeting will focus on that process for an IHSS recipient who still wants to hire a person that otherwise would be disqualified due to a serious felony conviction as outlined in AB 1612, by signing a waiver acknowledging they understand these crimes were committed but still want them to be their provider. IHSS recipients would not be able to waive however the disqualifying convictions that were passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009
These new requirements are in addition to the existing IHSS worker requirements and criminal background checks that were imposed last year in November, that were passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009.
Who This Impacts
The issue and meeting has major potential impact to thousands of IHSS workers and thousands of persons with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors who receive services under IHSS. Thousands of those persons include people with developmental disabilities who also receive services funded and coordinated through the 21 non-profit regional centers under the Department of Developmental Services.
IHSS STAKEHOLDER MEETING
WHEN: November 19, 2010 – Friday
TIME: 10:30 AM to 12:00 Noon
SUBJECT: IHSS – Development of the Notices and Waiver Forms In Relation to the New IHSS Provider Requirements of AB 1612
LOCATION:
Department of Technology Services Training & Event Center
9323 Tech Center Drive, Conference Room 2
Sacramento, California 95826
CONFERENCE CALL LINE: There will be a conference call line – phone number not yet available
CDCAN COMMENT: This stakeholder meeting is required under AB 1612, and is focused on the new waiver form that requires stakeholder input in the development of the waiver and to make it is as understandable as possible, given the complexity of the State’s Penal Code sections (that lists the disqualifying convictions). More details about this meeting will be released soon.
Stakeholder Meeting on Unannounced Home Visits Still Not Confirmed
The Department of Social Services is still working to confirm a date and location for the stakeholder meeting focusing on the new controversial State law that authorizes targeted unannounced home visits of IHSS recipients. The November 19th meeting is not focused on this issue.
That law that authorizes unannounced targeted home visits was passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009.
SECTION OF AB 1612 DEALING WITH NEW REQUIREMENTS
This is the section of AB 1612 – the “human services budget trailer bill” signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 19, 2010, dealing with the new requirements listing out additional disqualifying serious and violent felonies that could prohibit a person from working as an IHSS worker (provider) – though these provisions do allow for an IHSS recipient to “waive” those requirements listed in this bill – and still hire the person. The November 19th IHSS Stakeholder meeting will focus on this process.
SEC. 24. Section 12305.87 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code , to read:
12305.87. (a) (1) Commencing 90 days following the effective date of the act that adds this section, a person specified in paragraph (2) shall be subject to the criminal conviction exclusions provided for in this section, in addition to the exclusions required under Section 12305.81.
(2) This section shall apply to a person who satisfies either of the following conditions:
(A) He or she is a new applicant to provide services under this article.
(B) He or she is an applicant to provide services under this article whose application has been denied on the basis of a conviction and for whom an appeal of that denial is pending.
(b) Subject to subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), an applicant subject to this section shall not be eligible to provide or receive payment for providing supportive services for 10 years following a conviction for, or incarceration following a conviction for, any of the following:
(1) A violent or serious felony, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code and subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code.
(2) A felony offense for which a person is required to register under subdivision (c) of Section 290 of the Penal Code. For purposes of this subparagraph, the 10-year time period specified in this section shall commence with the date of conviction for, or incarceration following a conviction for, the underlying offense, and not the date of registration.
(3) A felony offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) or paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 10980.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an application shall not be denied under this section if the applicant has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3 of the Penal Code or the information or accusation against him or her has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a recipient of services under this article who wishes to employ a provider applicant who has been convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) may submit to the county an individual waiver of the exclusion provided for in this section. This paragraph shall not be construed to allow a recipient to submit an individual waiver with respect to a conviction or convictions for offenses specified in Section 12305.81.
(2) The county shall notify a recipient who wishes to hire a person who is applying to be a provider and who has been convicted of an offense subject to exclusion under this section of that applicant's relevant criminal offense convictions that are covered by subdivision (b). The notice shall include both of the following:
(A) A summary explanation of the exclusions created by subdivision (b), as well as the applicable waiver process described in this subdivision and the process for an applicant to seek a general exception, as described in subdivision (e). This summary explanation shall be developed by the department for use by all counties.
(B) An individual waiver form, which shall also be developed by the department and used by all counties. The waiver form shall include both of the following:
(i) A space for the county to include a reference to any Penal Code sections and corresponding offense names or descriptions that describe the relevant conviction or convictions that are covered by subdivision (b) and that the provider applicant has in his or her background.
(ii) A statement that the service recipient, or his or her authorized representative, if applicable, is aware of the applicant's conviction or convictions and agrees to waive application of this section and employ the applicant as a provider of services under this article.
(3) To ensure that the initial summary explanation referenced in this subdivision is comprehensible for recipients and provider applicants, the department shall consult with representatives of county welfare departments and advocates for, or representatives of, recipients and providers in developing the summary explanation and offense descriptions.
(4) The individual waiver form shall be signed by the recipient, or by the recipient's authorized representative, if applicable, and returned to the county welfare department by mail or in person. The county shall retain the waiver form and a copy of the provider applicant's criminal offense record information search response until the date that the convictions that are the subject of the waiver request are no longer within the 10-year period specified in subdivision (b).
(5) An individual waiver submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall entitle a recipient to hire a provider applicant who otherwise meets all applicable enrollment requirements for the In-Home Supportive Services program. A provider hired pursuant to an individual waiver may be employed only by the recipient who requested that waiver, and the waiver shall only be valid with respect to convictions that are specified in that waiver. A new waiver shall be required if the provider is subsequently convicted of an offense to which this section otherwise would apply. A provider who wishes to be listed on a provider registry or to provide supportive services to a recipient who has not requested an individual waiver shall be required to apply for a general exception, as provided for in subdivision (e).
(6) Nothing in this section shall preclude a provider who is eligible to receive payment for services provided pursuant to an individual waiver under this subdivision from being eligible to receive payment for services provided to one or more additional recipients who obtain waivers pursuant to this same subdivision.
(7) The state and a county shall be immune from any liability resulting from granting an individual waiver under this subdivision.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an applicant who has been convicted of an offense identified in subdivision (b) may seek from the department a general exception to the exclusion provided for in this section.
(2) Upon receipt of a general exception request, the department shall request a copy of the applicant's criminal offender record information search response from the applicable county welfare department. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the county shall provide a copy of the criminal offender record information search response, as provided to the county by the Department of Justice, to the department. The county shall provide this information in a manner that protects the confidentiality and privacy of the criminal offender record information search response. The state or federal criminal history record information search response shall not be modified or altered from its form or content as provided by the Department of Justice.
(3) The department shall consider the following factors when determining whether to grant a general exception under this subdivision:
(A) The nature and seriousness of the conduct or crime under consideration and its relationship to employment duties and responsibilities.
(B) The person's activities since conviction, including, but not limited to, employment or participation in therapy education, or community service, that would indicate changed behavior.
(C) The number of convictions and the time that has elapsed since the conviction or convictions.
(D) The extent to which the person has complied with any terms of parole, probation, restitution, or any other sanction lawfully imposed against the person.
(E) Any evidence of rehabilitation, including character references, submitted by the person, or by others on the person's behalf.
(F) Employment history and current or former employer recommendations. Additional consideration shall be given to employer recommendations provided by a person who has received or has indicated a desire to receive supportive or personal care services from the applicant, including, but not limited to, those services, specified in Section 12300.
(G) Circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense that would demonstrate the unlikelihood of repetition.
(H) The granting by the Governor of a full and unconditional pardon.
(f) If the department makes a determination to deny an application to provide services pursuant to a request for a general exception, the department shall notify the applicant of this determination by either personal service or registered mail. The notice shall include the following information:
(1) A statement of the department's reasons for the denial that evaluates evidence of rehabilitation submitted by the applicant, if any, and that specifically addresses any evidence submitted relating to the factors in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e).
(2) A copy of the applicant's criminal offender record information search response, even if the applicant already has received a copy pursuant to Section 12301.6 or 12305.86. The department shall provide this information in a manner that protects the confidentiality and privacy of the criminal offender record information search response.
(A) The state or federal criminal history record shall not be modified or altered from its form or content as provided by the Department of Justice.
(B) The department shall retain a copy of each individual's criminal offender record information search response until the date that the convictions that are the subject of the exception are no longer within the 10-year period specified in subdivision (b), and shall record the date the copy of the response was provided to the individual and the department.
(C) The criminal offender record information search response shall not be made available by the department to any individual other than the provider applicant.
(g) (1) Upon written notification that the department has determined that a request for exception shall be denied, the applicant may request an administrative hearing by submitting a written request to the department within 15 business days of receipt of the written notification. Upon receipt of a written request, the department shall hold an administrative hearing consistent with the procedures specified in Section 100171 of the Health and Safety Code, except where those procedures are inconsistent with this section.
(2) A hearing under this subdivision shall be conducted by a hearing officer or administrative law judge designated by the director. A written decision shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant.
(h) The department shall revise the provider enrollment form developed pursuant to Section 12305.81 to include both of the following:
(1) The text of subdivision (c) of Section 290 of the Penal Code, subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code, and paragraph (2) of subdivisions (c) and (g) of Section 10980.
(2) A statement that the provider understands that if he or she has been convicted, or incarcerated following conviction for, any of the crimes specified in the provisions identified in paragraph (b) in the last 10 years, and has not received a certificate of rehabilitation or had the information or accusation dismissed, as provided in subdivision (c), he or she shall only be authorized to receive payment for providing in-home supportive services under an individual waiver or general exception as described in this section, and upon meeting all other applicable criteria for enrollment as a provider in the program.
(i) (1) Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the department may implement and administer this section through all-county letters or similar instructions from the department until regulations are adopted. The department shall adopt emergency regulations implementing these provisions no later than July 1, 2011. The department may readopt any emergency regulation authorized by this section that is the same as or substantially equivalent to an
emergency regulation previously adopted under this section.
(2) The initial adoption of emergency regulations pursuant to this section and one readoption of emergency regulations shall be deemed an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. Initial emergency regulations and the one readoption of emergency regulations authorized by this section shall be exempt from review by the Office of Administrative Law. The initial emergency regulations and the one readoption of emergency regulations authorized by this section shall be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law for filing with the Secretary of State and each shall remain in effect for no more than 180 days, by which time final regulations may be adopted.
(j) In developing the individual waiver form and all-county letters or information notices or similar instructions, the department shall consult with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives of the county welfare departments, and representatives of consumers and providers. The consultation shall include at least one in-person meeting prior to the finalization of the individual waiver form and all-county letters or information notices or similar instructions.
VERY URGENT!!!!!
PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!
Your help is needed. CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot continue without your help. To continue the CDCAN website, the CDCAN News Reports. sent out and read by over 50,000 people and organizations, policy makers and media across California and to continue the CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings which since December 2003 have connected thousands of people with disabilities, seniors, mental health needs, people with MS and other disorders, people with traumatic brain and other injuries to public policy makers, legislators, and issues.
Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or "California Disability Community Action Network):
CDCAN
1225 8th Street Suite 480 - Sacramento, CA 95814
paypal on the CDCAN site is not yet working – will be soon.
MANY, MANY THANKS TO BOB BENSON, the Pacific Homecare Services, Easter Seals, California Association of Adult Day Health Centers, Valley Mountain Regional Center, Toward Maximum Independence, Inc (TMI), Friends of Children with Special Needs, UCP of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, Southside Arts Center, San Francisco Bay Area Autism Society of America, Hope Services in San Jose, FEAT of Sacramento (Families for Early Autism Treatment), RESCoalition, Sacramento Gray Panthers, Bill Wong, Easter Seals of Southern California, Tri-Counties Regional Center, Westside Regional Center, Regional Center of the East Bay, UCP of Orange County, Alta California Regional Center, Life Steps, Parents Helping Parents, Work Training, Foothill Autism Alliance, Arc Contra Costa, Pause4Kids, Manteca CAPS, Training Toward Self Reliance, UCP, California NAELA, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc (CDR) including CDR chapters, CHANCE Inc, , Strategies To Empower People (STEP), Harbor Regional Center, Asian American parents groups, Resources for Independent Living and many other Independent Living Centers, several regional centers, People First chapters, IHSS workers, other self advocacy and family support groups, developmental center families, adoption assistance program families and children, and others across California.
CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT
#210-2010 – NOVEMBER 2, 2010 – TUESDAY
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: Advocacy Without Borders: One Community – Accountability With Action - California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com WEBSITE: www.cdcan.us TWITTER: www.twitter.com - “MartyOmoto”
State Budget Crisis:
IHSS Stakeholder Meeting November 19th Focus On New Additional Disqualifying Felonies To Be IHSS Worker And Process for IHSS Recipient To Waive Those Requirements
New Requirements Were Passed As Part of the 2010-2011 State Budget – New Requirements Won’t Go Into Effect Until After Mid-January 2011 – Stakeholder Meeting on Unannounced Home Visits of Targeted IHSS Recipients Still To Be Scheduled
SACRAMENTO, CA (CDCAN) [Updated 11/02/2010 11:00 PM (Pacific Time)] - The Department of Social Services, the State agency that oversees statewide the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program that provides in-home supports to over 460,000 children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors, has scheduled a stakeholder meeting on November 19, from 10:30 AM to 12 Noon, at the Department of Technology Services Training & Event Center, 9323 Tech Center Drive, Conference Room 2 in Sacramento, that will focus on the State’s implementation regarding the additional serious or violent felonies that could disqualify a person from working as an IHSS worker (provider).
A toll free conference phone line will be made available (number to be announced soon) for persons who are not able to physically attend the meeting in Sacramento. [CDCAN Note: a “stakeholder” is defined in various dictionaries, as one is involved in or affected by a course of action. It does not just refer to only certain types of advocates or lobbyists]
The new requirements, which go into effect sometime after mid-January, and were passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor as part of the 2010-2011 State Budget to close an over $19 billion deficit, in October contained in the human services “budget trailer bill”, AB 1612. That bill also includes a provision that would allow a IHSS recipient to still hire a person as their IHSS worker, by signing a waiver, even if the person’s criminal background check shows convictions that would disqualify them as required in AB 1612.
The November 19th meeting will focus on that process for an IHSS recipient who still wants to hire a person that otherwise would be disqualified due to a serious felony conviction as outlined in AB 1612, by signing a waiver acknowledging they understand these crimes were committed but still want them to be their provider. IHSS recipients would not be able to waive however the disqualifying convictions that were passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009
These new requirements are in addition to the existing IHSS worker requirements and criminal background checks that were imposed last year in November, that were passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009.
Who This Impacts
The issue and meeting has major potential impact to thousands of IHSS workers and thousands of persons with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and seniors who receive services under IHSS. Thousands of those persons include people with developmental disabilities who also receive services funded and coordinated through the 21 non-profit regional centers under the Department of Developmental Services.
IHSS STAKEHOLDER MEETING
WHEN: November 19, 2010 – Friday
TIME: 10:30 AM to 12:00 Noon
SUBJECT: IHSS – Development of the Notices and Waiver Forms In Relation to the New IHSS Provider Requirements of AB 1612
LOCATION:
Department of Technology Services Training & Event Center
9323 Tech Center Drive, Conference Room 2
Sacramento, California 95826
CONFERENCE CALL LINE: There will be a conference call line – phone number not yet available
CDCAN COMMENT: This stakeholder meeting is required under AB 1612, and is focused on the new waiver form that requires stakeholder input in the development of the waiver and to make it is as understandable as possible, given the complexity of the State’s Penal Code sections (that lists the disqualifying convictions). More details about this meeting will be released soon.
Stakeholder Meeting on Unannounced Home Visits Still Not Confirmed
The Department of Social Services is still working to confirm a date and location for the stakeholder meeting focusing on the new controversial State law that authorizes targeted unannounced home visits of IHSS recipients. The November 19th meeting is not focused on this issue.
That law that authorizes unannounced targeted home visits was passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget as revised in July 2009.
SECTION OF AB 1612 DEALING WITH NEW REQUIREMENTS
This is the section of AB 1612 – the “human services budget trailer bill” signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 19, 2010, dealing with the new requirements listing out additional disqualifying serious and violent felonies that could prohibit a person from working as an IHSS worker (provider) – though these provisions do allow for an IHSS recipient to “waive” those requirements listed in this bill – and still hire the person. The November 19th IHSS Stakeholder meeting will focus on this process.
SEC. 24. Section 12305.87 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code , to read:
12305.87. (a) (1) Commencing 90 days following the effective date of the act that adds this section, a person specified in paragraph (2) shall be subject to the criminal conviction exclusions provided for in this section, in addition to the exclusions required under Section 12305.81.
(2) This section shall apply to a person who satisfies either of the following conditions:
(A) He or she is a new applicant to provide services under this article.
(B) He or she is an applicant to provide services under this article whose application has been denied on the basis of a conviction and for whom an appeal of that denial is pending.
(b) Subject to subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), an applicant subject to this section shall not be eligible to provide or receive payment for providing supportive services for 10 years following a conviction for, or incarceration following a conviction for, any of the following:
(1) A violent or serious felony, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code and subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code.
(2) A felony offense for which a person is required to register under subdivision (c) of Section 290 of the Penal Code. For purposes of this subparagraph, the 10-year time period specified in this section shall commence with the date of conviction for, or incarceration following a conviction for, the underlying offense, and not the date of registration.
(3) A felony offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) or paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 10980.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an application shall not be denied under this section if the applicant has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3 of the Penal Code or the information or accusation against him or her has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a recipient of services under this article who wishes to employ a provider applicant who has been convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) may submit to the county an individual waiver of the exclusion provided for in this section. This paragraph shall not be construed to allow a recipient to submit an individual waiver with respect to a conviction or convictions for offenses specified in Section 12305.81.
(2) The county shall notify a recipient who wishes to hire a person who is applying to be a provider and who has been convicted of an offense subject to exclusion under this section of that applicant's relevant criminal offense convictions that are covered by subdivision (b). The notice shall include both of the following:
(A) A summary explanation of the exclusions created by subdivision (b), as well as the applicable waiver process described in this subdivision and the process for an applicant to seek a general exception, as described in subdivision (e). This summary explanation shall be developed by the department for use by all counties.
(B) An individual waiver form, which shall also be developed by the department and used by all counties. The waiver form shall include both of the following:
(i) A space for the county to include a reference to any Penal Code sections and corresponding offense names or descriptions that describe the relevant conviction or convictions that are covered by subdivision (b) and that the provider applicant has in his or her background.
(ii) A statement that the service recipient, or his or her authorized representative, if applicable, is aware of the applicant's conviction or convictions and agrees to waive application of this section and employ the applicant as a provider of services under this article.
(3) To ensure that the initial summary explanation referenced in this subdivision is comprehensible for recipients and provider applicants, the department shall consult with representatives of county welfare departments and advocates for, or representatives of, recipients and providers in developing the summary explanation and offense descriptions.
(4) The individual waiver form shall be signed by the recipient, or by the recipient's authorized representative, if applicable, and returned to the county welfare department by mail or in person. The county shall retain the waiver form and a copy of the provider applicant's criminal offense record information search response until the date that the convictions that are the subject of the waiver request are no longer within the 10-year period specified in subdivision (b).
(5) An individual waiver submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall entitle a recipient to hire a provider applicant who otherwise meets all applicable enrollment requirements for the In-Home Supportive Services program. A provider hired pursuant to an individual waiver may be employed only by the recipient who requested that waiver, and the waiver shall only be valid with respect to convictions that are specified in that waiver. A new waiver shall be required if the provider is subsequently convicted of an offense to which this section otherwise would apply. A provider who wishes to be listed on a provider registry or to provide supportive services to a recipient who has not requested an individual waiver shall be required to apply for a general exception, as provided for in subdivision (e).
(6) Nothing in this section shall preclude a provider who is eligible to receive payment for services provided pursuant to an individual waiver under this subdivision from being eligible to receive payment for services provided to one or more additional recipients who obtain waivers pursuant to this same subdivision.
(7) The state and a county shall be immune from any liability resulting from granting an individual waiver under this subdivision.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an applicant who has been convicted of an offense identified in subdivision (b) may seek from the department a general exception to the exclusion provided for in this section.
(2) Upon receipt of a general exception request, the department shall request a copy of the applicant's criminal offender record information search response from the applicable county welfare department. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the county shall provide a copy of the criminal offender record information search response, as provided to the county by the Department of Justice, to the department. The county shall provide this information in a manner that protects the confidentiality and privacy of the criminal offender record information search response. The state or federal criminal history record information search response shall not be modified or altered from its form or content as provided by the Department of Justice.
(3) The department shall consider the following factors when determining whether to grant a general exception under this subdivision:
(A) The nature and seriousness of the conduct or crime under consideration and its relationship to employment duties and responsibilities.
(B) The person's activities since conviction, including, but not limited to, employment or participation in therapy education, or community service, that would indicate changed behavior.
(C) The number of convictions and the time that has elapsed since the conviction or convictions.
(D) The extent to which the person has complied with any terms of parole, probation, restitution, or any other sanction lawfully imposed against the person.
(E) Any evidence of rehabilitation, including character references, submitted by the person, or by others on the person's behalf.
(F) Employment history and current or former employer recommendations. Additional consideration shall be given to employer recommendations provided by a person who has received or has indicated a desire to receive supportive or personal care services from the applicant, including, but not limited to, those services, specified in Section 12300.
(G) Circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense that would demonstrate the unlikelihood of repetition.
(H) The granting by the Governor of a full and unconditional pardon.
(f) If the department makes a determination to deny an application to provide services pursuant to a request for a general exception, the department shall notify the applicant of this determination by either personal service or registered mail. The notice shall include the following information:
(1) A statement of the department's reasons for the denial that evaluates evidence of rehabilitation submitted by the applicant, if any, and that specifically addresses any evidence submitted relating to the factors in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e).
(2) A copy of the applicant's criminal offender record information search response, even if the applicant already has received a copy pursuant to Section 12301.6 or 12305.86. The department shall provide this information in a manner that protects the confidentiality and privacy of the criminal offender record information search response.
(A) The state or federal criminal history record shall not be modified or altered from its form or content as provided by the Department of Justice.
(B) The department shall retain a copy of each individual's criminal offender record information search response until the date that the convictions that are the subject of the exception are no longer within the 10-year period specified in subdivision (b), and shall record the date the copy of the response was provided to the individual and the department.
(C) The criminal offender record information search response shall not be made available by the department to any individual other than the provider applicant.
(g) (1) Upon written notification that the department has determined that a request for exception shall be denied, the applicant may request an administrative hearing by submitting a written request to the department within 15 business days of receipt of the written notification. Upon receipt of a written request, the department shall hold an administrative hearing consistent with the procedures specified in Section 100171 of the Health and Safety Code, except where those procedures are inconsistent with this section.
(2) A hearing under this subdivision shall be conducted by a hearing officer or administrative law judge designated by the director. A written decision shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant.
(h) The department shall revise the provider enrollment form developed pursuant to Section 12305.81 to include both of the following:
(1) The text of subdivision (c) of Section 290 of the Penal Code, subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code, and paragraph (2) of subdivisions (c) and (g) of Section 10980.
(2) A statement that the provider understands that if he or she has been convicted, or incarcerated following conviction for, any of the crimes specified in the provisions identified in paragraph (b) in the last 10 years, and has not received a certificate of rehabilitation or had the information or accusation dismissed, as provided in subdivision (c), he or she shall only be authorized to receive payment for providing in-home supportive services under an individual waiver or general exception as described in this section, and upon meeting all other applicable criteria for enrollment as a provider in the program.
(i) (1) Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the department may implement and administer this section through all-county letters or similar instructions from the department until regulations are adopted. The department shall adopt emergency regulations implementing these provisions no later than July 1, 2011. The department may readopt any emergency regulation authorized by this section that is the same as or substantially equivalent to an
emergency regulation previously adopted under this section.
(2) The initial adoption of emergency regulations pursuant to this section and one readoption of emergency regulations shall be deemed an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. Initial emergency regulations and the one readoption of emergency regulations authorized by this section shall be exempt from review by the Office of Administrative Law. The initial emergency regulations and the one readoption of emergency regulations authorized by this section shall be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law for filing with the Secretary of State and each shall remain in effect for no more than 180 days, by which time final regulations may be adopted.
(j) In developing the individual waiver form and all-county letters or information notices or similar instructions, the department shall consult with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives of the county welfare departments, and representatives of consumers and providers. The consultation shall include at least one in-person meeting prior to the finalization of the individual waiver form and all-county letters or information notices or similar instructions.
VERY URGENT!!!!!
PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!
Your help is needed. CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot continue without your help. To continue the CDCAN website, the CDCAN News Reports. sent out and read by over 50,000 people and organizations, policy makers and media across California and to continue the CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings which since December 2003 have connected thousands of people with disabilities, seniors, mental health needs, people with MS and other disorders, people with traumatic brain and other injuries to public policy makers, legislators, and issues.
Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or "California Disability Community Action Network):
CDCAN
1225 8th Street Suite 480 - Sacramento, CA 95814
paypal on the CDCAN site is not yet working – will be soon.
MANY, MANY THANKS TO BOB BENSON, the Pacific Homecare Services, Easter Seals, California Association of Adult Day Health Centers, Valley Mountain Regional Center, Toward Maximum Independence, Inc (TMI), Friends of Children with Special Needs, UCP of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, Southside Arts Center, San Francisco Bay Area Autism Society of America, Hope Services in San Jose, FEAT of Sacramento (Families for Early Autism Treatment), RESCoalition, Sacramento Gray Panthers, Bill Wong, Easter Seals of Southern California, Tri-Counties Regional Center, Westside Regional Center, Regional Center of the East Bay, UCP of Orange County, Alta California Regional Center, Life Steps, Parents Helping Parents, Work Training, Foothill Autism Alliance, Arc Contra Costa, Pause4Kids, Manteca CAPS, Training Toward Self Reliance, UCP, California NAELA, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc (CDR) including CDR chapters, CHANCE Inc, , Strategies To Empower People (STEP), Harbor Regional Center, Asian American parents groups, Resources for Independent Living and many other Independent Living Centers, several regional centers, People First chapters, IHSS workers, other self advocacy and family support groups, developmental center families, adoption assistance program families and children, and others across California.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Nov 2 results
Elections 2010
CNN PROJECTS REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE CONTROL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SACRAMENTO, CA (CDCAN) [Updated 11/02/2010 6:20 PM (Pacific Time)] - CNN has projected that the Republicans will take control of the US House of Representatives. CNN is projecting that Republicans should win at least 50 seats previously held by Democrats. Republicans needed to win 39 seats to take control of the House.
There is no projection yet on which party will control the US Senate.
The news – with polls still open in half of the country, is based on projections and actual returns in key House districts.
The news has major potential impact on a wide range of issues that impact people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors and low income families, workers and businesses in California.
CNN PROJECTS REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE CONTROL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SACRAMENTO, CA (CDCAN) [Updated 11/02/2010 6:20 PM (Pacific Time)] - CNN has projected that the Republicans will take control of the US House of Representatives. CNN is projecting that Republicans should win at least 50 seats previously held by Democrats. Republicans needed to win 39 seats to take control of the House.
There is no projection yet on which party will control the US Senate.
The news – with polls still open in half of the country, is based on projections and actual returns in key House districts.
The news has major potential impact on a wide range of issues that impact people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors and low income families, workers and businesses in California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)